{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_883","title":"Court filings: District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-03-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","African Americans--Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/883"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_859","title":"Court filings: District Court, stipulation of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) for the creation of a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative; District Court, interim order enforcing mandate of Court of Appeals","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":["District Court, interim order enforcing mandate of Court of Appeals"],"dc_date":["1987-02-19","1987-02-27"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational planning","School districts","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, stipulation of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) for the creation of a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative; District Court, interim order enforcing mandate of Court of Appeals"],"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/859"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eDistrict Court, interim order enforcing mandate of Court of Appeals\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1134","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-01-22"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1134"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nc .... OCT 2 0 1992 MAGNET RE.VIE.W C01MITTEE REPORT TO 'IHE COORT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: January 22, 1987 The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. The committee is prepared to present the report orally with supporting in formation as you may direct. I jle1iv,'f-,~s f\n1tlc 3 ,__ /fl R c.. ~,~Al'.P~ s ~ Ct\u0026gt; rTs- ? a- S ,i ((,1- 1 .{( Lht1fJtVJ11~ h 1-Y c\u0026gt;NSpwr '7 S\"'t-v\u0026amp;-3 fJJ'ld( F 5vLu(r 1 \u0026amp; J\nOr~.v!l\n\u0026amp; ()  c~ jr Attachments II I 7 Sincerely, -f!~a\nrman\nJ~\"f\n:/~'X'.\nli: Morris Holmes Arkansas Department of Education ~ t(,~' ----- Marcia Harding Arkansas Department of ucation ( Jc,e- A-N-.c.-lv,/_ Mi'tt6r\n+1 ~e,p,y-f) Jesse Rancifer Little Rock School District ~..?Uv James Smith North Little Rock School District I. I rHRODUCT Im~ The Magnet Review Committee IMRCI has been charged by the District Court with \"planning an 1nterdislrict. inagnet school program.\" The MRC's duties and respons1bil1t1es set forth 1n the Court's order 1nclurle: .cons1der1ng plans and proposals for magnet schools submitted by the parties and hearing e  idence 1n relation thereto~ .developing 1nter1m proposals for consideration by the parties\n.e~aluating segregative and desegregative effects of magnet school proposals\n.making findings and recommendations to the court concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios. and themes of magnet schools\n.making recommendations as may be necessary to the eff1c1ent operation and administration of magnet schools\n.monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of the magnet schools implemented\nand .making an annual report to the court pertaining to the approved 1nterdistrict magnet school progr~rns. The court directed that this report with the MRC's recommendations be submitted on or before January 22, 1987. This document addresses that charge. The report is organized into the following major areas: I. Introduction\nII. Activ1t1es of the Magnet Rev1ew Committee\nand III. Recommendations. 2 II. ACTIVITIES OF THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE CMRC\u0026gt; Parties appointed representatives to the MRC as directed by the Court. Currently those serving on the MRC are: Mr. Gene Jones (White), Chairman, Pulaski County Special School District Dr. Reginald Avery, Ex - Officio (Blacl: ), Vice-Chairman, Joshua Intervenors Ms. Marcia Harding (White\u0026gt;, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Morris Holmes \u0026lt;Black), Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Jesse Rancifer- (Black), Little Rock School District Mr. James Smith (White ) , North Little Rock School District The MRC first met on September 24, 1986 and agreed to meet weekly at sites to be determined at each meeting. The Committee also agreed to and held additional meetings as they became necessary. At the September ~4 meeting, the MRC organized itself into a working group and began developing the rules and procedures that would govern its mission. Under the rules and procedures developed by the Committee, the following activities were c8nducted: .The MRC considered all plans and proposals that were submitted for magnet schools by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC heard evidence and considered the views presented by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC e valuated both the segregative and desegregati 1e effects of all proposals for magnet schools . . The MRC reviewed demographic data on each district . . The MRC secured consultative assistance from Dr. Benn~t Mullen, Director of the Technical Assistance of the South~Jest. 3 .The MRC visited the Williams Magnet School, the Mann Science Magnet School, and the Booker Arts Magnet School, all located in the Little Rock School District. At each school, a discussion of the school's philosophy, goals and objectives was conducted with the principal and various staff . . The MRC reviewed considerable research and information on magnet schools and added to this knowledge by visiting magnet schools in Cinc1nnatt1, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri. Both visits provided valuable insight on the operation of magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education has exercised a positive leadership role in all activities of the Magnet Review Committee. ADE Director Tommy Venters and his staff developed thoughtful proposals which had a major impact on the Committee's recommendation. Additionally, The Department allowed Dr. Angelo Coppola to work full time for the Committee doing valuable research and data gathering. 4 III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Magnet Review Committee Organization 1. General Organi ::at1 on Membership and general responsibilities have been outlined for the MRC in the District Court order. The MRC believes this order sufficient to address the membership issue and recommends that each party retain discretion in appointing its representatives on the MRC. Tt-,e MRC has proven itself capable of handling the additicnal organizational aspects of the Committee's work and will continue to do so in the future. ~- Staffing and Funding Efficient and effective operation of the Magnet Review Committee is critical to the success of desegregating the public schools of Pulaski County, Arkansas. In order to function effectively, the MRC recommends it have a staff consisting of at least two staff members- one professional :1.r.d one suppor-t. In addition to a staff, the Magnet Review Committee requires an operating budget consisting of funds for an office, eau1pment 1 travel, staff and consultative services. Consultative services will be critical to data gathering, program monitoring, evaluation and preparation of annual reports to the Court. A budget within a range of $100,000 to $150,000 will be needed, with 50 percent of the 5 cost being borne by the State and the remaining 50 percent being shared by the three school districts. 6 B. Costs and Funding 1. Accounting and Budgeting: The Magnet Review Committee recommends that separate accounting and budgeting procedures for approved magnet programs be maintained by the district(s) hosting each of th~ programs and th~~ magnet program budgets recei v e prior review by the Magnet Review Committee. 2. Construction/Renovations: In accordance with the Eighth Circuit order the State shall pay 50 percent of construction and renovation of approved magnet schools. The remaining 50 pecent shall be paid by the participating districts (See Attachment A, pg. 26). The recommendations on actual allocation and payments are as follows. The State shall pay its 50 percent allocation in quarterly payments upon actual expenditures for renovation and remodeling of approved magnet schools. The host school shall be responsible for the bond issue and payment of the remaining 50 percent since the ownership and management shall stay with that host school. The two remaining districts shall pay their prorated share by the inclusion of debt service payment, both principal and interest, in figuring the cost per child for those children participating from their respective districts. In the event that allocated seats are not filled by any district, the district to which that seat was allocated 7 shall pay t~e host school the per child cost of their debt service payment, both principal and interest. Since the State would have met its obligation up front there will be no debt service payment of principal and interest f1gured into the State's 50 percent cost per child for operation of magnet schc::iols. It 1s recommended that the State be a full partner in all phases of construction and renovation, from selection of the architect to final approval. 3. Operating Costs: The Magnet Review Committee recommends funding the operating costs for the approved interdistrict magnet programs as outlined in Attachment B, pgs. 27-32. The figures ~sed for examples were determined using 1986-87 school year data. This data will change with the change in local wealth, 1ncrease or decrease in WADM, and increase or decrease in State funding. In compliance with the Eighth Circuit order. the State wil l pay to each district the table rate that each respective district qual1f1es for that school year. In addition to the table rate (Customary State Aid) per D1str1ct. the state will pay 50 percent of the cost per student for operation of the magnet schools less the transportation cost and debt service cost. As a result, those stude,1ts at tending magnet schools wi 11 not be counted in any District's WADM for aid. 8 C. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS STAFFING The men and women selected to staff each of the magnet programs are responsible and accountable for assuring parents and the community that quality exists in both the process and product of schooling. The staff\"s performance should evidence their beliefs.that all children can learn, that the school makes a difference, and that a desegregated school environment has positive effects on the schooling and lives of students. 1. Staff Composition The staff should be composed of appropriately certified and otherwise highly qualified educators. The MRC recommends that the staff represent a 50-50 ratio of Black to White administrators and teachers. If such a ratio is not possible to attain at the time the magnet programs open, a goal sho1ld be set to achieve the ratio within a reasonable time frame. To help ensure interdistrict and community ownership and support, effort should be taken to attract administrators and teachers from the three school districts. ~ Staff Selection The actual selection, hiring and evaluation of the magnet program staff is the responsibility of the district operating the magnet program. However, the MRC will assist 9 with the deveiopment of criteria for staff selection, as well as monitor and evaluate magnet school program effects on student learning and desegregation. 10 D. Community Participation The Magnet Review Committee advocates that the community should participate in planning and developing interdistrict magnet programs developed after the initial year of desegregation. We therefore recommend that a community-school partnership model be adopted by the districts 1n accomplishing the continuing work of the magnet schools. Such a model would include the following components: 1. Awareness Campaign Awareness activities are necessary to: a. Establish within the community and schools a sense of the need for a partnership\nb. stimulate interest in the community-school partnership\nand c. motivate involvement in such a partnership. 2. Public Education Campaign The community must be provided with a base of information about educational equity and e xcellence in a desegregated environment and about the issues in this case. Such information should include, but not be limited to, the following: a. History of desegregation efforts in this community b. Impacts/effects of court rulings and 11 desegregation plans c. Explanation of how the community-school partnership works in planning and implementing desegregation d. Orientation to issues related to educational equity 0. Needs Assessment It is important to identify needs and decide upon priorities among them. Such a process should be utliized to ensure that citizens and educators have the opportunity to participate in quality education planning. 4. System for Processing Input A system must exist for acting upon community input to planning. This is necessarf to any sincere effort to establish and maintain community involvement and support for educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment. The following process is an example of a system which encompasses this aim. a. Any individual or group is encouraged to submit ideas to the district aimed at affecting educational equity including, but not necessarily limited to, ideas for magnet schools and specialty programs. b. The district sorts and channels t~e ideas(s) to appropriate group(s) for consideration. 12 c. The designated group(sl does the following: (1) Analyzes the ideas (2) Makes a recommendation (develop, postpone, reject) (3) Corresponds with the author regarding the decision d. If the idea is supported, broader community comment is solicited to determine the public's reaction to the proposed idea. The method previously described to involve the community can be applied here. e. If support is apparent, individu~ls are identified to more fully develop the concept into a proposal, which is then shared with the school board. f. The district plans and holds public hearings on the proposal following a period of publicity to stimulate public interest. g. The School Board considers the community reactions and recommendations in decision-making on the proposal. h. If approved by the Board, the program is readied by the district staff. publicized as appropriate, and implemented. 1. As part of the evaluation of each program's effectiveness relative to educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment, 13 parent/community satisfaction should be assessed and considered before modifications are made. With minimal modifications, a system of this type will work equally as well at the building level (for school-based management) as at the district-wide level. Additionally, when a proposal is made for the establishment or modification of an approved magnet school program, steps would be included to provide for the proposa1 to be brought before the Magnet Review Committee for consideration and ~ndorsement. 14 E. Transportation In fulfilling its responsibility to provide, either directly or indirectly, the magnet program students with transportation, the MRC recommends that the State keep in mind two primary considerations, these being: 1. delivery of magnet school students to their designated schools in a safe, orderly and expedient manner\nand 2. cost efficiency. 15 F. Student Enrollment Guidelines 1. Racial Ratios The Magnet Review Committee recommends that a 50-50 Black to White ratio be used for magnet program enrollment. 2. Seat Allocation The Committee further recommends reserving the first 25 percent of the seats in each magnet school for students in the host district who live in the shadow of the school. The remaining 75 percent of the seats in magnet schools should be allocated to the three districts on the proportional formula based on the percentage of each race residing i\" the affected district. The formula will be revised to maintain the mandated 50-50 ratio. 3. Existing Magnet Programs The Committee recommends that students presently attending existing magnet schools should be allowed to continue i\" those schools as appropriate, but that seats in 1ncominG grades and seats vacated by attrition be allocated to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District on the interdistr-ict formula described above. 16 G. Interdistrict Magnet School Programs The MRC recommends that six schools in the Little Rock School District become approved magnets. This proposal incorporates the cont i nuation of the three magnet schools currently in existence and suggests the addition of Carver, Dunbar, and Gibbs. A total of 3,722 students can be educated in the interdistrict magnet programs recommended. In this section of the report, the MRC's rationale for the inclus ion of each proposed school is discussed. 1) \\.Ji 11 i ams Ma.gnet School ( ~~-6) The Little Rock School District ha~ recommended the continuation of Willic,ms as a \"basic skills\" magnet school for elementary students. As presently operated, Williams has continued to attract students since 1982. The waiting list of children whose parents would like to have them attend Williams now stands at 396, indicating much interest in the school and its program. We recommend the continuation of the Williams Magnet School. We also recommend that tl,ose characteristics which appear to have made the program a success be carefully studied prior to making c,ny cha,nges. The Magnet Review Committee, in conducting its monitoring and evaluation activities, will monitor practices such as ability grouping relative to possible segregative and desegregat1ve effects. 2) Booker Arts Magnet \u0026lt;K-6) 17 Booker is also recommended for continuation as an elementary arts magnet. Because it appears to be a highly successful program, the MRC recommends its continuation. The $916,000 estimated by Little Rock for construction and renovation of Booker appears to be too high. We believe that the projects proposed for these funds could be done for 1 ess money. This issue 1s addressed in more detail in the section of the report which deals with construction and renovation costs. 