{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_774","title":"Tax Finance","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":["2001/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs","Civic leaders"],"dcterms_title":["Tax Finance"],"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/774"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT August 17, 2001 Letters addressed individually to members of the City of Little Rock Board of Directors The purpose of my letter is to express our concerns about the possible formation of Tax Finance Districts within the City of Little Rock. As you know, I assumed the position of Superintendent of the Little Rock School ii- r'zj I A I* I ' '  ' \"'* iumI District h background information, there was nothing in existing files to indicate J' I , - -J -------------- \u0026gt;s.zhitiii^ III VAIQUI ly that any dialogue had taken place between the City and the LRSD with formation of Tax Finance Districts. respect to the This potential area of concern was first brought to my attention by one of my board members, Mr. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus, in turn, contacted Mr. Cy Carney during the rnonth of July and requested a meeting to gather additional information about the City's plans. This was the initial and only conversation that representatives from the LRSD were engaged in with respect to the possible formation of Tax Finance Districts Our purpose in requesting the meeting was to inform City officials that we wanted to be . . . '' ------ wr.vj WII LI lOL VVC vvailicu lu UC dialogue surrounding this issue. To our dismay, our next information Or^/^IIT Tri/^ rx XO .J X^..________ _  i .  ... ___ ' about the proposed tax-zones indicated that the City was scheduled to discuss the five proposed Districts at an agenda meeting on August 14*^. At this juncture, we became quite alarmed, as no one from the LRSD had seen or been a part of any discussion with rooncinT +\u0026lt;- .j r^:_x x_ respect to the proposed Districts. On Tuesday, August 15,1 formally advised Mayor Dailey and City Manager Carney that we have some serious concerns surrounding the formation of the proposed Tax Finance Districts. It is quite evident that the LRSD stands to lose a great deal of revenue if the proposed Tax Finance Districts remain in their present form. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) 324-2012August 17, 2001 Page 2 For your information and perusal, I have listed areas of concern surrounding this issue.  The LRSD will lose all potential grotvth revenue as a result of the establishment of these zones for up to a maximum of 25 years.  The loss of corresponding revenue will have an impact upon our ability to maintain and meet future costs associated with our desegregation plan and court mandates.  The LRSD will also lose state funding as a result of the establishment of these zones. To further explain this phenomenon within our state funding formula, the new property would be a part of our assessed valuation\nthus, the state would assume that we are receiving the property tax on the property, which would result in a reduction in our state aid allocation. This results in a double whammy for the school district. For each $1,000,000.00 in increased Incremental Actual Value (growth in actual value of property captured in a Redevelopment District), the LRSD would lose the following: Loss of Property Taxes: $1,000,000.00 .20 200,000.00 X .034 6,800.00 Actual Value of Property Captured Assessment Rate Assessed Value Operation and Dedicated Mills Tax Loss to the LRSD Loss in State Aid: $200,000.00 X .025 5,000.00 Assessed Value Charge Rate .98 4,800.00 Charge Percentage Loss in State Aid to the LRSD Total Loss to the LRSD on $1,000,000.00 6,800.00 4,800.00 11,600.00 Tax Loss Loss in State Aid Total Loss of Annual Revenue on $1,000,000.00 X $ $ $ $ $ XAugust 17, 2001 Page 3 This example grows exponentially when large projects  X x. 'J\u0026gt; are considered. For example a project with $100,000,000.00 in actual captured value would result in a loss of totS revenue to the School District of $1,160,000.00 annually. ^'J\"as statute talks generally about redevelopment and improvement of blighted areas. Tax Finance Districts used for such redevelopment can be very positive for all concerned. By the same token, I think it is quite evident that the transfer of tax collections from five large Tax Finance Districts would be I rum rive large tax Finance Districts would be more than the LRSD could financially withstand and support, even if the Districts were all proper and all had compelling needs. In summary, we do have serious concerns about the formation of Tax Finance Districts 3n/l thciir ____| r ...... * and their corresponding affect upon the financial well being of the LRSD. I have verbally informed the Mayor and the City Manager that I will not hesitate to recommend to my Board of Directors that interests of the School District. we exercise any and all options to protect the financial Despite the fact that we are on the verge of opening school, __. soon as possible. If you have any questions or need clarification on any\"oHhe information contained herein, please do not hesitate to we are available to meet as contact my office. Sincerely, Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Katherine P. Mitchell, President and on behalf of the Board of Directors Larry Berkley R. Micheal Daugherty H. Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Sue Strickland TKJ/bjg cc: Mayor Jim Dailey Mr. Cy Carney Senator Jim Argue Senator John Riggs Senator Bill Walker Ann Marshall, ODM Mr. Don Stewart Mr. Buddy Sutton Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Clay Pendley Mr. Ray Simon Attorney General Mark Pryor Mr. John Walker, Joshua IntervenorsSchool district brings up concerns as LR discusses new tax-incentive program \"s j BY ELISA CROUCH AND KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock city and school district officials met privately at City Hall on Friday to talk about a voter- approved economic development tax incentive and its potential to stunt school revenues. The 45-minute discussion in the mayors office was prompted by Little Rock School District Superintendent Ken James, who expressed concern earlier this week that the city Board of Directors appeared to be a week away from discussing redevelopment districts without consulting the school district. We need to be actively involved because we are the ones who stand the chance of being the big losers here, James said after the meeting. Mayor Jim Dailey assured James and other school officials that they would be involved. Discussion on