31 Mann Junior High Arts and Sciences Magnet 17-91 The Mann program has entered its fourth vear with a sci er,ce magnet program which is a \"school within a school,\" serving approximately 300 students in grades 7-9. Making the entire school a junior high science magnet next year has been considered. However, its waiting list consists of onl y eight students, hardly enough, even when combined with students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock to fill the school with over 1,100 junior high students all eager to study the sciences. The MRC recommends instead that Mann Junior High School become c\u0026gt;.n \"arts and sciences\" magnet. To combine thes e themes within one magnet school would a c complish several objectives. First, it would bring together junior high students with strong interests and/or aptitude in two major a r eas but wh o may not yet be either willing or ready to nar row their choices entirely to one field or the other. For elementary students interested in the arts, 1t would 18 provide a natural extension for =hildren now attending Booker, but it would also help to expand, rather than narrow, students participation in other fields of i,nowl edge. It would accommodate the present math/science orogram (300 students) as well as the number of students who presumably would have gone to East Side under another proposal. It would be far less expensive than renovating East Side. It has an auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,100 and a gymnasium which could be useful for various arts activities as well as science presentations and e,1hibits. It is closely located to Booker and the Arts Center, thus providing opportunities to both schools to utilize consultants, artists in residence, craftsmen, and performers. We support the continuation of Mann as a magnet school. However, we believe that students interested in both the arts and sciences could be accommodated there. 4) Carver Math and Science Magnet CK-6) The Little Rock District contends that Carver should become a magnet school because it will be impossible to desegregate the school otherwise. It proposes to tear down the present structure and relocate it on other land somewhere in the neighborhood that has not yet been purchased. C~rver is said to be improperly located on its present school site, and the playground particuarly dif~icult to maintain because of neighborhood v~ndalism. Little Rock has proposed that Carver become a \"b.=1sic skills\" school similar to Williams, though without 19 the dress code and without ability grouping. The District views the \"basic skills\" theme as one particularly likely ta generate parent support. The MRC agrees that the basic skills theme is likely ta generate support, but we also believe that a basic skills program which emphasizes mathematics and science would enhance this school. In recommending Carver as a ma~n~t, the MRC advises caution in changing characteristics which appear ta have made the other basic skills program a success. We envision a science program at Carver which would not only enable youngsters to study the sciences through hands-on laboratory experiences but would also enable them to take part in such national competitions as Invent America, a program which encourages creativity and problem salving in the development of new inventions and the uses of technology. Carver could also host science fairs and exhibits for other students 1n the area, as well as throughout the State, and could serve as a model for other districts in Arkansas. 5) Dunbar International Education Complex (l\u0026lt;-9) In order to provide mare magnet choices far parents and students at an affordable cost, the MRC reco,nmends that Dunbar and Gibbs (which are located adJacent to each other) become a magnet school complex with an 1nternat1onal studies and global cultures theme. Gibbs would provide the elementary (K-6) program and Dunbar would provide the junior high (7-9) program. We 20 believe this magnet program holds excellent promise for offering an educational program that truly prepares youngsters for life and work in the twenty-first century. Such pr-epar ation means, in large measLwe, preparir\"-\ni a populace who can understand, interact with, and appreciate people rep r esenti~g many different cultures. A school experience t~at pr-ovides opportunities for growth, development, and understanding in these areas will be crucial for our continued success in the world. We must educate young people who can function effectively as the citizens our- country must have in the \"global village\" in which we live. Included in the K-9 curriculum at the Dunbar International Education Complex would be foreign languages, technology, multi-cultural studies, international relations, geography, government, and law. Students would be involved in cr-oss-age grouping and multi-disciplinary studies and would have opportunities to learn within their own miniature \"globed villi:\\ge,\" consisting of the two campuses. would learn about the operation of government through functioning in a \"micro-society\" which 1-iould require their full par-ticipation. Student exchange programs would be encourc'\u0026lt;.ged. Teachers would also be exchanged among schools to provide specialized educational opportunities for students of different ages. Satellite instruction would bring programs to the schools from throughout the country. School \"wa.11 s\" would be mini mi zed as students par-ti ci pated 21 in \"community\" act1-1ities intended to strengthen and enhance the culture of the school and community and their understanding and appreciation of individual differences among themselves. These schools would establish linkages with the UALR Visitor Center, the business community, UCA, and the city's international community. The Complex could host \"Academic 01 ymp i cs\" for othet- schools throughoL1t the State. It would serve as an educational model for other schools in the State, showing how schools could be structured in such a way as to prepare youngsters for effective and intelligent participation in local, national, and world communities. Benefits to be derived from the Dunbar International Educ a ti on Comp le\n: are as foll 01-,s: (a) A continuous program in grades K-9 would be provided with themes that would foster multi-cultural understanding, exploration of international studies and global cultures, and the study of languages. (bl n program such as the one described for the Complex would serve as a model for providing students with an \"1nternationally competitive\" educc,tion. Cc) The cultural resources of the area (e.g., Quapaw Quarter, Dunbar Alumni Assoc1ation, UALR International V1s1tor Center, Arts Center, etc. 1nter~at1ona l studies program. would enrich the (dl Programs in these schools appear to have a good possibility of meeting the three object1~es of magnet 22 schools as stated by the Court, i.e., to provide quality ed1Jation, serve as a tool for achieving integration, and attract white students back to the Little Rock School District. le) The Complex could host contests, exhibits, and cultural events for other st~dents throughout the State and could serve as a model program for other districts. Attachment C, page 33 , visually displays the MRC ' s proposal for interdistr1ct magnet school programs. 23 H. Governance The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the day- to-day operations of magnet schools be the responsibility of the host school district. 24 I. E~tended Dav Care The Magnet Review Committe recommends that self-supporting extended day care services be available for students at each of the interdistrict magnet schools. A substantial number of parents living in the metropolitan area drive long distances to work each day. The Committee believes that the availability of extended day care services will substantially enhance the desegregative effects of the magnet schools. The cost associated with the extended day care services shall not be included in the operating costs of the magnet schools . 25 BUILDING Carver Booker Mann Williams DJnbar Gibbs LRSD ESTIMATE $2,420,00. $2,070,000 $ 916,000 $2,511,400 None $1,220,000 $ 605,800 FACILITIES RmRl' ~CJll/RU01ATIOf srATE BUILDI~ SERVICES REPORT ~uct $350,000 for laoo purchase 12% too much oontingency ($248,400) 8% too much oontingency ($73,280) 9% too much oontingency ($226,026) 20% too much contingency ($244,000) 5% too much oontingency (30,290) \"ID'mL STATE'S PCRTIOO 26 REVISED ESTIMATE $1,821,600.00 $ 842,720.00 $2,285,374.00 $ 976,000.00 $ 575,510.00 $6,501,204.00 $3,250,602.00 .. RESCURCES: MFPA CALaJIATICffi CHER ,er 34 (SCHXL Fnw:E IC'f) 1. Real property assessmant tirnes 19 mills (.019) AlTNllIDrl'B 2. Personal property assessment (year before base year) tirnes current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 3. Utility assessment (year before base year) times current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 4. Seventy-five (75) percent of miscellaneous revenue. 5. Masters' degree credit. calculations: 6. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 - 5 = Resources 7. Resources divided by WAI1-1 = Resource Rate 8. State Base F.qi.Ja.lization Rate minus Resource Rate= Table Rate 9. Table Rate times WAil-1 = MFPA (Minimum Foundation Program Aid) 27  Magnet School Stooents Total Little Rock (25% shadow) plus 43% of 2791 Pulaski County - 40% of 2791 North Little Rock - 17% of 2791 M1aE:r sanx.s BASE Di\\.TA 931] 1200J 'lUfAL EXPENSE\"' Bt.n::GET 86-87 3,722 2,131 1,116 475 EXP/AI::M +12%** Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $49,510,543 $24,633,000 $69,057,078 AI::M 19116 9419 30015 $2,590.01 $2,900.81 $2,615.25 * $2,300.75 State Base Equalization Rate= $1,687.02 Table Rates (State Aid per Stooent): Little Rock $ 635.86 North Little Rock$ 986.04 Pulaski County $1,136.17 I:bes not include transportation costs ** 12% has been added to the Little Rock expense per AI::M for estimated increased operation costs for magnet schools within the Little Rock School District. 28 Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student Nunber of Magnet School Students State Aid per Student (Table Rate) LITILE RXX $2,900.81 $2,590.01 2131 $ 635.86 1he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet ScOClOls plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share $1,450.41 - $635.86 = $814.55 Cost per student for a Little Rock student. $814.55 X 2,131 = $1,735,806 Little Rock's costs for magnet students. Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,590.01. $2,590.01 less $1,687.02 (State Base F.qualization Rate)= $902.99 Expenditure per regular stooent. $902.99 (available funds for each stooent) less $814.55 = $88.44 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Little Rock's cost. $88.44 X 2131 = $188,466 Total incentive savi~s for Magnet participation 29   RRl'B LIT.ILE RXlC Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student (North Little lock) State Aid Per Stl.rlent (Table Rate) Nunber of Magnet School Stl.rlents $2,900.81 $2,615.25 $ 986.04 475 '!he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share. $1,450.41 - $986.04 = $464.37 Cost per student for a North Little Rock student.  $464.37 X 475 = $220,576 North Little lock's rost for magnet school stl.rlents. North Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,615.25. $2,615.25 less $1,687.02 (State Base Fqualization Rate) = $928.23 Expenditure per Regular student. $928.23 (available funds for each stl.rlent) less $464.37 = $463.86 Excess funds per magnet stl.rlent over and above North Little Rock's cost. $463.86 X 475 = $220,334 Total incentive savi~s for magnet participation. 30 POI.ASKI cnNlY Magnet School Expense per Student Expense for Regular Student {Pulaski County) State Aid per Student {Table Rate) Number of Magnet School Students $2,900.81 $2,300.75 $1,136.17 1116 'l11e State will pay one half of the expense of the ~net Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State share. $1,450.41 - $1 136.17 = $314.24 COst per student for a Pulaski County Student. $314.24 X 1116 = $350,692 Pulaski County's oost for magnet school students. Pulaski County's expense for a regular student is $2,300.75. $2,300.75 less $1,687.02 {State Base F,qualization Rate)= $613.73 Expenditure per regular student. $613.73 {available funds for each stooent) less $314.24 = $299.49 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Pulaski County's oost. $299.49 X 1116 = $334,231 Total incentive savin\nJs for magnet participation. 31   * SIM1ARY OF IaiE'l' SCRX\u0026gt;L \u0026lt;m'l'S Total nunber of students - 3,722 Total Cbst of Magnet Students$ 2,900.81 X 3,722 = $10,796,815 State will pay a total of $8,489,760 Districts will pay a total of $2,307,055 * Note that Custcmary State Aid is incllrled in this figure. Cbst to the State in excess of custcmary State Aid $2,210,672. 32 .AT'rllCIMXl' C ~ FCE MAGNET SCRX\u0026gt;L PRXiRN'6 ESTIMATED STUDENI' RE\u0026lt;n!MENDED BUILDING SQJOOL CAPACITY nIEMES RENOVATION COOTS Williams 432 Basic Skills None Booker 478 Fine Arts $ 842,720 Mann 1,194 Arts \u0026amp; Sciences $2,285,374 Carver 478 Math \u0026amp; Science\na Basic Skills $1,821,600 C 792 International Stooies\nGlobal Cultures $ 976,000 Gibbs 348 International Studies\nGlobal Cultures $ 575,510 'IDTAL STCJIll'S 3,722 'IDTAL cnrr $6,501,204 STATE'S PCET!Cfi $3,250,602 t 33\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_409","title":"Discipline, annual district suspension summary report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1987/1988"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual district suspension summary report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/409"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 ANNUAL DISTRICT SUSPENSION SUMMARY REPORT August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 Pupil Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansast  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-8,8 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June IS, 1 08 SCHOOL REASON CODE (SHMT-TERi^. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H H/F WAL (BEvtffiS^\u0026amp;AYS) 0/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL Senior High Totals Junior High Totals Elementary Totals GRAND TOTALS Percent District-Wide Total 317 114 74 22 527 24 9 3 0 36 1,005 349 553 359 108 2,025 56 12 13 2 83 75 49 3 476 2 1 0 0 3 1,671 li\\2 25% 482 16% 133 4% 3,028 94% 82 67% 22 16 18% 13% 2 2% 122 4% 1,671 742 482 133 3,028 82 22 16 2 122 55% 25% 16% 18% 13% 2% 4% 1987-88 D STRICT Black Male Black Female Miite Male I'Jliite Female Black Male Black Female Total 8,003 7,860 15,863 3T 30' fV .o 1% 61% 1,780 777 2,557 506 137 WIDE ENROLLMENT BY RACl White Male 5,021  White Female 4^9^ Total 9,950 Black Male Overrepreseitatior : Izt Black Overrepresentati30: 19% District Suspi lyt)7-88 Li.,ti ict Wide T 'tal Enrol lemnt Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment EXPULSION 6/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL 26,128 15,863 9.950 315 OTT total 61% 33% * Q\u0026gt; 1 16 10 1 27 7 6 0 13 54% 26% 21 13 1 7 0 8 16% 8 0 2 0 2 4% 2 24 25 1 50 2% 50 587 2,133 480 3.200 3,200 16' '.*8 67J 15' O' 12.2% 12.2 54% 26% 16% 4% 27 56% 24% 80% 16% 4% 20% AND s :x 19' e' A\u0026gt; 19% 387 nsion Suspension Rate 22- 10'\n16% 10% 3% 6% Other Male Other Female Total !ate\n12.2% 169 146 315 0.6' 0.5 1.1SCHOOL TLASON COOL 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-68 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 Sub-Total Sub-Total GRAND TOTAL r-'. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL UlilRlCl SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary by Reason Code August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 WT-Of-ME------ {SH0RT-TERJ4. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H H/F DIAL (beyI^*?X^\u0026amp;ays) B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/W B/F W/H H/F TOTAL WT TOTAL 9 19 465 4 50 217 348 8 5 146 6 102 23 8 5 245 1 33 110 109 6 137 3 1 26 1-13A 16 1-13B 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-3A 2-38 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-10 2-11 2-12 3-3 3-4 3-6 3-7A 3-78 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 4 16 1 86 1 44 17 3 4 51 29 99 1 1 27 32 29 1 9 14 13 3 36 1,434 667 436 2 17 8 9 3 3 4 128 20 31 873  5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 31 873 5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 1 83'5 42 14 36 1 6 8 2 6 6 5 57 1 1 7 9 12 7 3 2 12 237 8 8 11 1 4 1 4 1 54 23 52 2 7 11 5 1 1 28 1 7 4 13 1 2 1 8 6 2 1 75 1,671 742 1 8 3 46 482 1 5 133 6 8 2 7 13 TOO 2 1 1 8 18 27 7 5 2 16 363 3,028 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 22 1 6 2 1 1 2 6 3 7 1 1 5 32 82 2 2 8 2 22 22 4 1 2 16 16 1 2 2 11 12 6 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 31 1 4 8 3 20 2 1 9 122 122 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 11 5 2 10 1 5 2 4 1 12 22 1 2 1 2 66 37 58 3 1 11 8 3 7 14 132 2 4 2 1 16 27 15 07 9 6 5 25 27 21 13 8 2 50 535 17, 13 8 2 50 3,200 12*.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Revised Susper n Reason Codes 19O7-CO 1 - Violations of Category 1 offenses\nClassroom and Building Rules: 1-1 1-2 - Academic dishonesty (cheating on tests: copying\nforging signature of teacher o.' parent) - Failure to report to office when directed to do so 2-4 2-5 2-6 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-6B 1-7 1-8 1-9 - Fighting - Harassment (nuisance telephone calls to students, or staff Bsabers\ncontinued coerments or passing of notes to another Individual that ha does not wish to hear or receive) - Leaving school grounds without permission - Teacher disobedience - Refusing to obey rules and regulations - Refusing to follow bus rules and regulations - Refusing to do assigned work - Refusing to serve detention 2-7 2-0 2-9 2-10 2-11 . 2-12 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13A 1-130 - Smoking - Using foul or abusive language (obscenities) - Verbal assault on another student or others (fighting words) - First offense use and/or possession of alcohol - First offense use and/or possession of nonprescribed drugs, hallucinogens, marijuana or similar substances or of any unauthorized drugs . or substances. 2 - Violations of Category 2 offenses 2-1 - Assault 2-2 - Oattery 2-3 - Theft 2-3A - Burglary/larccny 2-33 - Robbery - Criminal trespassing - Gambling - False alarm - Loitering - Hallclous mischief - Unlawful asscffhly - Indecent exposure - Disorderly conduct - Harassing communications 3 - Violations of Category 3 offenses: 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7A 3-70 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 - Sale or distribution of alcohol - Second offense, alcohol - Sale or distribution of drugs - Second offense, drugs - Failure to follow through with drug or alcohol counseling or trcatra\nnt - Arson - Physical assault on staff - Verbal assault on staff - Possession of firearm - Possession of weapon - Possession of flrcirorks or explosives - Extortion, blaclunall or coercion - Encl ting to riot 4 - (Offense not specifically ^ntioned in studwt conduct code but which calls for disciplinary action if It is disruptive, hams others, or has a potentially d1sn4)ltvo affect on the school environment because of Its criminal nature.) (Revised 1/C3)GRADE LEVEL ENROLLEHEWT little ROCk SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA Grade Black ? White % Other % Total % 10th 1076 51 985 48 31 1 2092 34 1987-83 Annual District Summary ills 1085 51 i 55 August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 51 985 I 108! 48 31 SCHOOL (EASON CODE MiW-^ (SWJST-TEHM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H U/F TOL (BEyhS^iJ^YS) B/M b/F N/H tf/F TOTAL Senior High Total Grade 10 Percent Black White Grade 11 Percent Black White Grade 12 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Bl ack White 141 58% 118 60 15 243 16 7 2 0 25 25% 11% 201/83% 42/17% 6% 86% 64% 28% 8% 23/92% 2/8% 0 9% 37 18 3 176 7 1 0 0 9 67% 21% 10% 155/88% 21/12% 2% 92% 78% z2% 9/100% 0 58 17 29 4 108 1 0 1 0 1 53% 16% 27% 75/69% 33/31% 317 114 60% 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 4% 22 4% 95% 50% 50% 1/50% 1/50% 2% 527 90% 24 9 3 0 36 67% 25% 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 6% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION 8/W 6ZF WZH /F 10 4 1 0 67% in n 14/93% 1/7% 0 4 1 0 0 bn 33% 6/100% 0 1 1 0 0 67% 33% 3/100% 0 16 1 1 0 67% 29% 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 TOTAL 15 5% 6 3 3% 24 4% 48% 51% 1% w TOTAL 283 238 45 191 170 21 113 79 34 587 487 100 I 48% 84% 16% . 33% 89% 11% 19% 70% 30% 18 83% 17%SCHOOL (EASON C)E 53T1OT55L------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/E M/H M/F CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE RoCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-83 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1983  I , I 50/ OUIlC I J , Senior High Level 1987-88 Enrol Itnenr Black Enrol lire\" Whi te Enrol lirent Other 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 48? 51 * n 1% TOL (beyS^TJ^^ys) B/H B/F W/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL TOTAL 1 Grand Tota Percent Black White 35 39% 26 29% 20 22% 61/68% 29/32% 9 10% 90 84% 5 46% 3 27% 8/73% 3/27% 3 27% 0 0 11 10% 3 50% 2 33% 5/83% 1/17% 1 17% 0 6 6% 107 18% FAIR HIGH SPOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HALL HIGH SCtOOL Grand Tota' Percent Black White 18 25 18 1 162 7 2 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 3 73% 81 66% MCCLELLAN HIC TSCHC )L Grand Total Percent Black White 59 58% 15% 11% 143/88% 19/12% 30 25% 10 8% 111/91% 11/9% 26 26% 12 12% 85/84% 16/16% METROPOLITAN VO-TEC 1 Grand Tota' Percent Black White 12 43% 3 10% 8 29% 15/54% 13/46% 1% 1 1% 4 4% 5 18% 93% 78% 22% 9/100% 0 5% 100% 3/100% 0 2% PhRKVIEW HIGH SCHOO. 74 33 174 155 19 122 88% 101 89% 28 100% 69% 31% 30% 89% 11% 5 71% 6 75% 0 2 29% 0 0 7 5% 5 50% 5 50% 0 0 10 7% 139 24% 7/100% 0 10/100% 0 128 11 92% 8% 2 25% 0 0 8 7% 5 100% 0 0 0 5 4% 114 19% 8/100% 0 5/100% 0 98 6 86% 14% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 15 13 5% 54% 46% Grand Total Percent Black White TCTAL SENIOR HIGH LI Grand Total Percent Black White 12 50% 4 17% 6 25% 16/67% 8/33% 2 8% 24 96% 1 00% 0 0 0 1 4% 0 0 0 0 0 25 4% . VEL 317 60% 114 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 22 4% 527 90% 24 )7% 1/100% 0 9 25% 3 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 0 36 6% 16 67% 0 0 17 8 68% 32% 7 29% 1 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 0 24 4% 587 18% 487 100 18t 83% 17'll Hli. T\nI, 1 Ota I 1 .TIB ,.'.0116 I ,'115 5.854 uUl L I I..,, , 33?. 34\n33-. little rock school district SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Aiinudl District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 'ior High Enrollment 5.854 Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other 3,613 2,166 75 62% 37% 1% SCHOOL IWSON CODE {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) JUNIOR HIGH Grade 7 Percent Black White Grade 8 Percent Black White Grade 9 Percent Black White Grand Total Percent Black White total\nfl/H B/F M/H 368 171 127 54% 25% 539/79% 141/21% 358 192 19% 81 53% 29% 550/82% 122/18% 279 190 12% 151 41% 28%\n469/70% 204/30% 1,005 553 23% 359 50% 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 18% H/F 14 2% 41 6% 53 8% 108 5% WAL 680 97% 672 95% 673 92% 2,025 955 (BEtl^iJ^\u0026amp;Ays) B/M B/F H/H M/F 9 4 3 0 56% 17 63% 30 75% 56 68% TOTAL 16 25% 19% 13/81 % 3/19% 0 2% 5 3 2 27 19% 11% 22/81% 5/19% 7% 4% 3 7 0 40 7% 18% 33/83% 7/17% 12 13 14% 16% 68/82% 15/18% 0 2 2% 6% 83 4% EXPULSION B/H 8/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT total 1 2 3 0 0 5 701 33% 40% 4 67% 4 29% 10 40% 60% 5/100% 0_____ 0 0 1% 557 144 79% 21 (W la 2 0 0 6 705 33% 33% 6/100% 0 0 0 1% 578 127 82% 18% 1 7 2 14 727 34% 7% 5/36% 9/64% 50% 14% 2% ' 507 220 70% 30% 6 7 2 25 2,133 67, 24% 16/64% 9/36% 28% 8% 1 1,642 491 77% 23%SCHOOL lEASON CODE dUT-OP-MiWi:------ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) B/H B/F W/H H/F CLOVERDALE 31 . HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White_______ DUNBAR 3R. H Grand Total Percent Black White 221 56% 105 56 26% 14% 325/82% 71/18% 15 4% GH SCIOOL 195 51% 121 52 32% 14% 316/83% 65/17% 13 3% FOREST HEIGHTS 3R. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HENDERSON 3R . HIGH 121 42% 83 58 29% 20% 204/71% 83/29% 25 9% SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HABELVALE 3R Grand Total Percent Black White HIGH 179 49% SCHOOL 99 47% 93 65 25% 18% 272/74% 97/26% 64 46 30% 22% 163/77% 48/23% 32 8% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 BIAL 396 93% 381 95% 287 98% 369 98% B/M B/F M/H tf/F TOTAL 2 1% 211 95% 28 88% 9 53% 0 0 0 0 3 50% 2 6% 30/94% 2/6% 3 18% 12/71% 5/29% 0 0 0 2 6% 0 0 32 7% 3 2 18% 11% 2 100% 2/100% 0 0 4 ( 100% ( 4/100% 0 0 0 ! 3/50% 3/50% 3 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4% 2 1% 4 1% 6 3% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25% 25% 2/50% 2/50% 1 25% 1 25% 1 3 25% 75% 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 33\n, 2 67% 0 0 0 100% 0 4/100% 0______ 0 0 0 0 5,854 3,613 2,166 75 TOTAL 0 0 4 1% 4 1% 3 1% 4 2% 62% 37% 1% TOT TOTAL 428 355 73 402 330 72 293 208 85 376 277 99 221 170 -Si 20% 83% 17% 19% 82% 18% 14% 71% 29% 18% 74% 26% 10% 77% 231LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 SCHOOL CEASOR CODE oorsrsnroc (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F mi (BEYl583'iJ^^YS) B/M b/F H/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TO TOTAL 1 MANN OR. HIGH MAGNE' SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White 25 36% 19 : 27%\n44/63% 26/37% 21 30% 5 7% 70 95% 3 75% 1 ( 25% I 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 4 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 48 26 3% 65% 35% PULASKI HEIGH S OR. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black . White 58 59% 26 27% 84/86% 14/14% 10 10% 4 4% 98 90% 5 63% 2 25% 7/88% 1/12% 1 12% 0 0 8 7% 3 100% 0 I 0 I 3/100% 0 0 0 0 0 3 3% 109 94 15 5% 86% 14% SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH Grand Total Percent Black White 107 50% 43 ! 20% : 150/70% 63/30% 51 24% 12 6% 213 93% 8 80% 0 0\n8/80% 2/20% 2 20% 0 0 10 4% 1 14% 1 14% ! 2/29% 5/71% 4 58% 1 14% 7 3% 230 11% TOTAL JUNIOR 1 IGH LE7EL Grand Total Percent Black White 1,005 50% 553 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 359 18% 108 5% 2,025 95! 56 68% 12 14% 68/82% 15/18% 13 16% 2 2% 83 4% 10 40% 6 24%\n16/64% 9/36% 7 28% 2 8% 25 1% 160 70 70% 30% 2,133 67i 1,642 491 77% 23%ripinentary Enrollment Total\nBl ack Whi te ether 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.1% 1987-83 1.0% SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary I EASON SCHOOL CODE OUT-OF-iCHOOL (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) - ........ H/F UIAL B/H BZF W/H B/M (BEYbSS^iS^^YS) B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL W TOTAL 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS GRADE K Percent Black Whi te GRADE 1 Percent Black White GRADE 2 Percent Black White GRADE 3 Percent Black White GRADE 4 Percent Black White GRADE 5 Percent Black White 2 67 0 1 33 2/67% 1/33% 0 3 0 0 3 .6 67 33 12 75 1 2 6.3 12.4 13/81.2% 3/18.8% 1 6.3 16 0 0 16 3.3 31.2 18.8 21 78 0 I 6 22 21/77.8% 6/22.2% 0 27 0 0 27 5.6 77.8 22.2 65 76 12 14 9 10 77/90% 9/10% 0 86 0 0 86 17.9 90 10 77 72 81 18 11 16.8 10.3 95/88.8% 12/11.2% 28 8 69.3 23.9 6.8 109/93.2% ____________8/6.8% 1 .9 0 107 99.1 117 99.2 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 .8 1/100% 0 1 .9 0 108 118 22.5 88.8 11.2 24.6 93.2 6.8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary SCHOOL lEASON CODE (SHORT-TERM. 3-10 DAYS) B/l-1 B/F H/H F- W/F IJIAL B/H (.nWSn) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL 1 GRADE 6 Percent Black White 91 16 12 75.9 13.3 10 107/89% 13/11% 1 .8 120 98.4 1 50 1 50 2/100% 0____ 2 1.6 0 122 25.5 89.3 10.7 GRAND TOTAL Percent Black White_____ 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1' * . K 52/10.9% 3 .6 476 99.2 2 67 1 33 0 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15 3/100% 0 1/100% 0 89.2 10.SV E'.en-entary Enrollment Total: Slack White ether ELEMENTARY GRANO TOTALS 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 65.9% 33 .'1% l.OX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Summary SCHOOL lEASON CODE 6uT-6F-Sro----- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) -  -- ....... W/F B/H \u0026gt; B/F W/H TOAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^Says) B/F W/H M/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F TOTAL W TOTAL z BADGETT Grand Total Percent Black White 415 Grand Total 'Percent SI ack Whi te BASELINE jrand Total arcent Black Xhile BOOKER Brand Total Bercent Black Xhite BRADY Grand Total ercent Black White GARVER Grand Total ercent Black White 16 100 0 0 0 1 100 0 12 7S 21 16/100% 0 0 0 16 100 0 0 16 3.. 10, 1/100% 0 4 25 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 1 .2 IOC 16/100% 0 2 87.5 4.2 8.3 22/91.7% 2/ 8.3% 2 50 12 80 0 1 25 0 16 100 24 100 0 0 16 3.  IOC 0 0 24 5.C 91. 8.3 1 25 3/75% 1/25% 3 20 12/80% 3/20% 0 0 4 100 15 100 0 0 4 .3 75 25 0 0 15 3.1 80 20r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS 1987-88 Annual Sumnarv SCHOOL 1 EASON CODE WT-W-SCOT------- (SHORT-TEBH, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F WAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^^ys) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I CHICOT Grand Total Percent Black White DODD Grand Total Percent Black White FOREST PARK Grand Total Percent Black White FRANKLIN Grand Total Percent Black White FULBRIGHT Grand Total Percent Black White GARLAND Grand Total Percent Black White 72 75 16 7 16.7 7.3 88/91.7? 8/ 8.3? 1 1.0 96 100 0 0 96 20 O L 10 1 5 58.8 5.9 29.4 11/64.71 n 6/35.3? 19 5 4 67.8 17.9 14.3 24/85.7? 4/14.3? 4 3 0 57.1 42.9 7/100? 0 1 100 0 0 1/100? 0 14 3 0 82.4 17.6 17/100? 0 1 5.9 17 94.4 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 100 7 100 1 100 17 94.4 1/100? _Q__ 1 5.6 0 18 3.E 66. 33. 0 0 28 5.E 85. 14. 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 7 1.5 icr 0 1 .2 IOC 1/100? 0 1 5.6 18 3.8 100LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS Sunmary SCHOOL REASON CODE mrOTJi (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F UTAL B/M {BEYbMD^iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I. GEYER SPRINGS Grand Total Percent Black White 8 3 53.3 20 4 26.7 0 15 I nn* 0 0 15 3.1 '/26.7 73. 26. GIBBS ijrand Total Percent Black White ISH JrTnd Total Percent Black White JEFFERSON Grand Total Percent Black White MABELVALE Grand Total Percent Black White MeOEPMOTT Grand Total Percent Bl acl i\u0026gt;'h i te 4 67 2 33 0 0 1 50 6 75 18 1 50 2 25 4 6/100? 0 6 100? 0 c 6 1.5 IOC 0 0 2/100? _2__ 2 100? 0 0 2 .4 ICC 0 0 8/100? 0 8 100? 0 0 8 1.7 ICC 1 78.2 17.4 4.4 22/95.7 ___________1/4.3 19 3 2 79.2 12.5 8.3 22/91.7 ___________2/8^ 0 0 23 100? 24 961 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 23 4.8 95. 4.3 1/1001 0 I? 1 4? 25 5.2 92 _____8..ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL REASON CODE ronoro {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Sunmary MEADOWCUFF Grand Total Percent Black White 8/H B/F W/H 4 100 0 0 4/100% 0 W/F 0 TJTAL 4 100% (BEvbSg^J^\u0026amp;Jrs) B/M B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 EXPULSION B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 W TOTAL 4 1 .8 100 MITCHELL Grand Total Percent Black White OTTER CREEK (Irand Total Percent Black White RIGHTSELL Grand Total Percent Black White ROCKEFELLER Grand Total Percent Black White ROMINE Grand Total Percent Black White 1 25 0 3 75 1/25% 3/75% 0 4 100% 0 0 4 .8 25 75 1 100 0 0 0 2 25 22 88 0 1/100% 0 1 5 12.5 62.5 3/37.5% 5/62.5% 0 0 I 3 12 22/88% 3/12% 0 0 I 3 100 0 3/100% 0 1 50% 8 100% 25 lOOJ 3 100% 0 1 ( 100 1/100% 0 0 0 1 50% 0 2 .4 100 0 0 8 1.7 37.5 62.5 0 0 25 5.2 88 12 0 0 3 .6 100ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL lEASON CODE 5u7:i5rOTn[ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/n B/F W/H H/F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 THAL SUSPENSION DATA Annual Suonary B/M (BEYbNS'iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TOTAL TERRY Grand Total Percent Black White WAKEFIELD Grand Total Percent Black White WASHINGTON Grand Total Percent Black White WATSON Grand Total Percent Black White WESTERN HILLS Grand Total Percent Black White WILLIAMS MAGNET\"' Grand Total Percent Black White 24 5 2 0 77.4 16.1 6.5 29/93.6% 2/6.4% 4 40 5 50 1 I 10 9/90% 1/10% 0 6 100 0 0 0 6 50 12 31 100% 10 100% 6 100% 0 0 31 6.5 93.6 6.4 0 0 10 2.1 90 10 0 0 6 1.3 6/100% 0 4 1 33.4 8.3 10/83% 2/17% 1 8.3 12 lOOS 0 0 12 100 2.5 83 17 1 0 92.3 7.7 13/100% 0 3 60 2 40 0 5/100% 0 0 0 13 100% 5 100% 0 0 13 2.7 100 0 0 5 1.0 100LLEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS (EASON SCHOOL CODE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Summary -----TOTOTT , (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F M UTAL , LONG-TERM ,, (BEYOND 16 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL OT TOTAL WILSON Grand Total Percent Black White 8 6 0 0 57.1 42.9 14.100% ---------------------6------ 14 100% 0 0 14 2.9 100 WQDRUFF Grand Total Percent Black White McClellan HTUrmNDER- GARTEN---------- GRADE K Grand Total Percent Black White ELEMENTARY TOTALS Percent Black White 16 2 1 0 84.2 10.5 5.3 18/94.7% __________l/53_ U. 0 IL 0 1 1 100 0 1/100% IL 0 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1% 52/10.9% 3 .6 19 100% 1 100 476 99.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 4.0 94.7 5.3 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .2 100 2 67 1 33 0 0 3/100% 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15' 1/100% 0 89.2 10.8\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_1174","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas State University. College of Education"],"dc_date":["1987/1988"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1174"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n(])ukski County Jnterdisfrid ~net School (])rogram evaluation  Booker Arts  Carver Basic Skills/ Math-Science  Williams Basic Skills  Gibbs Foreign Language/ International Studies 1987- 88 Mann Arts \u0026amp; Mann Math/Science  Parkview Arts Magnet High School Off ice of Educational Research and Services College of Education Arkansas State University AN EVALUATION Or ':P.E PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTR.!CT :,!..\\GN::'.T SC:iOOL PROGRAM Prepared For The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Office of Educational Research \u0026amp; Services Arkansas State University June, 1988 Donald E. Wright, Director Virginia A. Rhodes, Office Manager ~ABLE OF CONTENTS Credir.s ................................................. Acknowledgment:s ........................................ . 3ackground ............................................. . Jata C8llection ........................................ . =~s tr'.. .: mer: 1: '.Jevelopme.!! 1: ............................... . Secur:..ty of Dat:a ..................................... . ?opulatic~ Demog~aphics .............................. . Data Analysis .......................................... . Data Processing ...................................... . Analysis P!\"ocedures .................................. . Comparison of Populations ............................ . Statist:1.cal Analysis ................................. . Sumrna:?:\"y Statements ..................................... . Appendix A Appendix 3 Appendix c Appendix D Appendix E .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. 6 26 26 27 29 50 64 67 68 70 72 76 :::valuat.ion Team: ~esearch Assisc.ant.s: CREDITS Dr. William G. Chance Dr . Deborah L. Smit.h Dr. Herman Strickland Dr. Donald E. Wright. Tammy Arms Sandra Brown Carolyn Buchanan Suet.ta Burge Becky Cooper Sheryl Holbrook Betty Hopper Linda Massen Angela West Gaybreia Williams i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A scudy o: =~~s cc~plexity cou~d not have been cc~\nleted ~ithouc c~e ef:orts of many people. ~e are indeed grateful :or the cooperation and assistance of Ms. Donna Grady Creer. ?rogram D~::-eccor, 2.r1d :he program secrecary r!s. ::2.!\":dy !:...:..\nehrs. ~heir personal characceristics are only exceeded ~1 their attention to c~e decails necessary for managing such a project. Our appreciation is extended to the Magnet Review C0rr.raittee, especially t~e evaluation sub-commi:cee. :or their sincere cooperative attitude, general guidelines, and prompt reactions. The study could not have happened without the assistance of the building principals. Their efforts and cooperation were essential to the on-site fact-finding and questionnaire data collection stages of the project. Our hats are off and our thanks extended to William Finn at Soaker, ~ary Guinn at carver, Donna Davis at Gibbs, Edwin ~ackson at 'ilil~iams, \"Jictor Anderson at Mann and -Iunious Babbs at Parkview. ii SAC KG ROUND ::-.a.gr.et. scnool program serving a school populacio:-. c: ~indergarcen c~rough high school . A precedent. tad been established i~ St. ~ouis when a met.ropolit.an coor~l~a:~~g =ommi:::ee was creat.ed by the federal cour:. T:--.e .:..r.za:-.sas ::-.andate however, may be the first time t.hat a mult.i-cist:rl=t ::-.agnec s=hool\nrogram was i~st.igat.ed t.o serve a regular ~-l2 sc~ool populat.