proposed boundaries for the redevelopment districts has been dropped from the city boards agenda for Tuesday. Instead, Dailey and city directors will spend time talking in greater depth about how to implement tax increment financing  a program that would create five redevelopment districts in the city and provide tax incentives to corporations and businesses that wish to locate there. Summit Mall, the $150 million shopping center planned for west Little Rock, was not part of the discussion, those involved said. The land that mall developer Simon Property Group acquired to build the mall will likely be included in one of the redevelopment zones, said City Director Michael Keck, who didn't attend the meeting. This cotild mean that Summit Mil will qualify for tax increment financing. None of that is on the table at this moment. Dailey said after the meeting. Dailey added that discussions on how the city will use the tax-incentive tool and who will benefit are preliminary and involve broad policy concepts. Numerous cities across the country use tax increment financing to compete for corporations, businesses and improvement projects. The method puts a cap on a developers or businesss property taxes, as improvements the entity makes to the area increases property values. Any extra property tax revenue that would have been paid because of higher property values See INCENTIVES, Page 11A Bl (1 Il 207 g \"jfT lrr^7\u0026gt;gr^'3KT4\u0026gt;iK?rvig^^ r- \"I?* Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Standing on a Big on Little Rock\" rug, Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter (left) talks with Little Rock School District Chief Financial Officer Don Stewart (center) and School Board member Baker Kurrus after city and school officials met Friday to discuss the city's efforts to attract private investment using tax increment financing. K J . /. \u0026lt;li_i T r * f \\ I  SATURDAY, AUGUST 11.2001  11A I Incentives  Continued from Page 1A would be used to pay any bonds or loans taken out to fund the project. As an example, a redevelopment district would allow a developer to repay bonds used to construct an office tower from the increase in the property taxes as the redevelopment raises land values. Voters approved the method in November, when they supported Amendment 1. While city officials see tax increment financing as a valuable instrument in redeveloping deteriorating areas, like midtowns University Avenue corridor, their counterparts at the School District are concerned about repercussions on their end. \"I think the redevelopment law has the ability to help school districts in the long term, but it also has the potential to cost districts significant amounts of potential tax revenue, said Chris Heller, attorney for the Little Rock School District. i But Heller stopped short of crit- ' icizing the economic development method. If there is a truly blighted area with a declining tax base and that area is converted into a growing, more commercially viable area, I think the redevelopment law has the ability to help school districts in the long term, but it also has the potential to cost districts significant amounts of potential tax revenue.  Chris Heller, attorney for the Little Rock School District that would work to the benefit of all tax entities. For the next several weeks, City Hall officials will be clarifying how to implement tax increment financing, setting boundaries for the redevelopment districts, which will have up to a 25-year life. The city board will hold a public hearing on the district boundaries before approving them. Downtown is one area expected to have its own district, while another is expected to encompass the John Barrow neighborhood in south-central Little Rock. Attorney Jane Dickey, president of the Downtown Partnership, supports the redevelopment district concept, especially for downtown. While we have some redevelopment, we want that to go down Main Street and down Capitol Avenue, said Dickey, who attended Fridays meeting. The School District accounts for 46.4 mills of the citys overall 68.9- mill property tax rate. School officials said they would feel better about the arrangement if they had assurances that theyd be able to increase their revenues within five years or so of when a development's property value increases. If you could develop one of these [tax increment districts] and the revenue from the increased assessment would pay off the infrastructure needs in five years, and then all that money would start coming back to the School District, said Don Stewart, chief financial officer for the district, that might create revenue we never would have gotten had it not been for a tax increment. The longer the tax incentive, the worse it will be for schools, he added. We might be saying uh uh, its not worth it to us. Heller said that without knowing . the specifics of a proposal, its hard to say whether school officials would support it. If theres just a small incremen- , tai benefit, you just have to look at  all the factors. What will the rede-  velopment accomplish and what potential tax growth and how soon would we see that growth, Heller  said. School District officials will watch closely as the city develops tax increment financing but will have no veto power if they dont like the outcome. James said he had met once with Stewart, City Manager Cy Carney and School Board member Baker Kurrus to discuss the citys intent. The tax increment issue is being discussed in the wake of a May 25 order by Pulaski County Chancellor Collins Kilgore directing the state to fix its public education system, which he found to be inadequate, inequitable and in violation of the Ark^sas Constitution. A court has ordered education reform and a lot of politicians have expressed a concern about whether we can afford it, and given that situation you have to look closely at anything you do that can take money from school districts, Heller said. Citys plan likely to cost LR schools i New tax revenues from improvement area containing mall at issue I --------------------- ing more investment in the district, t Rork ritv Micha which includes the economically BY C.S. MURPHY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District Little Rock City Director Michael will likely miss out on $1.5 million in new property taxes annually if city leaders approve a proposed re- development district that includes land for Summit Mall. Instead, new tax revenues generated from the $150 million west Little Rock megamall could be spent on improving roads and encourag- depressed John Barrow Road. Redevelopment districts, approved by voters last year as Amendment 1, are