~on. A number of rat.her t.horny quest.ls~s had co be resolved before t.he operat.ion could even get. of: :~e ground. The :irst. series of questions revolved about. :~e composition of the Magnet Review Committee and t~e nacure of its \"oversight. role\". Federal Judge Henry Woods o: the iJ . S. Jistrict Court, Eastern District Arkansas, ruled t~at. each cf :he defendant. school districts would appoint one member :o serve on the ~agnet Review Committee. The defer.cant. S:a:e Department of Education was required to appoint r.wo ne~bers t.o this commit.tee. Finally, in response to a sui: by :'!rs. ~orene Joshua, et al., the Joshua Intervenors were al:owed to appoint one person t.o the Magnet Review committ.ee to serve in an ex-officio capacity. Judge Woods stipulated t~at Joshua Intervenor representative shall be non-voting\nb~t. shall otherwise be entitled to participate in all aspeccs of t.he deliberations of the committee. However, in lat.er action, the Joshua Intervenor representative was assigned =~ll membership responsibility. 1 :::: - .,::._. ~s. Eoard c: ~ducac:ion (8th C:.r. June 8, :937 ) . :te Ci~y Boarc had ccntended t~at the Metrcpo~:.::s~ Coordinat:.::g Comrnitt.ee had infringed upon t:-.e po.,ers \"ceser--,ed t.o the aoard of Education. This contention was reJecced. ~udge Woods r~led, jased on t~is f\"_nding, t~at :~e ~ag::et ~eview Commic::ee's role is co make recorunended --:\n:-:\n\"_:.-:.'f decisions regarding the operation of the magnet sc~cols. Those decisior.s should then be com:nunicat:ed, a '\"'rit:::en \"!'.'eport, t.o the court for approval. A number of discussions relative to financial support and staffing were ~ade based on compromises and a succession of court orders. A per ~upil expenditure o: $3,100 was esc:ablished. The st.ate \\vas directed to pay one-half this cost and the host. district:: t.he \"!'.'emainder. The state was also directed to pay all magnet student transportation costs. The host school district was in the throes of a massive staff reassignment and chis was subsequently modified by judicial order. T~e test. school district assigned teachers to the magnet schools with consideration given to teacher request. Pupi.:.. seat:: allocations were established on a ratio basis whi.:..e a\"_so seeking to ~aintain racial balance in each sc~ool. A Magnet Educational Team (M.E.T.) was identified and charged with responsibility for recruitment of students and the 2 ::andled t~rough the pupil placement o::fi~e ct :~er.cs: sc:1ool . Ulti~ately six si:es were selected i~ :~e ~os: s::.:es 't.Jere elementary and :~ey consisted c::: , :.\n:':coke:::-\n..r:s ~agnet School ~ith emphasis on the perfor~::.~g ar:s, ) \\ ' - I ?oreign Language/I~ternat.:.o~al Studies Magnet School, a~d ' . -, I ,\u0026lt;/illiams Basic S)dlls Magnet School. At the J\"unior School level the Mann Junior High School became t~e t~o-phase :::agnet school .:eaturing \"':~e arts\" and Math/Sc::.ence. ~igh sc:1ool .:.evel ::-.e Parkview high school became t~e Parkview Arts/Performing Arts Magnet School . An evaluation team was identi::ied from Arkansas s:ate At tr.e University (See Appendix A) and an agreement was negotiated with the Of:ice of Educational Research and Services (02RS) for the evaluation of the first year's operation of the ~agnet School ?rogra~ in December, 1987. The negotiated agreement contained the following assurances and understandings: l. The applicant assures that at completion of the proJect an evaluation instrument will be developed. 2. The applicant agrees to provide training to appropr::.ate personnel on administering the approved evaluation instrument. 3. The applicant assures the approved instrument .:.s developed and training completed on or tefore February 1988. 3 The applicanc assures thac he/she will orovide ar:. analysis o: the daca. T~e applicant agrees to write a report ~ased c~ t:.~e -.::ompucer searc:-:es :,-1ere initiaced i:1. December, :\n_937 ar:.d c.3.ta programs were reviewed. A meecing involving key r.,eni.bers of che evaluation team. and the Magnet Review Ccl1T.littee was held in late January, 1988 to reinforce understanding and sc~edule on-site visitations by the evaluacion tea~. -::':--.e magr:e t:. elementary schools ,-1ere visited by the teain c:--. febr:..:acJ : and 8th , 1988. A return visit to the secondary magnet schcols was made on March 3rd, 1988. The review of the literature, particularly Blank et:. al., identified the following factors as contributing to a successful magnet school program: , .1.. District-wide access for students on the basis of voluntary preference. 2. A curricular theme that is definite, appealing, and distinctive. 3. A principal and a staff composed and disposed to deliver on that theme, as advertised. 4. Instruction thac is reviewed by the district fer its rigor and fairness (accountability) . S. Good transportation and school security services. 6. Student and Staff composition that closely reflects the racial and ethnic composition of the system. 4 A nechcd of checks and balances c~ac will\nrevenc 3 . Scare-up funds for ~acilicacing early success a ~d ~~plemencacion. (See Note) Note: This paper summarizes Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyzing a Model for Quality Integrated Education. ?inal Reporc of a National Study, by Rolf K. Blank ec al. (ABT Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA. and James H. Lowry and Associates, Washingcon, DC., September, 1983. 428p., ~~IC ~ocument Number ED 236 304). 5 DATA COLLECT:ON ':'!:e evalua::::..c:1 (.ea..'ll conducted an ex(.e,,sive r-eview of\nerci:-:ent resear~h literat.ure relating tc ffiag:-:et school programs i:-: t:ie United States. Attention was part::..c...1larly focused en programs ir.i tiated in the past\n:en years. ':'~.e purpose of the review was to validate the seven ~ey variables presented by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) as descri~\n::ors of the int.er-dist.rice Magnet School Program of Pulaski c~unty. This review process sought to establish bot.h the viabili\n::y of the descript.ors and their complet.eness. ~he evaluat.ion team ut.ilized information gained from t.he research literature to establish sources for more in-depth informat.ion. Telephone contacts were made with representatives from what were apparently the most successful magnet school programs in the United States. The selected programs are located in St. I...ouis, Mo.\nRockville, Md.\nHouston, Tx.\nDallas, Tx.\nand Kansas City, Mo. The evaluation team utilizing information accruing from these sources concluded that the seven key variables presented by the MRC, i.e., Philosophy, Policy and Practices\nParent and community Involvement\nResource Allocation\nStaffing and Leadership\nInstruction\nProgram and Student Outcome were both valid and complete when utilized to define the dimensions of a successful magnet school program. Based on this judgment, the evaluation team utilized these key variables as category components to develop the evaluation instrument. 6 -:':-.e evaL.1at.ion t.eam idenc.:.:ied t.hree S:)ec.:.:.:..::: populat::.::::-.s or groups from which t.o solicit: .:.n:or~at:.cn regar~:.~g t.he magnet sc::col pro\u0026lt;\nra.'TL. ':'::ese populat::.cns .,ere t:eacher-s :.:1 c::e ~ag~ec schools, students int.he magr.et schools, and ~a.rents of students in the magnet schools. :'he evaluation team utilized data gener-at:ed oy tr.e informat.ion search and operat.ional definit.ions develc~ed fer each of the seven variables t.o develop a pool of quest.:.ons appropriate for each population. The operat.ional defi:::.t:ion for each variable was stated in the following ter-ms: Philosophy, Policies, and Praccices: I know and understand the policies that govern this school, the procedures that are ut.ilized to iillplement these policies, and the thrust. of the magnet. focus of this school. II. Educational Program: I feel the instructional program has sufficient. depth and breadth to provide a strong foundation in the basic skills while adequately addressing the ident.ified magnet theme and teaching studencs to funct.ion effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. III. Staff and Leadership: I feel this school has a positive climate for learning characterized by positive interpersonal relations, the lack of racial tension, and high expectations for students. IV. Resource Allocations: I feel the facilities, materials, teacher/pupil ratio, security arrangements and transportation services are 7 v . :!1s tY'J.ct.:..c::: : feel t~e ~~struction provided by t~is school ~3 cons:.stent ~ith its stated goals and s~ppor:s :::e VI. :ommunity =~volvement: ::::.s I feel :~e public is i~formed of act:.vi::.es re~at:.~g to this school and that there is active icvolvement of parents and other members of the community~~ :his school. VII. Student Outcomes: This school promotes a positive attitude ir. st~dents toward school, other races and their educational progress. The pool of questions grew to a total of 256 questior.s before the jury consensus technique was employed to scree~ the items for duplication and appropriateness, and reduce the mass of items to a reasonable and usable number. The following matrix presents the final distribution of items by key variable and population group: a Parent: Teacr.er Student TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS By Variable and Population Group PPP PCI RA SL I p 5 8 3 6 3 5 4 4 6 8 5 7 3 2 4 4 4 2 PPP - Philosophy, Policies and Practices PCI - Parent Community Involvement RA - Resource Allocation SL - Staff and Leadership I - Instruction P - Program SO - Student Outcome 9 so TOTAL 5 35 3 37 6 I 25 ?allowing agreement on a draft cf the t~ree separate, 8Ut si~ilar questionnaires, each ir.strument was subjected to an .:.:::partial evaluaticn by a ccr:-,puter progra..11t to determ::.:--.e tt'.e readability level and ~anguage appropriateness of eacn instrument. The team was consciously concerr.ed t~at every respondent must be able to read and understand each item on his/her instrument in order to submit quality responses. To further validate the suitability of the instruments, tte team conducted a field testing of the instruments with similar populations that was not a part of the evaluation study. After revisions in questionnaires and instrument format, t~e proposed instrument was presented to the MRC for review and approval. The MRC approved the questionnaire items and format with minor suggestions. These suggestions were incorporated into the final draft of the three evaluation instruments. 10 Security of the data is a maJor concern when an evalua==r depends on another person or persons to adr:linister i:-:.str .. :.rc1ents and collect:. data for use in the evalc.:.atic::-.. :':-:e evaluation team is confident that the magnec scnool and administrators, and the MRC Director and of:ice teachers conducted their functions regarding instrument administration and data collection in a precise and professional manr.er. The following data collection activities will document tr.at the data was secure and professionally treaced. On March 10, 1988, an informational workshop outlining the data collection procedures was conducted by an evaluation team member for the magnet school building principals and the director of the MRC. The evaluation team members presented and discussed the specific data collection procedures (See Appendix B). Included in this presentacion was a discussion of a letter to each magnet school faculty member detailing participation in t~e evaluation process (See Appendix C). The building principals were requested to distribute the information letter to the faculty and follow all other administration and collection procedures. 2. on a date set by each building principal, each teacher of grades 4-12 administered the questionnaire to his/her students. These forms were collected by the teacher, placed in a large, sealed envelope, and returned to the building administration office. The Director of the MRC, notified of the administration date and time, returned the instruments from each building. On selecced dates, 11 t~e MRC of:ice for~arded t~e sealed envelo~es 3. Work~~\nccopera~~vely wich che building profess~o~~l ~or ceachers co complece che questionnaire. ~his occurred during a scheduled faculty meeti~g and c~e teacher was designated to collect the corepleted instr'--'I!lents, place in a large envelope, seal the envelope and return ic to the building administration of:i:e. According to procedure, the MRC Director retrieved t~e envelope and =~rwarded tte sealed envelope to tte 02RS. 4. Follow-up procedures were established and implemented to encourage teachers and students that were unable to complece the questionnaires on the given date to submit their responses for inclusion in the study. 5. The Director and office staff of the MRC reailed a questionnaire directly to all parents of magnet school students, K-12. This mailing included instructions and a stamped addressed envelope for returning the completed questionnaire to the MRC office. The MRC office forwarded all returned responses in the sealed envelopes to the OERS. The building principals assisted with the parent survey by encouraging parents via the school newsletter and parent meetings to complete and return the questionnaires. 6. The office manager of the OERS received and checked each questionnaire package, recorded the number, the population group, identified the completed instruments 12 and verified che i~cegricy o~ che security process. ,  All daca recording and analysis were conduc~ed by ~he scaff o: ~he 02rtS. ?roper =aution a~d concern was exercised during c~e daca recording and che compucer progra~ Statistical ?ackage for c~e Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in data analysis. 13 ~~e evaluati~n team developed questions :o so~i=~= :eac~ers,\narents, and students. These q~est~~ns ~ere ~resented to the MRC for review and approval. ~he cemograp~ic data were utilized to describe t~e pop~lat~~n and :o assist with data analysis. ?opulation data on the records of the MRC indicated t~ere were 247 magnet school teachers of grades K-12, 2382 ~agnet school students in grades 4-12, and 3372 parents of magnet 3c~ool students ~n grades K-12. To insure every member of all t~ree pop~lations equal opportunity to respond to :~e instrument, every member of each population was provided a questionnaire and invited to respond. The acceptance for questionnaire returns was closed (May 11, '88, which was eight weeks after the initial mailout), with the following results: 230 or 93.1% of the teachers had returned completed questionnaires\n2201 or 92.4% of the students had returned completed questionnaires\nand 1676 or 49.7% of the parents had returned completed questionnaires. Twelve parents reported two or more students in the magnet school program. The data for these parents were recorded only once and allocated to the first school/child listed on the returned questionnaire. A very small number, less than one percent, of the questionnaires were determined to be unusable because of incorrect markings on the instrument. The characteristics of the three population groups are presented as population profiles. The first item on the questionnaire identified the school being evaluated by the 14 :eachers are ass~gned to Mann Junior High\n354 s:~den:s grades 4-6 attend Booker Elementary and :18 s:~dents ~races 4-6 attend Gibbs Elementary\nand that 237 parents ~a~e s:udents attend~~g Carver Elementary and 252\nare~:s ~ave students attendi~g ?arkview High School. 0 z: Cl) 1- z: UJ .::::i ,::-:i Cl) I.J.. C) 0 z: TEACHER DATA: SCHOOL 80r-----------------------, 72 ..... .... ....................................... ..... ............................   64 ................................................................................................................................. . 56 48 40 ... 32 ... 24 ... 16 .. . 8 .. . 0 wLMS GIBS SCHOOLS - TEACHER ASSIGNMENT STUDENT DATAI SCHOOL STUDENT RTT~NDS 800r------------------------, 720 ............................................................................................................  640 560 480 400 320 .. . 240 .. . 160 .. . 90 ... 0 90KR WL.MS GIBS M~NN SCHOOLS - STUDENTS BY SCHOOL 13 PARENT '.JATA: SCHOOL CHILO :-a TT:: '.CS 400 360 J? 320 280 ... ..J.J -=:: 240 ct 200 ... LL 160 ... 0 120 ... 0 z: 80 40 0 BOKR CFIVR wLMS G18S MANN SCHOOLS - PARENTS BY SCHOOL ~evel placement o f t~e student in questi~n. The studer.: profile data shows the highest grade l evel attendance was reported for the fifth grade (322) and the lowest for tje ninth grade (180). The parent profile data reveals ttat ~~re parents of students in grade five responded to the questionnai res (2 28 ) and t~e lowest r.u.'1tber c : parer. ts responding had s t udents in grade nine (6 2 ) . U\") ~ z: w  ::::l ~ U\") LL 0  z: STUDENT DATA: GRADE LEVEL 400----------------------, 360  ... ...... ...... ... ....... ........... ...... ......................................... . 4 - STUDENT'S 16 (fl \u0026gt;-- 0 z:: PARENT DATA: GRADE LEUEL 300.--------------------------, 270            240    ..... ........ .. .. .. .... ... ........ ........ .. .... .. ... ..... ............. ...... .......... ....... .... ... ... .......... . 210 ..... 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 K l 2 5 6 GRADES - CHILO' S GR LEU EL 11 T~e gender o: t~e teact.ers and of t~e st~dents was req~es:ed t~e great maJor~~Y of responding teachers were fema~e (:~8 ~~ 41). The students' gender was much more evenly distr~j~:ed (1161 female, 1029 male, 11 did not complete item). (J) a::: w :::c u \u0026lt;C UJ ~ u. 0 0 z:: TEACHER DATA: GENDER 2001-----------------------, 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  - SEX OF TEACHER 17 1500 1350 .)J 1200 - :asu = 380 ,- ~) 758 ~ 600 450 g 300 150 0 STUDENT DATA: GENDER Fi::MALE SEX l'VO - SEX OF STUDENT :~e r3ce cf tte respondent was requested ~re~ al: :~ree ..... ,.... ....... . :::l- ......... .. -. --- __ __, ... gro:.:\ns . rt\"\"'!:)\n::-.::,,,,- -=- ----- i~::erence for this descr~ptor with 154 o: the 2}0 teac~ers ~de~t~:ied as white\nwhereas, tte parent and student\nrc:.:ps were fairly even in distribution. The students respond~r.\nwere 1129 black, 1003 white, 61 other and nine did not complete this item. Responding parents were distr~buted in :~e :allowing way: 857 white, 769 black. 37 otters anj :J ct~ not complete this item. TEACHER DATA: RACE 200 180  ..................... , ...................................................... . (f) 160  ................................................................ , .................... . ~ w 140 :I: \"\"ooooOOoooo u \u0026lt;J: 120  ........................................................... . w r- 100 ....................................................................... u... 80 0 oooo\"\"\"'\"\"\"oo\"''\"oo 60  0z : 40 ....................................................................... \" .. \"'\"\"''\" ............. ....................... . OTHER - RACE OF TEACHER 18 (.fl fz: ~  ,- v) Ll... 0 (./) ~ z: ~ \u0026lt;%: CL 1..1... 0 0 z: STUDENT DATA: RACE l 500r----------------------- 1350 ...........................................................................................  