designed to encourage progress in blitted or otherwise struggling areas by allowing cities to devote new property taxes to improvements in the same area. Theres no surprise that we intend to go forward with this, said Keck. We want to build a strong community so we can grow our city. Thats what tax increment fmanc- ing is all about. Redevelopment money collected can be used for road improvements, community centers and af- fordaljtle housing, said Keck, who represents the area where Summit Mall is to be built. See REDEVELOPMENT, Page 5A Redevelopment  Continued from Page 1A But mall opponents, now fighting Summit in court and by petition, are skeptical. They worry that Little Rock will use the money to help mail builder Simon Property Group pay off bonds or pay for the $11 million in road improvements that the company has promised to finance. If the .Summit Mall is to be included in that, I can't think of a strong enough word to describe how inappropriate that would be, said David Couch, an attorney representing competing midtown ra^ I^k Plaza. Couch gathered 20,000 signatures on petitions hoping to put the mall on the ballot. Keck recalled that when city directors approved the project, they said Simon would be responsible for the cost of improving interstate and secondary roads adjacent to the mall. Chy officios have vowed they wont issue building permits until Simon officials have provided assurances that money has been secured to make all the road improvements. Simon officials couldnt be reached for comment Friday or Monday. Little Rock leaders wont do anything without public hearings and full disclosure. Keck promised. But the city board will look at all options for spending redevelopment dollars, he said. Its going to be painfully obvious going forward that Im not going to rule anything out, and Im not going to rule anything in, Keck said. Little Rock City Manager Cy Carney said its unfair to call tax increment financing tax incentives because private developers such as Simon wont get a tax break. There is no difference to the private developer, he said. The only difference is that it goes into a fund that pays for improvements. That money can be on the table for purposes of redeveloping the plan for needs in the area. Anything can happen as far as the needs of the area. Keck joked that he thinks some have gotten the word increment confused with incentive. Little Rock School District officials met with city officials late last week to express their concerns about the redevelopment districts. School officials arent spoiling for a fight, said school Finance Director Don Stewart, but there is some concern that diverting too much money away from the school district could violate a desegregation settlement plan. Under the 1989 settlement to a de- segregation lawsuit mvohdng the state and the three Pulaski County school districts, state law cannot be used to hinder the districts ability to comply with federal desegregation policies, he said. We would need to look closely at that part of the agreement, he said. Including the Summit Mall site in a tax increment district is selfish on the citys part, Carney said. If that development can be included, that would be added to the tax book. All of that additional value would be captured by the fund to do improvements. Its likely that money going into a tax fund for a district that includes Summit Mall would go into the $70 million in infrastructure needs that have been identified in west Little Rock, Carney said. Fdr instance, if Kanis [Road] could just be redeveloped, there would be a big amount of growth out there, he said. But nothing will happen until the road is improved. Little Rock leaders deflected criticism that the city is considering diverting taxes away from the schools to aid a thriving part of the city where developers have already committed to build the $150 million Summit Mall. When pushing for the adoption of redevelopment districts, proponents highlighted their ability to revitalize blighted areas. But Little Rock can create redevelopment districts in areas that arent considered blighted, Carney said. The Community Redevelopment Financing Act allows cities and counties to create the districts to eliminate traffic congestion, reduce traffic hazards, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare, or otherwise remove or prevent the spread of blight or deterioration. Carney gave the example that if the Little Rock Zoo was included in the same tax district as University Mall, as is proposed, any new property taxes created by the redevelopment of the mall could go to pay off bonds for improvements at the zoo. Each district must have a plan showing how the money would be spent and what project would be first, Carney said. We would get input from citizens on how to spend money in the districts fund. Discussions on proposed boundaries for the redevelopment districts have been dropped from the city boards agenda for today. Carney said Monday, however, that hell brief the Board of Directors on tax increment financing and broadly discuss the five proposed districts. They include the T ittip Rock port area, a portion of southwest Little Rock, midtown, downtown, and an area near the intersection of Shackleford Road and interstate 430, which is where the mall would go. For the next several weeks. City Hall officials will clarify how to implement tax increment financing, setting boundaries for the redevelopment districts, which can be in place for up to 25 years. The city board will hold a public hearing on the district boundaries before approving them and will hold separate hearings for each districts spending plans, Carney said. Don Zimmerman, executive director of Arkansas Municipal League, said cities can also use tax increment financing to help developers pay off bonds for projects. But unless a districts plan calls for it, Carney said, new tax revenues wont go to schools as they do normally. All of the existing money and the existing base is all there, he said. There is no taking away money from the school district. Carney said the five proposed districts cover 5 percent to 7 percent of the city, so Little Rock schools will still collected new property taxes on the majority of property. The Arkansas Education Association endorsed Amendment 1, and 1 there was no notable opposition to redevelopment districts when it was before the Legislature in 1999. T suspect that people in the school district werent looking closely at the amendment to know what would happen, Slewart said. Stewarts attention was triggered during the most recent Gener^ Assembly session when legislators approved Act 1197 of 2001 to enact the voter-approved Amendment 1. Even before they could establish tax increment districts, Little Rock leaders helped companies such as Acxiom temporarily avoid paying property taxes, Stewart said. That company doesnt have to pay property taxes on a $35 million project now under way downtown because the city, which is tax-exempt, owns the land under the building, Carney explained. He said that type of tax incentive is rarely used in Little Rock. Because of that, the schools woni soon benefit from Acxioms new building, Stewart said. \"It slipped up on the schools anc it was too late to do anything abou it, Stewart said. Theres been a lopj history of conflict between the dis trict and taxing agencies. I dont think anybody at the schoo district is saying there shouldnt bi tax-exempt financing, he said. \"Wen just saying we need to be involved and we need to know whats going oi since we stand to lose the greatest.\" \u0026gt; c w c w o oWednesday, August 15, 2001  LR mayor opposes diverting mall taxes Cant abide hurting schools, Dailey says BY ELISA CROUCH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey said Tuesday that he would oppose a plan to include land for the proposed Summit Mall in a west Little Rock redevelopment district being considered by city management. Dailey stated his position Tuesday night as the Little Rock Board of Directors discussed implementing tax increment financing  an economic development tool that some fear wiU stunt revenue growth for the Little Rock School District. I cant support the Summit Mall being part of this, Dailey said, later adding\nIts just hard for me to take away money from the [School] District. Dailey armounced his decision after a reminder from City Direc-tor Larry Jim Dailey west Rock Lichty, who recalled that a I major selling point for the mega-mall  planned for Little - was that it would fill School District coffers with hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes. ! Inciuding Summit Mali in a redevelopment district would mean the new property taxes generated by the project would be directed to area improvements, such as community centers, affordable , housing or infrastructure  but not the School District. I just have a real problem with that, Dailey said. And I have to lay that out on the table for the board and the public. Dailey has supported building the $150 million mall in the past, but not with his vote. He recuses himself from Summit Mall deci-  sions and most discussions because his brother-in-law, property manager Hank Kelley, has ties to the project. Last week, Dailey and School I District officials met privately about tax increment financing, which Arkansas voters approved last November as Amendment 1. The mechanism encourages redevelopment in blighted or otherwise struggling areas by setting up redevelopment districts. Developers and corporations who build within them can devote new tax revenue, or the increment, to improving the area. In coming weeks, the city board will determine the boundaries of the redevelopment districts, and whether Summit Mall is included in one. A preliminary map shows a redevelopment district encompassing the Summit Mall land and the John Barrow neighborhood. City Director Michael Keck said See MALL, Page 3B Mall  Continued from Page 1B he likes the plan to include Summit Mall in the redevelopment district planned for west Little Rock. Projects of Summit Malls scope must be included in redevelopment districts, Keck said, if city officials hope to make major improvements to the areas. Were going to have to have a big enough increment of tax revenue to do that, said Keck, who represents west Little Rock and is a staunch supporter of building the mall. Keck added that Daileys statement against including Summit Mall surprised him. I was a little taken aback. It caught me off guard, he said. After the meeting, Don Stewart, chief financial officer for the Little Rock School District, said he was pleased with Daileys statement. We are obviously in a position to agree with him, Stewart said. While theres no solid estimate on how much the schools stand to lose if the city extends tax increment financing to Summit Mall, Stewart said he believes the number would be excessive. But, he said, until [the project is] assessed, theres really no way to determine that number. EDITORIALS MHa will build ArKansas If hrov^ I One step forward... And two back I HERES AN old photograph dirt road in these parts. For a lot of our made famous in these parts by the kids, libraries are the only place outside Arkansas Gazette's Larry Obsitnik of school where they can get their hands (aka The Chief). It shows the 101st Air- on a mouse. Our cash-strapped schools home rolling into Little Rock at the are struggling to provide even the rudi- height of the Central High crisis. It is ments of computerized learning. And night, and the dark hulks of the trucks computer illiteracy can be almost as form ominous silhouettes a^nst the crippling as tlie old kind these days, glare of headlights. Above the incoming Were proud of the voters in Little convoy, a chamber-of-commerce t^e Rock, North Little Rock and Fayetteville, billboard stands in stark, white relief, who came through for their libraries asking: Who will build Arkansas if her and the next generation. They could tell own people do not? the difference between a branch of local o o o n tn s. TJ a o s That question is as valid today as it government that has been straight with was in57. Who will build Arkansas if we themthe Librariesand the kind of wont? Especially if some of us have nev- shell games that Little Rocks city gov- er made the connection between educa- emment likes to play. We thank those tion and economic development. Which voters for their judgment and vision. Just is like missing the connection between as the next generation will one day flipping a switch and having the lights thank them for good jobs, come on. Yes, we all talk giddily of tapping into the new high-tech economy r^t cheer s PEAKING OF cash-strapped schools, some of Little Rocks in Arkansas. We advertise Quality of life! Lakes and rivers ^d moimtainsl Good even more money from Little Rock bunting and Gsbing! Friendly people! schools for, they say, economic develop- But the voices always trail off before get- menL They want to use a good ideareting to what this new economy needs development districtsto develop a mostan educated work force. part of town thats doing just fine on its Maybe thats because sometimes own: West Little Rock Millions in tax theres not a whole lot of that last bit revenue would be siphoned away from wed care to talk about. Not too long ago, public schools that need