1200 .......................... ......................... ................................................ , ...................... ....... .. :050 ..... . ............ ,.,    900 750 600 450 300 150 0 900 810 720 630 540 450 360 270 180 WHITE OTHER RACE - RACE OF STUDENT PARENT DATA: RACE , ..................................................................... .   , ..................................................................... . ....................................................................... ' ... -~- .................................. ' .............. . ....................................................................... 0TH RACE - RACE OF PARENT The location of residence was asked of both the student and the parents. The student profile data revealed the majority of students lived in the Little Rock District (1658 of 2201 or 75.33 percent). The parent profile data revealed an almost identical percent (73.33) of the parents reporting lived in tr.e Little Rock District. 19 STUDENT DATA: SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 1800 (j') 1600 '-= 1400 .LJ g 1200 ,- (f) Hl00 LJ.. 800 0 600 a z: 400 200 0 LR NLR PC SCHOOL DISTRICT - RESIDENT SCH DIST PARENT DATA: SCHOOL DISTRICT 1250 112~ (f) 1000  ................................................................. . f,-- z: 875 ~.z: 750 -- a.. 625 LL 0 500 ....................................................................................................... 0 375 z: 250 L.R NLR M  O SCHOOL - RESIDENT SCH DIST 20 ~~\n:l~ -..-.,-..,-.\"\"'_ - ..-.:::- _.._._ .. .._ .. ...,, ..... _ .. _ ---- :::: ............ -- --...,,:- ... - ----- ,,-_::::,---:::i,,,... ... ~--- --:::i. -----::,\"-----~ ---- c\n:::-eac r:-.:.11.:)e:::- of 1:.telr sc~ce::1:.s a!1d :eac,.ers ,\noLlc. ::e .:.:-. r.~s/her seco::d year of residency at ctac sc~col. revealed t~at 1:_je ~aJor.:.cy of teachers (139 or 6u.4%) ~ere sc~cencs (1 :88 or 54%) were ~ew co cjac schco:. 200 180 U) a:: 160 w ::c 140 u 120 \u0026lt;I: w ~ 100 I.J.. 80 0 60 a z: 40 20 0 1500 13~0 U) 1200 ~ z: 1050 w 0 900 :::::i ~ U) 750 aI.J .. 600 450 a z: 300 TEACHER DATA: TEACHING ASSIGNMENT NO RESPONSES - 2ND YR. SAME SCH. STUDENT DATA: ATTENDS SAME SCHOOL ..................................................................................................................................  .............................................. , .................................................................. . NO RESPONSES - 2ND YEAR SAME SCH. 21 ...................................................  ................................................... ................................................... -- ......................... . (.J) I- :J.J .L -1: a.. L1.. 0 g 1.000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 PARENT DATA: CHILD ATTENDS SAME SCHOOL NO RESPONSES - 2ND YR SAME SCH A question included in demographics of teachers is \"How ~uch experience do the teachers have\"? The profile data reveals ~~at the teachers in the magnet schools ~ave cons:jera~:e experience with a slight ~ajoricy (119 or 51.7%) ~av:~g over a:even years of teaching experience. TEACHER DATA: TEACHING EXPERIENCE 200 180 (.J) 0::: 160 , ............................. , .................................................................................... , .............. . l:Jc.J 140 u 120 \u0026lt;I: lJ.J I- 100 LL 80 0  ........................................................... . 60  40 20 0 0-5 G-11 11+ YEARS - YEARS EXPERIENCE 22 1000 900 ,(J-') 800 z: 700 w  600 ,::-:i (.f) 500 u.. 400 0 300 Cl z: 200 STUDENT DATA: TIME ON BUS 68+ MINUTES - TIME SPENT ON BUS . .... .. .... . - ,_ --- J ._, _ . c - _nan attempt co facilitate the ir.:erprecac~on and/ ~r description of the results of the study, several add~t~G~a: quest~cns were asked of the parents. The subseq~enc responses allowed the evaluat~cn team co descr~~e t~e parer.: par:~:~pants as :ol-ows: The ~ajor~:y of the ~arents 57.6%) are between 31 and 40 years old\nthe mothers cf :r.e magnet school students have an education level beyond ~~gh scjool and the largest group of mothers (640 or 40.7% o: those responding co this item) have a college degree\nthe father's educational level, as reported by the 1219 respondents co the item, is beyond high school and c~e 23 PARENT DATA: AGE 1000 900 .(/-) 800 z: 700 u.J a::: 600 \u0026lt;I: il.. 500 LJ... a 400 a 300 z: 200 100 0 \u0026lt;20 - AGE OF PARENT PARENT DATA: MOTHER'S EDUC 700 630 U) 560 ,- z: 490 u.J a::: 420 \u0026lt;C Cl.. 350 LJ... 280 a a 210 z: 140 70 0 HS  GED \u0026gt;HS COL LEUEL OF EDUCATION - MOTHER' S EDU LEVEL 24 PARENT DATA: FATHER'S ~~UC 700 630 U) 560 t:\n: 490 G:j a::: 428 \u0026lt;I: Cl.. 350 1..1... 0 280 0 210 :z: 140 70 0 \u0026lt;HS HS  GE  \u0026gt;HS LEUEL OF - FATHER'S EDU LEVEL PARENT DATA: RESPONDENT ID. 1400 1260 U) 1120 \u0026gt;z-: 980 ~ 840 \u0026lt;i: a. 700 u.. 0 560 0 420 :z: 280 140 0 MOTHER FATHER GUARD BOTH RESPONDENTS - WHO COMPLETED FORM PARENT DATA: CHOICE OF SCHOOLS 1500 13:50   \"                 \"'''' ' ''''' ' '''\"''''''''''''''''''' ' '''''''''''''''''' U) 1200  .................................................... . \u0026gt;z-: 1050 \"''\"''''''''' I.U a::: 900 \u0026lt;i:  a. 750 \" u.. 600 0  ........................... ,  0 450   :z: 300 ............................................................................................................. 1:50 ................. .............. ........................... ............. ... ...................... ............. 0 2ND 3RD 4TH CHOICES - CHOICE OF PARENT 25 \",.' r   - .... ~ ---,.-\\l . ..1 !. .:::, _.,:\n:::rough ::::-.e use o:: s~rvey .:.:-.str.1..':'.encs see~i:-.\nres\n:o::ses :c carefully construcced i:ems relaci::g specific~::1 :c eac~ variable. A di::erenc number of questionnaire i:ems, relat.:.::g co t~e key variables, was developed :or eacn :\n)Opulac.:.c:: group. ':'~is desi,\n:-. .,,\nas to acco.:::..'11cdace :::::r ::--.e differences in che group's k::owledge, involvement, and interesc. Data Processing Each respondent was asked to reacc to the questionnaire wi:h a sincere actitude using the following scale: SD Strongly Disagree with the s:acement D --- Disagree with che statemenc A --- Agree with the scacemenc SA Strongly Agree wich che scatement To begin the staciscical analysis, it was necessary to assign numerical values to the categories of responses (i.e. SD=l, 0=2, A=3, SA=4) on che questionnaire and similar type nu.-noer va~ues for che demographic variables (school, grade, sex, race, etc.). In a few cases a respondenc neglecced to respond co a particular statement. If this omission occurred four or more times, the quescionnaire was labeled as incomplete\nhowever, if omission occurred less than :our :imes che q~estionnaire was accepced as complete. T~e 26 ass.:.c\n::ed .::. ::~::-.er :.::=.l value o : ze:r::,  J) . After ::-.e evaluatc..on team recel.'/ed -\\.,e ~\"c c::-  _ __ ,,. ~ 0 ,. one i~dividua_ was respo~sible for p~ac:.~g a~ icent:.:::..::ation number on each form as i:. ar:::-:. '1ed. 2 . Demog:::-aphic data was coded as well as t~e ca:.egcr:.es of responses to the questionnaire items. values were placed in the right hand ~argl.n of a~~ questionnaires to facilitate the transfer of nu.'1\\bers to coding forms and for veri:ication of accuracy o: :.~e coding procedure. 3. Two research assistants were selected and tra:..ned to enter all data on the mainframe computer. T~ese were :.he most skilled keyboard operators on the team. 4. Verif:..cation of data entry occurred at :.hree sepa:::-a:.e stages of the recording process and one time after :.~e data was entered on the computer. Analvsis Procedures The initial stage of data analysis was descriptc..ve i~ :or~. cumulative summary information provided frequency distri~ut:..ons, graphs, and a measure of central tendency (mode) on each demographic variable and questionnac..re 1:.em. After examining the distribution of variables (via frequency distributions), cross-tabulation contingency tables were computed to investigate the relationships a~ong the 27 7~e scac~st~cal analys~s a~ t~e data in the numbers within eac~ of the population groups ' ~.e. :20 teache:rs, :676 parents, 2201 st-.:dem:s), pracc:.cally as.su:::-ed a highly signi~icant dif~erence would be found when t~e c~i-square statistical test ~as appl:.ed. Yet, ~c :.s :reccg~~=ed as one of t~e better tests ta use with frequency repo:rced data. ~~e:re is no question as to the validity of the statistically significant differences, for indeed the:re were differences found. It is tte obviously missing \"practical significant difference\" that caused the evaluation team to further investigate the identified differences. ~hese additional analyses were conducted utilizing the demographic var:.ables to sub-divide the population into a managea0~e size. These additional computations, although requi:::-i~g considerable work-hours, permit the evaluation team to :remain confident in the interpretation of the data. 28 )--~C:r\"r -- ..... .., ----:--.....,---=~ seven ~ey variables. (See Appendix :':). ':':-.e s\n::\nec:..::ic q\nest.:.2:-.::aire :..::ems by number and scaterner::::: ::2r eac:: 1ar:..ab:e and eacn populat:..cn is presented prior tJ c~e graph.:.c displayi::g tje response. T~e ~ey variables are preser.ced belO'l'I. P~ILCSO?~Y. ?OLICY, AND PRACT:CE person~el policies. 13 . : am acquainted with the program goals and object:..ves for this magnet school. 18. I am familiar with the information in the staff handbook. 32. I a~ familiar with the student recruit~ent procedures for chis school. STUDENT :~E~S: 8. I know and understand the rules that govern this school. 14. I chose to attend this school because of my i~terest in its magnet theme. 17. I am familiar with the information in the student/parent handbook. PARENT ITEMS: 10. I know and understand the rules that govern this school. 17. I am acquainted with what this school is trying to accomplish. 29 21. a mac\nne:::: sc:-:ccl. speci:ic ~agnet :ocus. The responses to the above statements deter~i~e teachers. parents. and students have a knowledge and procedures t:-:at are utilized to i~plemen:::: ::::~e polic~es. and the thrust of the magnet focus of the school. The accompanying graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement a~ong the three populations for the variable Philosophy, ?olicy, and Practice. 30 (fj w ()) z: 0 CL (Jj w Ct:: LL 0 ..... z: w u Ct:: w CL 60 50 40 30 20 10   COMPOSITE RESPONSES: PHILOSOPH'r', SD D A TEACHERS PAREt\"~TS RATINGS OF AGREEt1ENT E] STUDENTS ET AL. SA - .:::. - -= - ...... ' - - - .~ acc:.vely involved i:1 :tis sctool. ::. 3. =:1.:c:r::-,a::.on c.bout t:-.e magnet school p:rogra.-:'. __ ,\n:.-::.e .:..y disseminated i:1 cte community. :.3. :r:emt:e!:\"s o::: :te cc:nrr,un1.ty (other t:-.an pa!:\"en:s ) c ::te:1 ::--.e .:..p with sc~ool programs and activities. PARENT :'.::'E:'1S: 11. I a~ actl.vely involved in this school. School personnel are cooperative when deal:.~g ~:.:t ~e. Members of the community (other than student:s' pa!:\"er.:s ) ~re act~vely involved i~ this school. 26. ~he community is aware of this school's magnet p:rog:ra~. 31. I want ~Y child to attend a magnet school r.ext year. 36. I would encourage other parents to send their ctild:ren to a magnet school. 40. I receive information about activities at my child's magnet school in plenty of ti~e to attend. 43. I feel at ease working with people of other rc.ces school-related activities. Responses to the above statements reflect the attitude o f :eachers, parents, and st~dents toward the public being 32 ,....-----. ..... ----- - .... ...... -- -...... --~!'-\"-.::.!.::, :cespo:-::\nes ::-.~ee 33 _,,..,.. ~,... ..... -::: - -==--- ,.... ....... ,.....' ~ - .. -- ... ::\"'-~--.-- '--'-'\"'-' C0~1POSITE RESPONSES: PARENT /COtv1M IMUOLU 70.-------------------. (I) w 60 ................................................................................................................................. . (J) -r. i- 0 (L (I) w er: LL 0 rz: w u ~ w 0... 50 ............................................................................ .. 40 ............................................................................. . 3 0                                                          .-.:.-.:.-.:.-. :             ...... ........ . 2 0                                                           ::::::::              10 ............................. . ..... ....... .... . ............................... . 0 ~t/0 SD D A SA RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT  TEACHERS lliJ STUDENTS 0 PARE~1TS STUCENT CU~CCM2 T2AC~ER I~EMS: ~ Studencs exhibit a posicive accicude c~ward sc~ool under che magnec program. 37. This school gives studencs a unique educational experience. 39. Students do not j eopardize cheir success in reg~:ar curriculum classes by participating in magnet cjeme classes or activities. STUDENT ITEMS: 13. I enjoy being a scudent in this school. 21. I am able to work well in a classroom made up of different races. 23. Most students of different races get along well with each other at this school. 26. I would like to attend a magnet school next year and would also encourage my friends to attend. 28. I have time to participate in magnet theme classes and/or activities. 31. Participating in magnet theme classes or activit~es does not hurt my grades. PARENT ITEMS: 16. My child has a positive attitude toward school. 20. My child usually understands the work he or she is doing. 25. My child functions well in a racially-integrated classroom. 34. My child has ample opportunity to participate in classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 35 42. The magnet theme does not interfere witr. my child's success in learning the basic skills. The responses to the above statements reflect the opinions of the teachers, parents, and students regarding the school promot~ng a positive attitude in students toward school, other races, and the educational progress being made. ~he following graphic displays the distribution of responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Student Outcome. 36 (I) w (J) z: 0 CL (J) w (}: LL 0 J: z: w u Q: w CL COtv1POSITE RESPONSES: STUDEtf T OUTCOME 60 50 40                      I  I  3 0 -............................................................................. . 20 10 e             I  I  I   SO D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEMENT STUDENTS SA rf\"\"'\" l ~2SOURC2 AL~CCATION support ~Y ir.structional efforts. :6. The participating school districts are supportive c ~ :he magnet program at this school. : 7. :n-service programs are available i:i rr.y school '\"'h.:.c:: relate directly to the theme and purpose of this magnet school. 24. Security arrangements in this school provide adequate safety for students and personnel. 28. My classes are of an appropriate size to accomplish the specific goals of this magnet school. 34. The facilities are adequate for the accomplishment of this school's goals and objectives. STUDENT ITEMS: 10. Teachers use many kinds of materials that deal with different racial groups. 15. My classes are the right size for special theme activities. 22. This school is a safe place to be. 32. The school building is satisfactory for all classes. PARENT ITEMS: 12. Transportation to this school is satisfactory for my child. 27. Security arrangements in this school provide safety for students and personnel. 38 37. : think this school's materials, equip~ent, and perscnnel are equal to or better than t~at cf ~ost area sc~ools. The responses to the above statements reflec: :he feelir.g of tte :eachers, parents, and st~dents regardir.g the fac_~i:ies, materials, teacher/pupil ratio, securi:y arrangements and transportation services and the adequacy of support tJ ensure a sound educational program in this school. The following graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the amplitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Resource Allocation. 39 (J) L1J (j) z: 0 a.. (Jj L1J O::'. LL 0 1- :z: L1J u ~ L1J (L COMPOSITE RESPONSES: RESOURCE ALLOCATIO~~ 60 50 40           I  30 20 10 _.. ............................. .   SD D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1ENT ......... STUDENTS SA ob]ec:c.:..'1es ~-= thls scr:co.:... 9. :!'::..s --.-.h.....,,.....,i ~\"------ ru~ong staf: ~embers and students. 15. There is pcs2.:.:..ve, dynamic, and i:movat.:..\ne i:1str..1::::.:.::::\n-\na.l. leadership in this school. 20. I would like to teach in this school next year. 25. The teachers in this school are fair in dealing wich students. 29. There is no racial tension among the staff. 35. Communication systems are open and ongoing between administrators, staff, students, and parents. 41. Teachers in this school have high expectat.:..ons for their students. STUDENT ITEMS: ~l. People in my school are friendly. 19. The principal in this school is fair. 27. There are no racial problems between the students and people who work here. 29. The teachers in this school expect students to do their best. 33. The teachers in this school are fair. PARENT ITEMS: 13. Personnel in this school are friendly. 19. There is an energetic and creative leadership in this school. 41 is f.::.ir working w:.th and\niarerlts. s t:t:.den ::s. J2. T~ere is no racial tension between t~e sta:f a~d parents. 38. Teachers in t:h~s school have high expectat:.cns f~r t~eir students. The respcnses to the above statements reflect ::he feelings of teachers, parents, and students regarding the school having a positive cl~mate for learning characterized by posit:.ve interpersonal relations, the lack of racial tension, and high expectations :or students. The following graphic displays the distribution of responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Staffing and Leadership. 42 (J) w (j) z: 0 CL (J) w 0:: LL 0 .,_ z: w u 0.: w 11. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10   COMPOSITE RESPONSES: STAFF \u0026amp; LEADERSHIP SD D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT EJ STUDENTS .................... T2ACH~R :~2~S: :o. : have ~~~e co plan lessons, work with ~Y st~dencs, chec~ t~eir work, and provide feedback. 22. : have adequate access to resource personnel co promote the ~agnet t~eme in this school. 26. Curriculum committees study the interrelationsh~p o: t~e regular curriculum and the magnet theme. 31. Magnet theme classes do not interfere with the basic curriculum. 36. Classroom procedures in this school support the dign~ty of all racial groups. STUDENT ITEMS: 12. My teachers check my work and tell me how I am dong. 16. I am learning something connected with the magnet theme in most of my classes. 