the money to leaders have found a way to take voters out in Pulaski County turned help Summit Mall, which doesnt. down a tax increase to improve their Is this anybodj^s idea of developing schools. This week, others in the county the local economy? What kind of busi- voted down a tax to improve their libraries. And now? Now Little Rocks board of nesses would relocate to a city without educated workers? directors is talking about siphoning money from the schools to redevelop- ment districtsincluding districts that p( are already developing just fine, thank bi you. Like West Little Rock You know, home of multiplying banks, Chenal Val- Were getting that familiar, sickening sensation that City Halls playing another shell game. Wasn't one of the selling noints for the Summit Mail that it would )ring in more money for schools? Mayor Jim Dailey thinks so. Hes taken a Vai- stand against diverting this money from ley and the future Summit Mall. This is the schools. Good for him, a bitted area?................... The logic at play here says a lot about some of our local visionaries. Namely that their vision aint so good. Its about as loi^-range as Mister Magoos. We can lAKE.THE opposition to the pub- understand how city directors might be lie libraries in Pulaski County distracted by goodies immediately before (please). The aginners voted them. Build a road now. and you can feel down a millage increase to provide the hard pavement Build a burger joint, more books and better Internet services and you can smell the grease. And hear to their part of the county. They said the the tires crunching on the new roads. state should pay for their librarys needs. And the cba-ching of cash registers. Which means the state would have to But build a new school, and the onlv Yes, who will build Arkansas if her own people do not? T raise taxes, and the state would get to spend the money. But not as efficiently as your local librarian. But build a new school, and the only sound you may hear is grumbling over new taxes. Because the immediate return isnt visible. It might take a few A question: Why send your taxes to the state Capitol or Washington when ______ me its your neighborhood you want to help? jobs that pay salaries families can live Folks in Fayetteville understand this. .................. years, inaybe even a generation, but the return is bigger and better the kind of Arcliitects just unveiled a glorious new design for a sun-filled library. And, yes, folks there voted to tax themselves for it. on. The kind of educated work force that attracts investors. Which in the long run means more money for roads and schools and, yes, still more good jobs. Maybe they know a little something Our politicians keep talking about Ar- about economic development. It miglit kansas being a poor stale as if thats an i_ . ,----r.--------- Mvuig a siaic \u0026lt;ia u UldlS ail help explain their bustlmg economy excuse to stay poor. It doesnt have to be an^ts connection to education. that way, and it shouldnt be that way. It This is about more than entertaining doesnt help when our leaders picture kids on hot summer days. Its about edu- Arkansas as some kind of Banana Re- cating mem while theyre young, recep- public to be mined for its cheap labor live and open to the new. They may not and natural resources. realize that computers arent just nifty  ' _______ gizmos to play games with in this Inter- are in our schools^ The best kind oYcam netted age but job training. Babysmack ital to develop is human capitab The inwords like Yahoo and Google arc ---------1, die way longer just computer geekspeak: theyre business is done, and Arkansas can eve^day tools m most offices. change with itif our leaders will just get out of the way. The most valuable resources we have are no formation economy is changing the way Yet the information hi^way is still aco August 2 2. 2 0 0 1 o 5'fS':^ g  K ' I Ig . q 2S-3ftogsE=q Hg o w ft S  w s 5S LJ? T0O f3t 'S- Oc'L\u0026lt;: PG-  a \u0026lt; S B  g g S is a:: ft ft o w O h-  OS Si -r ? \" Sb . aS g  G.g'o I O s' o 3. 3 E eg S w ft o B fs n P \u0026lt; 3* 3 2 o S bi u C O S f6 K  ft ft r* Q-\u0026gt;a ?2 w S' 3- 3 ft \u0026lt; ft w ft\" CL g ft,ft ^^11 g-g O. S f g S- 3- CT M --i-oq n. o FSdi B bwi s2t 5n4 tzi w'p p B R52 Q 3' w- jx fetx f ? 3 5 rs  J? ft , O  3 O' o 2 E 3o .'o3 ogS- 2  2 ft 2.'^ B B gSi S5 fwt\u0026gt; o2  5 c-q o \" , 2-TO 5'0\" 2_S g 5- I Q P h n n IC 5?*^ Tuesday that his Association on Monday. Associ- WVIIUUIO letter to city officials was in- ation members voiced concerns , tended to make it clear that he about the effect of the develop-  Continued from Page 1A has to pursue the best interests ment districts on school fund- Manager Cy Carney, recently of the school system, but he ing but had broader questions, proposed the formation of tax has not directed the school dis- as well. inc^ment financing districts, trict attorneys to prepare any let- Janelle Romandia questioned Authorized by a new constitu- ters or lawsuits against the city why low-income parts of the city tional amendment, the funding c\"'*-*'------------ -* -------- *  mechanism is meant to encourage redevel-opment of biighted or otherwise struggling areas by setting up development districts. Developers who build within the dis- Carney tricts can devote increases in oyer the proposed development south of 12th Street or south of districts. Roosevelt Road have yet to be I'm all about compromise included in any proposed rede-and working with people, James velopment districts, said. Were hopefill that w--e-- c--a-n- George Blevins, a l. ead- er in sit down and look at this and see the majority black association, how it can become a win-win for agreed that the Wright Avenue everybody involved: neighbor- area should be part of a rede-hoods, schools and the city. We velopment district and that res-all have needs. We have to make idents should identify improve-sure we arent hurting each oth-er. property tax revenues  or the James and increment  to improving other school sys-streets, housing, utilities and oth- tern employees er infrastructure needs within have said the dis-ments needed in the community. But Blevins also worried that the redevelopment districts as proposed would hurt the school system, which serves a majority black student enrollment. Audience member Lee Hill urged school officials to work for a compromise to share in the income generated by any redevelopment of an area. the district. trict may be able One of the five proposed dis- to support some tricts would include a section of redevelopment burgeoning west Little Rock and districts, partic-the land targeted for the pro- ularly those in blighted areas NoelWashington,anotherau-posed $150 milhon Summit Mall, where property values are de- dience member, warned Mon-which would be the largest mall clining and would not otherwise day that the formation of im-in the state. Some have ques- attract new development, provement districts could result tioned whether the west Little Through redevelopment and im- in the displacement of poor res- Rock zone between Markham provements in the infrastructure, idents to other parts of the city and 36th streets and John Bar- property values could increase in the interest of corporate derow and Bowman roads is a and the school system ultimate- velopment. blighted area as intended in state ly could benefit financially. Association members pre- . Mayor Jim Dailey has said he pared a petition to circulate in City board member Michael would oppose a plan to include the community expressing con- Keck, an advocate for the rede- the land for the Summit Mall cerns about the city's rushed velopment districts, said Tues- in a redevelopment district al- time frame for developing the day that the tone though he supports proposals for development districts and ob-of the letter was districts in downtown Little jecting to the boundaries of the surprisingly Rock, the Little Rock Port and proposed districts. harsh in light of the University Avenue areas. We believe the proposed what was a com- Weve got a lot more dis- boundary lines will not pro-mitment by city cussion to do before any of these vide equitable or equal oppor-leaders to work are adopted, said Dailey, who tunities for development or re-with school dis- also said City Hall staff members development of the known trict officials so and the University of Arkansas blighted areas of the city of Lit-that the redevel- at Little Rock are doing some re- tie Rock, especially Wards 1 and opment efforts search on the operation of the 2, the petition says. The peti-will benefit both the city and development districts in other tion fiirfiter asks that the process school district. states. for forming the zones be slowed 'Many of the things we are James and school board mem- so as to give residents the op-t^ mg about doing are going to ber Baker Kurrus have worked portunity to participate in de-be a tremendous benefit to the to get the word out about the ciding what the boundaries school district, whether its in- possible effect of the develop- should be. i frastructure improvements or ment districts on the school sys- I whether its improved housing tern. opportunities in the city or his- The superintendents letter to tone preservation  all of which city board members was copied will make it possible for people and sent to state Attorney Cento live in Little Rock and go to eral Mark Pryor, state Depart- Little Rock schools, Keck said, ment of Education Director Ray Keck said he would like to es- Simon, and the executive di-tablish the boundaries for the rector of a state organization of improvement districts by the school district superintendents, first of October and then begin Other copies were sent to attor-planning with all the con- neys representing the school sys-stituents, including the school tern and black students in an on-district and business commu- going school desegregation law-nity, on what the improvements suit, and to the president of the might be. Some of the money Coalition of Little Rock Neigh-generated by the redevelopment borhoods. could even be spent in the ex- James areas g B'S g e-sr S K T I 8 B^\u0026lt;i5 I I* Si \u0026amp; ? 3-  w,s f5 S 0 3^ o3 Qj m\" a .2\u0026lt;S q g p \" BS S. P g O. ss tS gS-\u0026amp;3| S s a d-e ft p S-. O era 3 TO f\u0026lt;t 3f 9\niOs - o o \u0026gt; oO\" OO . TBO w3 2 ^e0 9f2. a 9-5 2 2- 3 -  a k . W Ct t3  o  ft S 5'5.a oO ToOq oW TOOQ n\u0026gt; H-as g g w o (sj CcPTr jcJzri. fM2t o1 . \"TsO3 K Z'3 CL 3 O-ft 3-3 u b-\") fgtw.2ft BB S..' S'b g.q-a 2 |g.8 g:o g'BI^'8-Ks \u0026amp;ft o ft fl ft \u0026lt;5 g^S. \" S-S S-a E 5\" \u0026amp; 3 G ft (A W (X-O 2 B ft X- Si' cxsa Ecr S-2 o o' o w CO ft '\u0026lt;? S' *1 2 B go f3^ ^  O fj  \u0026amp; X g.S-B a2 oS g s q g s ft G 3 o ^0-2  Or^rtO P^S.-.  nG . QB. : FP.Ki.'g\u0026lt; o S' 2 SS 52 PE toa s E B a? s-S-B  o 2. \u0026lt;*0g 5 w s, sr 3' s-o \"E\u0026amp;S 5 I E-^S ^^e-o9s\n p- G 3 3 Jr I SI oo a2 o S' o Keck q q3  g Q I ft o  T ft   o ft s A  g\" fot 5) w O ft Q. H-\u0026lt; ft James raised the issue of the isting schools, he said. tax increment financing districts He said he disagreed with last week at a convocation of James concerns that the school about 3,000 Little Rock School system cant afford to have five District employees, asking em-redevelopment districts or that ployees to make concerns about the west Little Rock district the development districts known doesnt meet the spirit of the law to any city leaders they might intended to help impoverished encounter. areas. Additionally, James and Kur- All five of the districts, as now rus presented iheir views as inproposed, meet the requirements vited guests at a meeting of the of the law, Keck said. Wright Avenue Neighborhood 0.. SdioolSjLR set new talks about dispute Development areas on meeting agenda BY KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School District representatives will meet again today with city officials to discuss the potential creation of five redevelopment districts that could take money away from schools. Mayor Jim Dailey said that at this  die third such meeting about the citys approach toward tax increment financing  he hopes the two sides can talk specifics. Weve been in fact-finding mode and [this] is kind of our first step to say to them, OK, we need to sit down and here are some points we need to walk through,  Dailey said. Thursday night, Little Rock School Board member Baker Kumis explained the financing concept to the rest of the board members and asked for their guidance in preparing for future discussions about it with city officials. Tax increment financing, authorized by a new constitutional amendment, was or^- inaUy meant to encourage redevelopment of blighted or otherwise struggling areas by setting up development districts, but Arkansas* statute is very broad, Kurrus said. Use of the tool is not limited to blighted areas under that law. The base value of property in a development district is frozen when the district is created, he explained. The property increases in value throughout the life of the district, and the amount the property value grows is used to pay for improvements, like roads ' and sewers, within the district. Its a sophisticated technique, Kumis said. It doesnt generate any new tax, but what it does is take property taxes as