24. My teachers explain things clearly, and I know what they expect me to do. 30. Members of all races have places of importance in my books and classroom activities. PARENT ITEMS: 14. My child's teachers check assigned work and let my child know how he or she is doing. 29. My child's teachers explain things clearly and let my child know that is expected. 39. The materials and procedures in my child's classes support the dignity of all racial groups. 44 :::::e s::::oo agreemenc/d~sagreemenc among che chree popu:acio::s :c~ :::::e variable Inscrucc~on. 45 (J) w (Jj z: 0 CL (J) w er: LL 0 1- z: w u ~ w 0.. 60 50 40 30 20 10   COtv1POSITE RESPONSES: IMSTRUCTION SD D A TEACHERS PAREr1TS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1ENT [ill STUDENTS ?ROGRA~ TEACHER I~~MS: 2l. ~his school ~rovides a strong educational :oundat~o~ in the basic skills. 27. ~here are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. 30. Students have ample oppor:unity to participate i~ classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 33. There are enough different academic courses in this school. 38. The Magnet Review Committee is supportive of the program at this school. 40. I feel that the magnet program helps students to function effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. STUDENT ITEMS: 20. This school provides a strong background in all the basic skills. 25. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. PARENT ITEMS: 15. The magnet program in this school meets my expectations. 24. This school provides a strong educational foundation in the basic skills. 30. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. 33. My child has ample opportunity to participate in classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 47 The responses to the above statements reflects the feelings of the teachers, parents and students that the ir.structional ~rogram has sufficient depth and breadth to provide a strong foundation in the basic skills while adequately addressing the identified magnet theme and teaching students to function effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. The following graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the amplitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Educational Programs. 48 (() w (() z: 0 0... (0 w Ii: LL 0 ~ z: w u IL w Q_ 60 50 40 30 20 10   COtvlPOSITE RESPONSES: PROGRAM SD D A RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT TEACHERS PARENTS E:J STUDENTS statistical Analvsis In order to analyze and interpret the data, the statistical technique \"chi-square\" was utilized. This technique was selected because of its power in analyzing frequency data result~ng from questionnaire responses. Because of the extremely large number of responses, the evaluation team anticipated large chi-square values signaling highly significant differences. Following the statistical analysis via computer program, this anticipation became reality. According to Robert L. Winkler and William L. Hays in Statistics: Probability, Inference and Decision, Second Edition 1975, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pages 832-33, \"If the sample size is very large, as it should be for the best application for the (chi-square) test, virtually any 'degree' of two statistical relationships between attributes will show up as a significant result. The test detects virtually any departure from strict independence between the attributes for these large sample sizes\". Winkler and Hays contend that with large enough sample sizes, chances were good for statistical significant difference on almost any two qualitative attributes via the chi-square test. To compensate for the inflation of significance due to large sample sizes, further analysis was conducted to measure the strength of the association between the attributes in question. This lead the evaluation team to apply the Pearson Contingency coefficient to the computed chi-square va1.ues in order to measure the strength of association among the population groups and their ratings on the key variables. 50 -:'he range of \"strengt:h of associat:ion\" is from a low of 0.00 to a high of 1.00 with marginal associat:ion accept:ed at 0.20. ~he following matrix illust:rat:es the computat:~ons for both the chi-square test of independence and Pearson's Cont:ingency Coefficient: for each of the seven key variables: PEARSON CHI-SQUARE KEY VARIABLE CONTINGENCY VALUE COEFFICIENT Resources 182.37 .209 Inscruct:ion 108.043 .163 Student Outcome 168.72 .1570 Community Involvement 320.42 .276 Staff \u0026amp; Leadership 184.886 .210 Philosophy/Policy/Practice 98.12 .155 Educational Program 68.76 .130 Required value for significance df=6\nchi-square=22.457 P\u0026lt;.001 Suggested value for Contingency Coefficient strengt:h of association\nC=.20 51 :r.e very high c~l-square values i~ply a hi\nhly signi:icant. di::erence among t.he t.hree populat:l:ir:s :o:::- each and every \narlable JUSt: as was expect.ed. :his would seem t.8 ir:dicat.e tr.a~ teac~ers, students, and parents would race the items dif:erent: on the key variable being measu:::-ed i.e. when a respondent. belongs t:o a part.icular populat:ion it is predictable as t:o how that. person would rat:e that. key variable. However, when t:he cont.ingency coefficient. is applied to the chi-square values and consideration is given tot.he large size samples the probability of predictlng t:~at a part.icular memner of a population group would rat.e t.~e variable as \"Strongly Agree\" or any other oft.he rat.lng values, the chance of success is approximat:ely one in five or 20%. (Note: ut.ilizing this analysis, Resource Allocat.ion. Community Involvement and Staff \u0026amp; Leadership were significant.). What became apparent. to the evaluation t.eam was that. differences did exist\nhowever, the strengt.h of associat.ion in most. instances was negligible due to the rnajorit.y of responses being skewed toward the positive (agree and strongly agree) end of the scale. The chi-square technique report.ed significant. differences because a far greater number of each populat.ion group rated the key variables as agree and strongly agree than was statistically expected. Likewise. far fewer members rated the key variables as disagree and strongly disagree than was st.atistically expect.ed. (However, the evaluation team, understanding the parameters of the magnet school program study and the characteristics of the 52 con:iient o: t~e interpretat~on ) . ~rovided suf:ic~ent evidence ~o indicate that :~e Key variables required further analysis. ~hese addi:~onal analyses consisted of using the demographic variables to deter~ine ~= sub-groups of t~e population would prov~ie evidence for further interpretation. The analysis involved separating each population's response by key variable and demographic components. The chi-square technique was utilized to determine if the factors of the demographic component responded differently to the key variable. :or example, did the teachers from the six schools respond differently to the key variables? The team was particularly interested in the key variables Community Involvement, Staff and Leadership, and Resource Allocation, but, decided to conduct the analysis on all the variables. The computed chisquare value was compared to the required value for significance at P\u0026lt;.05 level and the statistical analysis summary is presented for each population group. Initially for each population, joint frequency distributions were computed for each key variable by demographic descriptors to identify significant differences. With each of the seven variables successively held constant, demographic descriptors which were identified as significant were then compared with the other significant demographic descriptors. Chi-square tests were computed to pinpoint these areas of significance. 53 si~gle demographic descriptor or the i~teract~cn of t~o sJch descr~ptcrs wo~ld have minimal speci~ic i~pact on the p~rpose of the study, elected to present consensus statements regarding each key variable rather than address each significant difference. The intent of these additional statistical analyses was to provide further insight i~to the parameters of the key variajles and to assure the reader o : the depth of the search for relevant information. The summary of statistical analyses for each key variab~e by demographic descriptor for the teacher population is presented below: PHILOSOPHY STUDENT ET AL. OUTCOME SCHOOL NSD so SEX NSD NSD RACE NSD NSD TEACHING EXPERIENCE NSD NSD TEACH SAME SCHOOL NSD NSD STATISTIC.AL ANALYSIS SUMMARY KEY VARI.ABLES BY DEMOGRAPHICS TEACHER PARENT/ STAFF/ RESOURCE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVE.ME.NT NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD NSD so NSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE so: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE INSTRUCTION NSD NSD NSD NSD so There were no significant differences for the demographic descriptors for the variables Philosophy, Policy and Practice\nStaff and Leadership\nParent and Community PROGRAM NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD Involvement\nor Educational Program. The consensus of the evaluation team regarding the remaining key variables and the 54 scudenc Oucccrae: ~he difference becween schools on c~1s ~ey variable is che magnitude o : agreement ~1th the variable statements. Eighty-~1ne percent of the teachers agreed and/o r strongly agreed with the statements :er this variable. Resource Allocation: ~he differences found fer th~s variable were with the amount of teaching Instruction: experience, and were teachers assigned to the same school as last year? ~he dif:erence for each demographic descriptor was small and between the agree and strongly agree values. The analysis revealed that teachers with the most experience that were assigned in the same school as last year strongly agreed with the statements in the key variable ~esource Allocation. The difference found for this variable was the strength of agreement by the teachers for the descriptor \"assigned to same school as last year?\" The teachers that were assigned to the same school last year tended to strongly agree with the statements contained in the variable Instruction. 55 ~~e s~r\n1.mary o f stat~scical anal yses : o r e ach ~ey va ri ~t l e by demographic descriptor for tje student populatic~ i s presented below: S7ATIST:CAL ANALYS I S SU~ARY !\u0026lt;E:Y VARIABLES 3Y J EMOGR.APH I CS S7UDENT PARENT / I I I PHILOSOPHY STUDENT STAFF / RESOURCE COMMUNITY I NSTRUC7:ON P~OGRAM ST AL. OUTCOME LEADERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVEMENT ! i aI STRICT NSD NSD l .3CHOOL  s o NSD I GAADE I  s o so SEX I so so RACE NSD NSD ATTEND SAME SCHOOL so NSO BUS so HSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE  s o: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE NSD so so NSD so so NSO NSD so I NSD NSD I  s o I  s o NSD so  s\n:i NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSO NSO so NSO so so The significant differences for the student population for  s o  s ::i  s o NSD NSD so NSO tje demographic descriptors were found for key variables of Philosophy, Policy and Practice\nStudent Outcome\nStaff and Leadership\nParent and community Involvement\nInstruction and Educational Programs. The consensus of the evaluation team regarding these key variables and the significant demographi c descriptors are presented below: Philosophy et.al.: The significant differences for the descriptors were found between the agree and strongly agree values. Students of both sexes that were near to the magnet 56 I I chirty minutes tended to strongly agree with the statements assoc~ated w~=h =~e variable more than other students. :his was true fer all grades and ~or al_ schools. S~udent Outc8~e: S~gnificantly more females than ma~es responded strongly agree to the statenents in this variable. Males tended to agree with the statements, but, some males disagreed and strongly disagreed. ~he ratio of percepticns were generally t~e same for all grades. Staff and Leadership: The great majority of students view the staff and leadership of the magnet schools in the high positive value of the scale. However, differences do exist. Several students in grades 5, 7, 8, and 12 at Booker, Mann and Parkview schools tended to respond in the low agree-disagree area. More black students, especially black females, that are attending tr.e same school as last year tended to respond in the low agree-disagree range. However, students of all races in all grades that are new to the magnet schools tended to respond in the strongly agree area. Resource Allocation: An inspection of the analyses for resource allocation failed to provide one 57 percepc~cn cf C~-s var~ab:e covered :~e enc~re scale c f ~al ues\nyec, :~e di::erenc~ate bet~een :~ese di::ere~ce s. ?arent and Co~~u~ity ~~volvement: The parent and cc\n..\n:iun~:y involvement was another c f t~e key variables ~hat students ~eld dif:er~ng perceptions. The typical secondary st~dent responded to this variable in the : ow agree-disagree area, whereas. elemen:ary students responded in the agree-stror.gly agree area. The secondary students from the Little Rock district responded a :ittle more severely than the students from the other districts, yet, transportation or grade of student had little impact. Realistically, the secondary studencs responded as expected regarding parental involvement with their schools. Instruction: Another of the key variables where students held differing perceptions. There were several differences among the scnools and between the grades. The elementary students, especially, at Booker had higher perceptions\nwhereas, secondary students particularly grades 7 and 10 responded with larger ratings. The students that cid not 58 ac:end a ~agnet schccl :~s:\near, generally responded in tte agree-s:rongly was minimal and non-dif:erer.tiating Detween grades and/or schools. Educatio~al Programs: The significant differences provided by the demographic descrl~tcrs regarding this key variable was basica:ly the magnit~de of the agreement with tte variable statements. The identified differences was evenly spread out among all schools, all grades and all districts. The accumulation of this difference is what computed to be a significant difference. The only noticeable dif:erence was that the students returning to Booker, Williams, and Parkview, and the new students at Carver, Gibbs, and Mann tended to respond in the strongly agree area. 59 ':'::e s:....:...--:-.:nar1 of sr.ac.ist.:..cal analyses fer each key ' ariable by demographic descriptor for the parent population is presented below: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY KEY VARIABLES BY DEMOGRAPHICS PARENT PARENT/ PHILOSOPHY STUDENT! STAFF/ I RESOURCE COMMUNITY INSTRUC7:JNIPROGRAJ'I! ET AL. OUTCOME , LElillERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVEMENT ~.ACE NSD NSD SCHOOL NSD NSD GRADE NSD NSD AGE so so DISTRICT NSO NSD MOTHER'S EDUCATION so NSD FATHER'S EDUCATION NSD NSD CHOICE NSD so RESPONDENT NSD so ATTEND SAME SCHOOL NSD NSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SD: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SD so NSD NSD so so so so NSD NSD NSD NSD I SD I NS\nJ NSD so I so I NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD NSD NSO NSO NSO NSD so so NSD NSD so so NSD NSD so NSD so NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD Significant difference were identified for six of the seven key variables for the parent population. Consensus statements for these six variables regarding the significant demographic descriptors are presented as follows: Philosophy et.al.: Any difference in the variable Philosophy, Policy and Practice can readily 60 I years of age with a tigher educa:~c~ :evei area. s:ucent Outcc~e: ~he parent popula:icn cons~stentl1 responded in the agree-str8~gly agree a rea. The mother generally completed :te questionnaire, was between Jl-4 0 years old child's assignment. The more :tese =~ree descriptors were congruent, the hiqter the probability the response was strongly agree with the statement. Staff and Leadership: Parents registered some identifiable differences in this variable area by demographic descriptor, but, this difference was in the magnitude of agreement. Black parents did not rate this variable quite as high as the other races rated it. The parents, all races, all schools, all districts, with both mother and father holding college degrees were more varied in their perception. Parents with less education tended to be in agreement with the statements regardless of race, home district, school attendir.g, or which choice they received. The 61 Resource Allocat:on: Over 90 percent of the parents ~eld perceptions in the agree-strongly agree area for this variable. If both parents held col~ege degrees. the responses :ended assig:-:.~ent t~ey received. ?arent and Co:nmun:t1 =~volvement: mhere is a strong relaticnship between parents educat:~n Instruct:on: :evel and parental involvement with t~e schools. The higher the educational :evel, especially the father, the more strongly in agreement they were with the variable statements. The more active parents were between 31-40 years of age and tended to have students attending Williams and Car er schools. The differences recorded for this variable definitely resulted from the magnitude of agreement with the statements. Over 85 percent of the parents' responses were in the agree-strongly agree area. 1tlhite parents that received their first c~o:ce in assignment whose child had not previously attended a magnet school held the h:ghest perception of this variable. 62 educat::.onal prograr:i was so pos:..::...'e ::-.a::. ::.~e s~ac:..sc:..cal analyses :a:..:ed :c :._je~c:..:y one sign:..ficanc d:..ffere~ce regardinq t:~e demographic descr:..pcors. 63 3asEd -=~ --~~ ..... ,...,... --- - ........... -------::,.::\u0026gt; _,_ ----==\u0026gt; Cor..riuc-:ee a:!:\"e co:1s.:..st:er:i:: ,nch c::::-.:..t:e:?:\".:..2. p:.::):...:..s::.ed as charac-:e:?:\".:..st:.:..cs of a successfu~ ~agr:.ec School ?:!:\"og::::-a~. 2. ':'he superv.:..so:?:\"y or \"overseer\" :?:\"ole of c::e i\"!agr:.e-: ~e,1::.ew Corn.'T,.:..t:t:ee is consist:ent with the direcc.:..ons of :::--.e cour::. 3. ~he percept.:..ons of t:he chree relevant: ~agnec sc~cc: populac.:..or:.s, i.e. ceachers, students, 2.nd parer:::s are that t:hey understand and agree to the exis::.ence of ::he philosophy of the magnet cheme and the polic.:..es ar:d practices of the magnet school operacions . 4. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet: school populatior:.s, i.e . teachers, students, and parencs are that resource allocations are equitable and adequace for promoting the magnet school theme and ~ain::.ain.:..