they grow and uses that for purposes established in their plan. The method could benefit districts that have little development, but could adversely affect districts where development is ongoing. Some states have taken the approach that tax increment financing should not be used except in areas where redevelopment would otherwise not occur, he said. If you form a [redevelopment district] in a large area that was already growing, and you set up the growth in revenue that we depend upon to Sae SCHOOLS, Page 10B Schools  Continued from Page 1B form a base for a financial future, that revenue would go for infrastructure or whatever the [tax ass''': increment financing] was formed for,\" he said. That would be devastating. Dailey, who did not attend Thursdays meeting, said school district and city officials should look at how variables within the proposal could affect school funding, including the circumstances under which a redevelopment district should be formed, how long money would accrue within it and under what circumstances the schools might receive a part of the increment from a district. There are just a whole host of options and considerations that, until this point, we have not had that kind of dialogue, and thats what Im interested in starting [today], Dailey said. Kumis referred to a double whammy that the school district could face because of redevelopment districts. In addition to money that would normally have gone to schools instead of going toward improvements within a redevelopment zone, formation of a redevelopment district could affect how schools are funded by the state. The states formula for fimd- ing schools would assume that the district was getting all the property tax money from the redeveloped areas, making the district eligible for less state money. That formula may soon be reconfigured in light of a May 25 order by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Collins Kilgore directing the state to fix its public education system, which he found to be inadequate, inequitable and in violation of the Arkansas Constitution. We dont know what the new state funding formula is going to look like, Kumis said. [Tax increment financing] at the time of changing the formula is kind of dangerous, Kumis said. Superintendent Ken James surmised that legislators couldnt have known what the total intact of this\nfunding mechanism would be on the states education system. James said that ahhou^ ri^ now the issue is localized to Little Rock, other school districts across the state will likely be  forced to address it soon. Dailey said he hopes that the city and the school district can work together to create redevelopment districts to the benefit of both. I personally just dont see us really coming to a conclusion that has us at odds with the school district, Dailey said. I just think we're going to work our way through these things. And its too important that were able to use this tool for the whole communi- ty and, for the long term, for the benefit of creating a bi^er tax pie for everybody, as opposed to letting ourselves get caught up in a battle right now that might stop us from using tax increment financing because either the Legislature steps in another year and a half and tightens the rules or we get tied up in court.... Thats just not to anybodys advantage. \u0026gt; c w c w K) roSdioolSjLR set new talks about dt^Mite Development areas on meeting agenda BY KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School District representatives will meet again today with city officials to discuss the potential creation of five redevelopment districts that could take money away from schools. Mayor Jim Dailey said that at this  the third such meeting about the citys approach toward tax increment financ- ing  he hopes the two sides can talk specifics. Weve been in fact-finding mode and [this] is kind of our first step to say to them, OK, we need to sit down and here are some points we need to walk through,  Dailey said. Thursday night, Little Rock School Board member Baker Kurrus explained the financing concept to the rest of the board members and asked for their guidance in preparing for future discussions about it vrith city officials. Tax increment financing, authorized by a new constitutional amendment, was originally meant to encourage redevelopment of blighted or otherwise struggling areas by setting up development districts, but Arkansas* statute is very broad, Kurrus said. Use of the tool is not limited to blighted areas under that law. The base value of property in a development district is frozen when the district is created, he explained. The property increases in value throughout the life of the district, and the amount the property value grows is used to pay for improvements, like roads and sewers, within the district. Its a sophisticated technique, Kurrus said. It doesnt generate any new tax, but what it does is take property taxes as they grow and uses that for purposes established in their plan. The method could benefit districts that have little development, but could adversely affect districts where development is ongoing. Some states have taken the approach that tax increment financing should not be used except in areas where redevelopment would otherwise not occur, he said. If you form a [redevelopment district] in a large area that was already growing, and you set up the growth in revenue that we depend upon to See SCHOOLS, Page 10B Schools  Continued from Page 1B form a base for a financial future, that revenue would go for infrastructure or whatever the [tax increment financing] was formed for, he said. That would be devastating. Dailey, who did not attend Thursdays meeting, said school district and city officials should look at how variables within the proposal could affect school funding, including the circumstances under which a redevelopment district should be formed, how long money would accrue within it and under what circumstances the schools might receive a part of the increment from a district. There are just a whole host of options and considerations that, until this point, we have not had that kind of dialogue, and thats what Im interested in starting [today], Dailey said. Kurrus referred to a double whammy that the school district could face because of redevelopment districts. In addition to money that would normally have gone to schools instead of going toward improvements within a redevelopment zone, formation of a redevelopment district could affect how schools are funded by the state. The states formula for funding schools would assume that the district was getting all the property tax money from the redeveloped areas, making