~g a safe, sound educational program. 5. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet school populations, i.e. teachers, students, and parents are that the staff and leadership of the magnet schools are energetic and creative in developing innovative educational programs, and fair and impartial in developing an educational climate conducive to social maturation and high expectations for student achieve~en::.. 6. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet school populat.:..ons, i.e. ceachers, students, and parencs are 64 -............ ~ ..... . . . \"\"' -----------, provides a strcng educational foundaticn l~ the aasl= skills, a.-:lple oppor:c.!nl :.y :or s:.uden\n::s to par:lcl\n:2.te , - t~e magnet :heme classes, and promotes socia: develcpmer:: in a racially-integrated environment. 8. ~he perceptlons of the three relevant ~agnec schoo: populations, i.e . teachers, students, and parents are that parents and community members are actively ir:vclved with the magnet schools. It appears that parents c: elemen:ary school students are more actlve:y involved and receive more information. 9. ~he perceptions of the three relevant nagnet sc~ocl populations, i.e . teachers, students, and parents are that the magnet school programs promote a positive student attitude toward school and c~e scr:ool cc:::.~~~l:y, coward all races and cultures, and coward excellence 1~ student performance. 10. ~he teachers with less teaching experience who are assigned to the magnet school for the first time are somewhat unsure of the interrelationship of the magnet theme curriculwn with the regular curriculum . 65 of t~e magnet :~eme are more suppor:~ve o: :~e sc~co: and t~e educational program than other students. the t~~ee populations within the six ~agnet schools. earned college degrees were more discri~~nato~y perception of the key variables. 66 -= .......... APPENDIX A Jr. :onald E. Wright, Ed.D. Univers_ty of Cenver Specialty Area: Research and Evaluation Experience: 1 years in public schools\n~eacner \u0026amp; Administrator 18 years at Arkansas Stace Universi~y. Professor. Research and Evaluat~on/ Educational Administration Dr. William G. Chance, Ed.D. Oklahoma State University Specialty Area: Curriculum and Instruction Experience: :s years in public schools\nTeacher \u0026amp; Administrator 23 years at Arkansas State University, Professor of Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction, Department Chair Dr. Deborah L. Smith, Ed.D. Vanderbilt University Specialty Area: Research \u0026amp; Evaluation/Cognitive Development Experience: 1 year at Arkansas State University\nAssistant Professor of Education 1 year as Coordinator of federally funded Outreach Program at Vanderbilt University 3 years as research assistant in Inscic te for Mental Retardation and Intellectual Development, John F. Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University 3 years private school teaching experience Dr. Herman W. Strickland, Ed.D. Ball state University Specialty Area: Elementary Education/Cognates in Curr~culum \u0026amp; Instruction and Educational Administration Experience: 11 years in public schools\nTeacher \u0026amp; Administrator 3 years Educational Director, Mississippi county Summer Headstart 16 years at Arkansas state University, Professor of Measurement \u0026amp; Evaluation, Director of Professional Education Programs 67 APPENDIX B ?urcose a: ~valuat~on: :eter:::1:-:e 1.:: se:ec:ed ~ey ~ariacles exis: a~a ~e\nree cf s ppor: :or sc~oo: :~e~e. r:. uestionnaire: A. Groups for data collection: 1 r'aculty: Al: sea:: :::e:-r..oers 2. Students: All grades 4-12 3. ?arencs: All parents :-12 Jata Collect~on: ?acul:y A. Jistrloute advanced ~nfor~ation 2.etter :o facul:1 . 3. Admi::.1.s ter :acul :y q'..!es t1or.:1aires\npre.::er c\nrou:) admin.istrat.ion. C. Date for completion: D. Return procedures: :t _s recommended :~at :~e building principal have a faculty represenca:ive. or building secretary, collect :he completed for~s. place in large envelope, seal envelope and await the pick-up from a representative of the MRC. IV. Data Collection: Students A. Advise faculty of date and ti~e for questlcnna.1.re administration. (Prefer all students ln a scnool complete the instrument at the same tl~e.) B. Absentees: The teachers should keep enougn blank forms (and parent forms) so that eacn aDsen: student and his/her parent will have an opportun.1.:y to participate in the survey. It is suggested :hat these forms be professionally processed :~rougn c~e principal's office to the MRC. (Maybe a:low one week for all absentees to complete.) c. Student return procedures: The completed questionnaires from each classroom wil_ be returned to the princ.ipal's office in a large envelope. Keep these envelopes in the office unt.1._ picked up by a representative of the MRC. D. Date for completion: v. Data Collection: Parents The parent questionnaires with stamped. addressed, return envelopes will be mailed directly to the parents by the MRC. The parent questionnaires should be returned directly to the MRC, however. in the event some are returned to the teacher, with or without the envelope, please handle in a professional confidential manner and ~ail :o the MRC. 68 \n:. ?ri:::c.:.\nals' Assisc.ar.ce: A. ~ac.erials needed: ... . Nwnber of faculc.y advanced i,.for:naci.Qr-. :..e:.:.ers equal :.c c.:-.e :::c:..7-ber o:: ::ac'..11 :.1 ::le!!'.bers :::.. ~s c.en. \u0026gt;lumber of fa.c:'..11 ty ques t:..:.or.naires equal :.:-.e r:wnner of faculi:y memoers plus :.er:. Number of sc.\"J.::ienc. quest:.:..::nr.aires equal :..:: s c.udenc. memners::.:.p\n)lus :.wen:.y. 4. ~en :arge manila envelo~es and :.wenc.y s:.~=\ned , addressed, recur:: envelc~es. 8. ?rocedures: 1. Cause faculty advance in:crmat:.:.on le:.c.er :.0 be disc.ribuc.ed ac. earliesc. opporc.~nity. 2. ?rovide a forum or equal opport~r.ic.y whereby each faculty member may receive a quesc.ionnaire, respond c.o it and file for return wic.hout fear of violac.ion of anonymity. 3. Sec. a dace and ti~e and i:::form teachers t~at this time is designac.ed to adminisc.er c.~e sc.udenc. quesc.ionnaires. The student quesc..:.onnaires will be disc.r~buc.ed to c.~e teacher or teacher's classroom. C. Collecc.ing rec.urns: 1. The principal's office is the central collecc.ion poinc. for c.he complec.ed facult1 and sc.udenc. quesc.ionnaires. 2. All data muse. be collecc.ed and housed in such a manner c.hac. professional inc.egrity will be exemplified. 3. Work cooperac.ively with all faculty and sc.udenc.s c.o obtain comolec.ed questionnaires from each and every one if they were unaole to comply on c.he set date and/or time. D. Forwarding Responses to MRC: 1. Inform the MRC of dates for picking up completed: A. Faculty Questionnaires 8. Studenc. Quesc.ionnaires 2. Inform c.he MRC of dace for picking up additional complec.ed quesc.ionnaires from absenc.ees. 69 APPENDIX C : 8L .... E::= : c =: 1...:C\n.. TION :)FF'CE :)F EDUCA71CNAL\n::::\nsEA\n:\nc --1 3,. SE::\nVICES \"' 0 EGX 940 STATE UNIVE\"SiTY A\n:1KAN SAS - : ~6iC9~0 -Ei...E?rONE o0' 972 ~2  - ,C ' ,ES3CPO -:1 ~.e :V!agr:e:. ?.. e,11.e1r1 -::: :r.. rn:..:.:.2e l..S cc:-:d1,.\n.c:.:..::\n-:::e :.:--.. ::. :.:.,=._ evaluatio:-. ::::.: ::-.e !:'.2.gnet\nroqram .:..:::. your sc::col c!:.o .,e :-.eea 1our assis:a::ce. =n order :o ga.:..:: a fu_l ~::ders:2.::c.:..::g o: eacn program. we are seeKing t~e opinions o: a:l s:ar.: mew~ers, scucents (grade 4 and up), and parents. ~te process ttac we have selected to obca.:..n ::hese opinions _s wi::t anonymous responses to a quesc.:..onnaire. process t~at we need your help. ::t lS wit:1 :::-. .:..s Will you p:ease assist us with the following items: 1. Your pri::~ipal will distribute a questionnaire for a:l facul::, to complete. Wil_ you please complete t ~e quesc.:..onnaire candidly and objec::.:..vely, and recur:: as directed by your pr.:..nc.:..pal. ?lease respond to a_: _:ems. ~ On a dace and :::.me selected by your pr.:..nc.:..pal, Ni:: Jou please nave your students in grades 4 t~rougn :2 :.:..:: out the questionnaires in class. ~ake sure ctey ~::ders::and that there are no \"right\" or \"wrong\" answers. ?lease provide any help needed with reading. ?lease place :::e completed questionnaires in the same large envelope i n which you received them, seal it and return i: to the princ.:..pal's office. Please imoress che s::uden:s wit::. :~e impor::ance of answer.:..ng all ques c.:..cns. (Please :-:eep enougn forms for aosencees and retur:: these t o t::e princ.:..pal's office for return to the MRC. ) J. en t~e same date that the students comple:e t~eir quest.:..onnaires, will you please remind :~e students co have their parents answer all questions. 70 II envelope from your pr~~c~pal, and\n~:=eec wic~ =~e ::.ai.:...:..::-.g process. Your princi~al wi.:...:.. =~rtner explain any procedures you~= r.=: =~.:...:..y unders=and and infor::l you of cje daces and =1=es :=r complecinq, colleccing, and d.:..sseminacing a.:...:.. =~e quesc~onna1res. ?lease return any unused ==r~s wi=h =~e completed ones. :: you need additional for::.s, er.velcpes. ecc., please c~ecK with your principal. 1::-.:luence or. c:e school progra~\n:~erefore, obcainir.g obJecc~~e responses :=8~ each memoer o: all :jree groups is cr1t~cal :or quali=y recommenaac1ons . ~he evaluacion team has caken every precaution co conduce a bias-free scudy, please assis= ~s wich C~lS ef:orc. Sincerely, Donald E. Wright, Director Of:ice of Educacional Researc~ \u0026amp; Serv1ces Arkansas Scace University 71 APPENDIX D ~ROM : RE : DATE : lv1agnet Review Committee 22nd and Poolar r. o. Box 687 :---.:onh L1ttle Rock, Arkansas 72115 E'otem:ial .::l.pplicants ':t'DJ1 1 .'1agnet Review Commi ttee1r~ M Ql Researcn and Evaluation Subcommittee Request :or Proposal to Develop an Evaluation Instrument ~overnber 10, 1987 The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) is pleased to announce the availability of funds to implement Phase I of t~e Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation ProJect. This will entail: l. meeti~g and conferring with representntives from the Magnet Review Committee, 2. development of an approved instrument, 3. training selected personnel on administration of the instrument, 4. analysis and interpretation of data, 5. a written report. Items l., 2., and 3. should be completed on or before February 1, 1988. Completion dates for activities 4. and 5. will be determined by the Magnet Review Research/Evaluation Subcommittee and the grantee, but should be completed ~o later than May 1, 1988. The overall purpose of the evaluation project is to evaluate all magnet schools: to determine i: key variables are in place and to what degree, - to provide information to internal and external constituencies about the potential impact of the variables upon the operation of the magnet schools, 72 - to ?rov1de l~~or~at10~ to t~e mag~et school s:a~~ a~d t~e dlstrl=: ~~= l~provement. ~o achieve the 1n1tial goals and objectives of this evaluation proJect, t~e applicant ~ust demonstrate t~e ability to develop an instrument to evaluate the mag~et schools to determine i: the following key variables exist and to what degree they are supportive of t~e school t~eme: l. ?hilosophy, Policy, Practices 2. Parent and Community Involvement 3. Resource Allocation 4. Staffi~g and Leadership 5. Instruct1.on 6. Program 7. Student Outcomes. AVAILAaILITY OF FUNDS The maximum available amount of $3,500 will be funded for this proJect. The funds will be awarded in two installments. The first installment will be given at the mid poi~t of the project, and the second installment will be given at completion of the project. APPLICATION CONTENT The application should contain the following information: 1. assurances 2. expected outcomes 3. methodology 4 . quality of personnel 5. references 6. budget summary. 73 ~ach ap?li=ation will be reviewed by the Maanet Review Researc:1 : E':aluac.. on Subcommi t-:ee. ?inal se lect:.on a nd noti~:.cat:. o n will b e co~plete 1 on o r about De ce~ber 8 , 1 ?8 7. APPLICATIO~ DE~DLINE i\\pplications must be postmarked by December l, 198 7. Applications received in the mail and post~arked after December l, 1987 will not be considered for fundinq. Applications hand-delivered must be delivered by 4:30 p.m. on December 1, 1987. An original application and three (3) c opies should be :nailed to: Donna Grady Creer Magnet Review Committee P. O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 or hand-delivered to: Donna Grady Creer Magnet Review Committee 22nd and Poplar North Little Rock School District Administration Annex Room 105 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Questions regarding the application should be directed to Donna Grady Creer at 758-3545. ,\\1agnet Revieiv Co1n1nittee ::2nd and Poplar P o. Box 087 :'forth Little Rock. Arkansas 7:115 CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the Magnet Review Committee and the Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, ~rkansas State university. ~he Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, Arkansas State University agrees to prov1ae services as outlined in the proposal submitted Decer.~er l, 1987. ~he Maanet Review Committee agrees to compensate the above office up to $3,500 for services rendered. These services should be accomplished on or about May 15, 1988. Dr. Donald Wright, Di~or Office of Educational Research and Services College of Education Arkansas State University \u0026amp;j'/ Lta, onna Grady Creer, E~ut1ve ~agnet Review Comm1tt\"ee ~~/ Marcra Harding, Chairp'son Magnet Review Co::unittee Martha Nelsen, Director Pulaski County Educational Cooperative 75 APPENDIX E ::::::?,.::c:-:-:\n!'IS ~eaa eacn -~ ~~e scatements very carefu::1, ~nd -ji-~-~ tcw ~uc~\nou agree er t~sagree with each scate~en~ ~s~~g c~e ~=::owing scale: SA if you Strongly Agree A if you Agree D if you Disagree SD i: you Strong~y Disagree PLEASE ?LlT AN ( X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR C~OICE SA I A I o !so 1~101 6. I support the identified instruct~ onal goals and objectives of this school. 7. Parents are act~vely involved and .-----.----,.-----.------. make constructive suggestions for 12 1326 1133166 I this school. .__ ________ ._ _ _..__~ __ __,_ 8. ~his scnool has clearly stated, writ~en student and personnel policies. 9. There is a strong sense of belonging in this school among staff ~embers and students. 10. I have time to plan lessons, work 1 1 1 I with my students, check their60 8757 18 ja work, and provide feedback. '-----~----......_ _ __, 11 . I have a variety of multicultural teaching materials to support my instructional efforts. 12. students exhibit a positive attitude toward school under the magnet program. 76 io :--23-2 I\n~:, .~. I _::,._ J ~J . 'f,. Ir'\\ I .., -..I 1 - ~ . - a_.r'!l c.,......~-c. ~ ---~~ \"r:_ :.r.. :: :-. e p::::-og::::-a'TI c\n8a. __ s a ~.~ o:::: ect::..\nes : c :- :.~.:. s I :.J 2 19 : 12 ,J , - ::-:agr.ec .:c.::.:::c _. ~4. -- ~ece2.. / e ac:::..\ne support: =.nd co- c~e:r=.1:.:..::-:--. ::-:::::n rho pa~e!!t:S o::: :-r'.y 162 I :_4\n_ , i~ i.... .... - s :.-~cer. t. .s . :.. s. -:'::ere :. 3 pcs:..:::..le, C:1:-..a11ic, C!!d 2...:1novac.1../e .:.r:s ~r:..:c :.:.~:--.. al .:...eader- 199 II - \"\" 5 2 \"1' ' 2 sr:.:..p :. :1 ::~.:..s sc:1001. :6. ':'!\"le part:.::::.. pa c:..::g sc::ool d.:..strict:s are _ t.\nppor t:. \ne o ::: t::e f'.1.agnet\n):CO- !29 I :. :4 164 I:. 3 I :..o I grarri. at: ::.::1.s school. :.. 7. ::1-serv::.ce programs a:-e available . ..., -\n:'.'f sc:wol. .-1nicr. rela::e c:.:-ec ::.:... y 17 3 :..:9 IL 3 4 ::o ~~e c::eme and purpose of 1::-ll S magnet: school. :..s. - - =..'Tl fa..111.1.:.2.r Witt the i.::for:::iat1.cn j:os I LJ 3 2 14 in che scaff handbook. 19. ~embe:-s of t!:.e communicy (other t:han parents) are actively 138 1-23 163 12 14 involved in this scnool. i:.48 j67 Is I I 20. -- would like to teach in th.:..s 1: / 9 school r.ext year. 21. 'I'his school provides a strong edu-cat:.. onal foundation in t:~e basic 1134 js7 3 13 ' J s lnlls. 22. I have adequate access to resource personnel to promote the magnet jsJ 1120 J21 14 12 theme in this school. 23. :nformation about the magnet school program is widely dis- 165 23 137 J2 13 seminated in the community. 24. Security arrangements in this school provide adequate safety 184 21 J 19 14 12 for the students and personnel. 25. The teachers in this school are 1101 1119 14 13 13 fair in dealing with students. 77 -::-33-3 28 . 29. 30 . ~~~e~~e~==~~~s~i~ o: ~~e regular .:::\"-- ,... ,,_ .. ~ a:1d t~e ::.agr.e:: c:--.eme. ~~ere are er..:::ugh d~::erer.t cc~rses o::: :::2rea -\n:.:-.e mag:.e\n: ::.:-.eme. ~Y classes are of an appropr~ate size co accc~plish ::.::e speci:~c goals o: t~e magnet: sc~col. ~here ~s ~o racial :ension amor.g cte staf:::. Students ~ave a~ple opportunity co parc~cipate ~r. classes and/or act~~~t~es\n:~at reflect the ::-.agr.e t: ::.::eme . In II .- u' '4 j120 1100 la 31. ~agnet :~eme classes do noc ~ncer- jo6 1125 130 fere wit~ the basic curr~culum. 32. I a,~ familiar with the student recru~t:~ent procedures for this school. 33. T~ere are enough different academic courses in this school. I .:::- I ~ I 'J I\" I J JS I I\n. I jo 12 j3 34. The facil~c~es are adequace for .---------.------,---, the acccmplishement of chis js1 1122 148 18 I- school's goals and objectives. ._ _____ _._ _____ ____ 35. Communication systems are open and ~--~-----,---......,...-----, ongoing between administrators, j83 j 110 129 is j 3 staff, scudents, and parents. ._ _____ _._ ______ ___, 36. Classroom procedures in this school support the dignity of all racial groups. 37. This school gives students a unique educational experience. 38. The Magnet Review Committee is supportive of the program at this school. 78 41. ~~asses by p~rc~=~pac~~~ ~n ~agnec :~eme c:asses er ac:~~~=~es. : :ee: :~ac :ne ~agr.ec prograr.i. ~elps s~~Ce~cs :~ :~~c~~~~ e::ec~~ vely ~n a rac~a::1-in:egraced c.:..assr::::::::,m . ~eacr.ers ~n :~~s scnoo: ~ave h~gh expec:acions :or c~eir s:~dencs. 79 s: l ~': / 'J I' j 93 122 I lOO I :. :.s I 3 Studenc ?crm: S-88 ~eac eacn c: c~e scatemencs ~ery care:~l:y, a~d '-~-~=-~ ~=w ~~c~ you agree or disagree wich eacn s:ace~e~: ~s.:.~g =~e ::ol.:.owing scale: Ylark Ccl'...:. .1. 1.n SA A i D i SD : you Strongly Agree you Agree you Disagree f you Strongly Disagree ?LEASE ?UT AN ( X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR C~OIC2 I STUDENTS SA A 8. : know and understand the rules 1832 /1222j109 /21 / 17 that govern this school.     9. My parents are actively involved 1314 1911 1765 j201/10 in this school. ::.o. ~eachers ~se many kinds of mater-, ials that deal with different 410 1848 1575 j298j70 rac.:.al groups. . . __ ?eople in my school are friendly. 1486 112561285 j156j -8 _2_ My teachers check my work and 1678 /1025,369 j116j13 tell me how I am doing. . .  13. I enJoy being a student in this 1874 /964 j207 i139j17 school. . . . 14. I chose to attend this school because of my interest in its magnet theme. 15. My classes are the right size for special theme activit.:.es. 80 1744 1754 1467 j223113 j527 j1146,J87 1116125 j S-58-2 SA I '\"'- -~  _ ~~ ~e~r~~~: SO~e:~~~\nC8~necc- ~-----------ad wi=~ =~e ~agr:ec =~e~e ~~ mos: JsJ4 i::391,- - :J : !:? o :: -::-.y c2.3.SSeS. cicn ::..~ c~e s=~den=\nparent !\"landbccK. :s. ~emners of t~e cc:-:',mur.::..cy (other than parents) o fcen telp with school ~rcgra.'Tls ar:d ac::::..nt::..es . :9. T~e pr::..nc::..pal ~n this school is fair. 2 l. ~h~s sc ~col provides a s::rcng bacKgrouno 1~ a.:...:.. =~e basic skil2.s. : am able co work well i~ a classroom made p of di=terent r:.ces. 22. This sctool ~s a safe place to be. 14 30 !ass joo7 1711 1975 I !273 17 61 I   ~ o I ...,   - - J ~ -\"'%. !11921859 192 ls58 I L301340 ll ~-----\n,-,'::.,:\n1 ..,J :~ :4 128 156 I-:\" '-V I lo :s 1:.48125 23. Most students of different races ~-----r---,----~ get along well with each other 1675 l ::42 !261 1- 7 J26 I at th::..s school. 24. ~Y teachers explai~ things clear- !: ly, and I know wnat ttey expect js 99 - 84 j387 1-88123 me to do. L--____ __\n__ _____ _J 25. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet 1791 1934 13:8 l:2sl33 I school. 26. : would l~ke to attend a magnet school next year and would also 19 36 1685 127s j2 s9 j45 encourage my friends to attend. 27. There are no racial problems be-tween the students and people 1560 19 62 14 69 I:. 74 I 36 who work here. 81 .3-38-3 SA I ~ I J i ~J 1 ~ 1  1 _.,_ = :::ave :.:..::-.e ::::\n::::arr.:..::::..\n::2-ce .:..:\n7agnet :::eme ::: _2.sses a::d\n~ r 1:.:4 :J i3:..9 1:.::-i i 2s I : 3. ~eac~ers :'.'.:..s sc~~ol ex\n::ec: l 1::.83 I S:, I J4 1 :.a :cuce:::s :~ co c::e:..r =esc. 2J . ::emcers c :: al~ races ::ave p:aces of i~porc3nce in my bcoxs and 1767 j :.:26 j _34 163 / 61 I c2.assroom ac:.:..vit:.:..es.  ~ 1. ?art:.:..cipac:.ng i :1 magnet: c:-.eme classes or acc:1. vi cies does nee 1864 1991 1224 j s7 13s :-iurt: \"'Y grades. ~.., :'::e SC:'.OOl :::ic:ilding lS sat:.:..sfact- \\458 19 53 1436 1274130 c ry ::o:::- =..:.1 classes. 3 3. '!'he t:eacr:.e:rs in t:his school are 1460 I :os7 I 386 12s8j40 fair. 34. Jid you understand all quest~ons of this quest:..onnaire? YES l724 NO 429 M/0 47 If NO, which quest:ion(s) did you -oi:: ~nderstanc? ~ight of ~he thirty-three quest:ions were listed. Ten of the 2201 st:udent:s surveyed did not: underscand one of the questions. 82 ~,-.~ ,,-...r,.T' ._. ,._ .... -..,v...J ~e ac eac~ o: :~e s:atements very carefully, and ~~dica:e now ~~en you agree or aisagree wi~h eacn statement. ~s1.ng :ne ~~.:..:..:r1i!\":g sca.:.e: :1ark C.:::li.:...-nn SA i: you s:rcc~ly Agree A 1.: '/OU Agree J 1.: you Jisagree SD 1.: you Stro~gly Disagree ?LE.ASE ?U~ -~~ (X) :N T~S C8LUMN OF YOUR C~OIC2 I SA I A I D lsJ IM\noi :o. I know and understand the rules 1716 Jass 149 112 j14 I that govern t:iis school. 11. I am actively involved in this I 2n I 927 1365 165 142 I school. 12. Transportation to this school 1563 1836 I 138 1106133 is satisfactory for my child. I :J. ?ersonnel in this school are 1715 1817 1102 !29 ju I friendly. 14. ~y child's teachers check as- signed work and lets my child 1758 1753 j 116 127 12 2 know how he or she is doing. 15. !he magnet program in this 1699 1769 1141 145 122 school meets my expectations. 16. My child has a positive attitudejso2 1714 1110 135 J1 s I toward school. 17. I am acquainted with what this 1695 1876 ja1 i 14 I 10 I school is trying to accomplish. 18. School personnel are cooperativej763 1796 175 j28 114 I when dealing with me. 19. There is energetic and creative 1680 Jao2 1117 137 140 I leadership in this school. 83 I I SA ?-33-2 :::J. ~=~a_:y ~nders=an~s ~e ~ ~ s~e ~s Goi~g. = :: .. :n - =....,-   :~ .-nt::-. :::e .:..:-.:::ir- :nar.:.cn ___ ::-.e s r.'\"c.enr.1\n:arenr. :--.anc..::::co.'\u0026lt;. - i - :1e!!lDers o:: ::-:e cc:r_-:-_ .: .:..r.y (ct.her :nan s:~c.enr.s' parenr.s) are ac- 1~90 IB44 1~32 j82 :~81 cively :.~vo:ved int.his scnool. ~~e pr.:..nc.:..~al is fair in working\\618 \\88 4 177 with sc~dent:s and parent:s.  1 1 ~ Jo I 6:.. 24 . This school provides a strong j 1 educat:ional ::oundacion for t:he781 1785 js1 I 15 I 14 basic sk.:..2._s. :5. ~Y child f~ncr.:.ons well in a racially-.:..nr.egrat:ed classroom. :6. ~he community is aware of t:his \\360 1941 J2s 5 132 Jsa school's magnet: program. 27. 28. 29 . JO. Security arrangement:s in this ~--~----,.---~---~ school provide safety for 1344 !1019\\114 144 19 5 students and personnel.  The teachers in this school are \\435 l1021j141 121 146 :ai::::- ... .i dealing with students. ~Y child's teachers explain ~--~--\"\"\"T\"\"--~----, things c2.early and let: my cnild 1559 19 24 1144 j26 l2 J know wnat is expected.   There are enough dif:erent ~--~--\"\"\"T\"\"--~----, courses offered in the magnet 1576 1896 j1so !26 !2s theme. . .  J __ I want my child to attend a magnet school next: year. 32. There is no racial tension be- \\s60 1899 !112 120 \\e s tween the staff and parents. -  33. ~Y child has ample opportunity to parcicipate in classes and/ 1627 j s96 \\112 11 4 127 1 or activit.:..es that: reflect the   magnet: theme. 84 SA I A I D I SJ l ~ / O! ?-:38-3 34. ~v c::i!d benef~:s ~r~:n :~e 2 5. 36. 37. :-::~l r.:. -e ::::::.:.2 er:.,12.~~r...rr.en t:\n:::::-::::,vided ~Y :::is sc::col. ~~e recr~i:~ent procedures ~ro-vided ~e wich enougn i::~or~aci=:: 1492 : 97 I :_33 to make a c~oice aoout enro!:i::g~-----------my c~i!d in a magnet sc::col. : would encourage other parents to sena their cnildren to a :nagnet sc::ool. j sso 16,o In 27 I 27 : thir.k this school's materials. 1 equipment. and personnel are705 17 59 j 137 126 j 49 equal to or better than that of '-----'------....:.,_ ___ ___. most area scnools. 38. Teachers in this school have high expectations for their students. 1766 1779 Js2 1:.4 135 39. The materials and procedures in my child's classes support the js26 1929 j1os 127 ls6 dignity of all racial groups. I 40. I receive information about ac-tivities at my child's magnet 1492 1818 !257 ls1 l2s school in plenty of ti:ne to attend. 41. I enrolled my child in this 1789 1680 j 142 p school because of its specific j :9 136 magnet focus. 42. The magnet theme does not inter-I fere with my child's success in778 1809 147 j 1a !24 :earning the basic skills. 43. I feel at ease working with people of other races in 1794 !sos \\3s I j_9 123 school-related activities. 85 I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas State University. College of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1477","title":"'Schools Laws of Arkansas, 1987 Supplement,'' Arkansas Department of Education","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1987"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Standards","School administrators","School buildings","School districts","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Student activities","Teachers","Retirees--Arkansas","School board members","Employee rights","Dropouts","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["'Schools Laws of Arkansas, 1987 Supplement,'' Arkansas Department of Education"],"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/1477"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["156 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_798","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, decision, 805 F.2d 815","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":["1986-11-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School districts","Civil rights--Arkansas","African Americans--Segregation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, decision, 805 F.2d 815"],"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/798"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_173","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1986-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count"],"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/173"],"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\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS _.rRACIALC OUNT AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1986 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSE XCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Amboy 182 144 326 44.2% Argenta 93 90 183 49.2% Baring Cross 6 8 14 57.1% Belwood 66 49 115 42.6% Boone Park 232 237 469 50.5% Crestwood 125 89 214 41. 6% Glenview 129 81 210 38.6% Indian Hills 228 142 370 38.4% Lakewood 138 83 221 37.6% Lynch Drive 115 155 270 57 .4% Meadow Park 124 120 244 49.2% North Heights 226 112 338 33.1% Park Hill 133 65 198 32.8% Pike View 179 169 348 48.6% Pine 109 78 187 41. 7% Redwood 154 122 276 44.2% Rose City 110 81 191 42.4% Seventh Street 163 134 297 45 .1% TOTALS 2,512 1,959 4,471 43.8% ~ . - NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS 'RACIAL COUNT . , AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1986 BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Baring Cross (secondary students) 10 25 35. ' 71. 4% SUBTOTALS -w ~ 35 71. 4% SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 453 263 716 36.7% Lakewood 349 121 470 25.7% Ridgeroad 338 271 609 44.5% Rose City 266 172 438 39.3% SUBTOTALS 1,406 827 2,233 37. 0% Northeast 775 301 1,076 28.0% Ole Main 659 417 1,076 38.8% SUBTOTALS 1,434 718 2,152 33.4% SECONDARTYO TALS 2,850 1,570 4,420 35.5% ELEMENTARTYO TALS (excluding kindergarten) 2,512 1,959 4,471 43.8% DISTRICT TOTALS (excluding kindergarten) 5,362 3,529 8,891 39.7% . . t\\l.,\nI Ll.'-\\L r.!1KULU1r.l1J !)f tV-\\1..,C i : October l , 1%6 B = Black W = White ,I -0 - Others - .F.::: :. Schoo1 Year: 1986-87 JUNIORH IGH.SCHOOLS . Uncr aded GRADE7 r.ilADE R I GRADE 9 Sub-Total Sub lis1.- ._Kinderqarten r.DANn TnTAI \u0026gt;-- 0 Tota I %,131. S C H O O L J,J B 0 ' w' B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 Tot ..... W 'B '  O  w B ' Dunbar 47 121 1 53 125 1 68 119 1 168 365 3 536 68 --- ---- --- 168 365 3 536 f\n:1 Forest Heights 36 187 1 38 198 0 53 175 3 127 560 4 691 81 --- ---- --- 127 560 4 691 81 Henderson 2 5 0 87 135 3 94 157 4 100 177 4 283 474 11 768 62 --- ---- --- 283 474 11 768 62 Mann 66 279 6 62 253 6 59 232 2 187 764 14 965 79 --- --- 187 764 14 965 79 Pulaski Heights 89 136 0 77 168 3 106 140 3 272 444 6 722 61 --- ---- --- 272 444 6 722 61 , i South~1est 54 181 3 65 159 5 55 144 2 174 484 10 668 72 --- ---- --- 174 484 10 668 72 i I\nTOTAL 2 5 0 379 1039 14 389 1060 19 441 987 15 1211 3091 48 ~350 71 --- ---- --- 1211 / 3091 48 4350 71 I - I I I I I i : I ': I i I I i ! ! ' I I I I ! I ' i I .. - I j : - -.~ - ~ - - - . - - ~ -- ~--: ::\n- - :\n. ~ -- ':'.\"'-\n:~-\n-\" - - - - . = .. --:~ \"~- - ~-\n:c .. .. .. OCTOBE1R, 1986 B = Black W = White ACTUAELt lROLLMENBYT RACE 0 - Others SPECIAi SCHOOLS\" ,. School Year: 1986-R? Unoraded GR A.DE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 11 Sub-Total Sub %Bl. ~Kinderoarten r.oti.tm TnTAI % Bl. I S C H O O L .__ \\,/ P. 0 \\-I P. 0 w I R 0 w B 0 w B 0 Tot :,,oKb w B n w B u 1ota1 .,\nith K i Easter Seal ! I I Francis Allen 1 2 1 2 3 66 1 2 3 66 I Fullerton 1 1 1 100 I 1 1 100 I JacKson county i Learning Center Pathfinder 2 ? 2 llnn 2 I 2 10n 1Pai?16~~dy Center I ! I n, T--- . - I c I Frankie Dennie - - United C. P11lsv ! ! ! I I I TOTAL I '' 1 5 .o I 1 5 0 6 R4 1 \" 0 I 6 A4 ' ' ' I I i I I I ' I i I ! I i *Handicaooed Schools ' ' I I i i j I\n' ' I I - i I' ! ' i ! I .. . ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE -- .. - OCTOBER 1 , 1981 6 B = Black w .= White - . o - Others Schoo 1 Year: 1986-87 HIGH SCHOOLS Uncraded Gr.ADE 10 GRADE 11 GRADE 12 Sub-Total ~~~. lis1..J-Kn\nd _e_r:art\nn f,RANO TOTAi H O O L 181. - S C w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 I W ! B 0 w B 0 Total Central 297 530 13 277 325 12 248 326 9 82? l lRl _3_4 2!131 58 11 'il 0 . 822 1232 \u0026lt;II 2088 59 Hall 209 269 :! 1 qi:\nlQ/\n:! l'il nn :! 555 i:\nqi:\n_g_ _ll5_9_ ...5__l 2:! 2 0 578 597 9 1184 50 : Parkview 9] 276 1 99 231 4 101 244 3_ ?Ql 7,\n1 ~ 1050 72 7 14 0 298 7r:.r:. 8 1071 _n Metr\np~l itan 3 16 0 3 16 0 19 84 3 16 0 19 -84 TOTAL .. \"\u0026lt; 1i\nn 5_9__1Z07 _5 17 i:\n71 7'i? lQ i:\nnn 700 15 11671 ?i:\n11-i 51 4265 60 30 67 n Inn, ?/\nln 51 4362 60 ! I ! I I I I I I I I i I\n' ! i !\nI I ' i' i I'\nI i I ! ! I i I ! I 1- : I I I I I I I I ' I I I I i i I I I' ' .. - ' ' .--- ACTUAEL~ ROLLMEBNYTR ACE .. .  B = Black OCTOBE1R , 1986 W = White .. . 0 - Others School Year: 1986-/37 INTERMEDIASTCEH OOLS Unc raded I G_f18_D4 E GRADE 5 GRADE 6 Sub-Total Sub lrn1,)_ Kinderqarten f.RANn TOTAi ~ %Bl. S C H O 0 L w B 0 w R 0 w R 0 w 8 0 w R 0 Tot. w R   0 . w R n Iota 1 Booker 4 28 0 77 _fil 2 61 107 \u0026lt; 71 R1 2 ?l'i ?Q7 7 519 'i7 --- ---- 215 297 7 'i1Q 57 ---- Franklin 26 86 ? llA '11 6 32 7R 4 102 2'i'i 1? 369 fiQ 1 /\n? n 105 317 12 434 7, Garland 8 11 1 17 7'i ? 1A Ill ? 15 81 2 58 ?llR 7 313 79 0 60 1 58 308 8 374 82 Gibbs 2 86 0 0 87 0 2 82 0 4 255 0 259 98 0 49 0 4 304 0 308 99 Pulaski Heights 31 90 1 34 95 1 27 97 1 92 282 3 377 75 3 10 0 95 292 3 390 75 Rockefeller 8 99 1 ? Q1 1 2 /:\nQ 1 1? ?\u0026lt;\nQ 1 ?71 Q\u0026lt;\n2 125 0 14 \"lQ\"l 1 400 96 Stephens 17 71 0 30 61 0 20 58 1 67 190 1 258 74 0 48 0 67 238 1 306 78 llashington 29 56 0 12 54 2 13 60 0 54 170 ! 2 226 75 0 45 0 54 215 2 271 79 : I I Total I I 12 39 1 207 644 8 201 667 15 184 605 11 604 1955 35 2594 75 8 399 1 612 2354 36 3002 I 78 I I I' I I ' I i i I -- ! ' I I i I ! I : I ! ' TOTAL . . . ,,,._, I U.-\"'\\L Llil,UL.Li'il:.11 \\ UI Kl\\l.,t OCTOilE1R , 1986 I ELEMENTARY I W: White i B = Black - 0 = Other Scbool Year\n1986-87 ' ' Ungraded Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 yS-U- B-TOT. - Kindergar. GRANTDG TAl -- w w w w w w .w yJ \\~ O 'To~a\nB B B B B B B B Sub B . B SCHOOL 0 0 Q,' 0 0 0 0 0 . Total %BL. 0 %S.L 2 17 7 6 14 11 14 71 12 83 I Ba 1 e 12 60 45 37 41 46 34 275 62 337 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 349 79 5 8 428 79 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 3 - -- Carver 67 80 66 59 52 57 381 71 452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 99 0 0 455 99 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Ish 8 69 37 50 57 51 45 317 43 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 100 0 0 362 99 6 5 2 2 2 !) c2 4 c6 King 80 63 49 59 44 43 338 37 375 2 1 2 2 4 0 11 371 91 3 14 415 90 Mitchel 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 73 60 44 49 49 41 316 46 362 n n n n n n n Cl1A QQ n n Clf\n4 qq 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 Rightsell 79 61 48 51 39 38 316 50 366 0 0 1 0 0 , 1 2 320 qq 0 ? ,7n QQ 12 13 11 9 13 9 67 16 83 Romine 69 83 52 65 61 56 386 80 466 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 456 85 1 4 i\n,\nci A4 34 32 21 20 21 24 [52 20 172 Western Hills 26 24 29 25 20 27 151 21 172 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 ,n~ \u0026lt;\nO n ? ~AC ~n 33 36 34 31 28 38 l?QQ 200 Wil 1 iams 39 39 35 36 40 37 226 ---------- 226 0 1 3 2 1 2 . . . 9 . .. 435 52  q ll,~ \u0026lt;\n? ' 32 22 16 13 9 17 i109 10 119 Wilson 47 54 44 41  41 47 274 40 314 2 0 0 o 1 1 4 387 71 0 4 4,7 I 7? .. 2 36 117 91 89 86 108 629 63 692  , TOTAL- ., 20 609 '546 454 483 443 425 2980 450 3430 ,. ' 0 5 3 9 5 7 5 34 . 3643. 82 9 43 4165 82 : ' ' ' ' .. . ACTUAELN ROLLMEBNYTR P,CE : . B:. Black OCTOBElR , 198 6 W = White ... .. 0 - Others PRIMARSYC HOOLS - School Year: 1986-87 Uncr aded G_88_Dl E GRADE 2 I GRADE 3 Sub-Total Sub 1-:m.~-Kinderoarten r,R11Nn TOTAL\n--- XBl. S C H O O L w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w 8 0 Tot. .. W  R '  Q'  ii R 0 1o ta 1 --B-rady 0 3 0 23 _98 1 g QQ n 1i:\ni:\nc:\nn 'ill 254 1 309 8? ?A ?f\nn 78 280 1 .1'i0 78 Fair Park 18 8? _Q ,c:: c::o o q i:\n11 n 42 195 0 237 8? 12 47 1 54 24? 1 ?07 _ru Forest Park 35 78 l 111 /\n? 1 ?\u0026lt;\nC::A 0 94 Jg4 2 290 67 53 18 2 1117 212 4 363 58 Fulbright 3 'i n 18 11g n 19 85 0 11 88 o 51 297 0 348 _B.5 1/\n1/\n0 87 \u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026lt; n 420 79 Jeffe\"rson 4 11 o 711 71 1 55 41 n 42 56 1 175 179 2 'lC::/\ni:\nn 71 4 0 ?II/\n183 2 431 42 - McDermott 31 114 0 27 87 3 2'i qi\n1 83 296 6 1At\n77 45 26 1 128 322 7 457 70 Meadowcliff 38 94 3 29 83 3 .111 7? o 1101 249 6 356 70 1A ?? 1 139 271 7 417 c.65 Terry 55 127 1 36 79 0 11? AQ n 133 295 1 521 I 1 429 69 61 31 n 194 326 63 ! I Woodruff 24 71 0 13 56 3 14 53 0 51 180 3 234 77 17 14 ? 68 214 'i ?A7 7,\nI . ! I I '  1 ' 640 110 I Total I ' !57 7 19 O. 316 854 7 ~41 ?1A 626 4 784 2139 21 2944 73 357 244 7 1141 12383 28 i' 1C::C::? I : i I I I i l I I I I i I I I ' I j I , I . -\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_867","title":"Court filings: District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1986-09-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/867"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_837","title":"Court filings: District Court, stipulation for proposed order on voluntary majority to minority transfers","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":["1986-08-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","School integration","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, stipulation for proposed order on voluntary majority to minority transfers"],"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/837"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_851","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, opinion and dissent, 787 F.2d 372","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":["1986-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Civil rights movements","Civil rights workers","Civil rights--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, opinion and dissent, 787 F.2d 372"],"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/851"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_868","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, findings","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":["1986-01-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","African Americans--Civil rights","African Americans--Education","African Americans--Segregation","Civil rights--Arkansas","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, findings"],"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/868"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":151,"next_page":152,"prev_page":150,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1800,"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}}]}}