the district eligible for less state money. That formula may soon be reconfigured in light of a May 25 order by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Collins Kilgore directing the state to fix its public education system, which he found to be inadequate, inequitable and in vi- oiation of the Arkansas Constitu- j tion. We dont know what the new state funding formula is going to look like, Kurrus said. [Tax increment financing] at the time of changing the formula is kind of dangerous, Kurrus said. Superintendent Ken James surmised that legislators couldnt have known what the total impact of this funding mechanism would be on the states education system. James said that although right now the issue is localized to Little Rock, other school districts across the state will likely be ! forced to address it soon. Dailey said he hopes that the city and the school district can work together to create redevelopment districts to the benefit of both. I personally just dont see us really coming to a conclusion that has us at odds with the school district, Dailey said. I just think were going to work our way through these things. And its too important that were able to use this tool for the whole community and, for the long term, for the benefit of creating a bigger tax pie for everybody, as opposed to let- ting ourselves get caught up in a battle right now that might stop us from using tax increment financing because either the Legislature steps in another year and a half and tightens the rules or we get tied up in court.... Thats just not to anybodys advantage. \u0026gt; c OQ C w hO hO o oA new tax danger Schools under gun R egular readers of this column remember full well that they were .warned last year about the con- sequences of amending the Arkansas Constitution to accommodate redevelopment districts. I suspected when I read it that the measure would be a licensewell, if Meredith Oakley not to steal and abscond outright, at this funding mechanism could have least to rob Peter to pay Paul. .. .. Offered as Amendment 1 and on the states education system. Since hes ------------------ap- new in these parts, he may be forgiv- proved by voters m last years general en his naivete. The same generosity election, the measure allows cities and should not apply to school board memcounties to (1) enter into short-term bers, all of whom have been kicking (no longer than five years) financing around the capital city long enough agreements whereby they could lease to know better. or purchase equipment and property, ^d (2) issue bonds dedicated to re- ter. Hes already noted that the lanmage developmg areas that the issuing gov- of the new amendment could be used emments governmg board, i.e. the city to devastating effect by city govern- or town council or board of directors ment. Thank goodness Kurrus knows bet- and the quorum court, deems to be de- But Kurrus foresees what he calls tenoratmg or in danger of deteriorat- a double whammy for the school dis- ing without a substantial infusion of trict, the second part being the effect ^ds, formation of such a redevelopment dis- Now comes the city of Little Rock, trict could have on general school fund- the undisputed expert among local gov-  emments at robbing Peter to pay Paul, with a proposal to create five rede- ing. As a news story in Fridays  - , ------------------------- Democrat-Gazette explained it, in ad- velopment districts that could take dition to losing money that normally money away from the areas public would have gone to schools instead schools. of going into non-school improvements It s called tax mcrement financing, within a redevelopment district, schools and capital city fathuhs and muthuhs could lose out under the states fund- Me champing at the bit to get involved ing formula should the state assume, ... , , incorrectly, that the school district was Ostensibly mtended to encourage getting all the property tax money from the redevelopment of blighted or eco- the redevelopment district, making the noimcally depressed areas, its language school district eligible for less state is broad, open to extremely subjective interpretation, so that it may be money. tive The states funding formula is about applied to any area a governing board to be reconfigured yet again because fancies. of yet another court finding that the current one is unconstitutional. Its a sophisticated technique, said BjAer ^ms who explained the gam- bit to his fellow Little Rock School funding formula is going to be  Kur- Board members last Thursday night. -------- '    ' It doesnt generate any new tax, but .......... muuey-gruuoing what It does is take property taxes as gimmick-my characterization, not they grow and [it] uses that [revenue] Kurrusat this time, he added, is kind for purposes established in their [Lit- of dangerous. tie Rock officials] plan. I submit that given the bent of the what s the plan? current occupants of City Hall, it would There are a whole host of options be dangerous at any time. ri \u0026lt;7 JiT. DiJcJ After ycaTS of costly litigation, the crows, allowing as to how he and his Little Rock School District finally has sne^dthnA rnhnrtc OP the cif/s Beard a glimmer of hope for getting out from ot Directors haven t begun to plumb under federal court supervision. It can- tho^ depths yet. W-i-i-ight. not afford to so much as flirt with any .. * I read it, it looks as though scheme that might jeopardize its abil- and considerations, Mayor Jim Dailey spendthrift cohorts on citys Board We dont know what the new state ms said last week, thus embarking upon the citys latest money-grubbing a -  1 u J .----------------------0 iiugiii. jcupdiuixc Its aoii- city otticials have designs on diverting ity to extend equitable educational oo- orooertv tav A-rtm cr-krirtlo _________ii 'u.. . . property tax revenue from schools to portunities to all its patrons municipal ^astructure projects. Since Nothing that diverts so much as a the big push is toward turning the river- penny in tax revenue from this districts front and environs into one gigantic schools, or those of any other school nionument to a former president, I can- district in this state, ought to be given not help but think thats where Daileys a seconds consideration designs lead. Nothing that diverts so much district in this state, ought to be given \u0026gt; c TO tn LRSD Superintendent Ken James has suggested that state lawmakers could not have anticipated the impact ------------- Associate Editor Meredith Oakley is editor of the Voices page. to Letters SATURDAY. SEPTEMBER 8, 2001  Dailey offers 2nd option on redevelopment areas LR mayors plan leaves out Summit Mall BY JAKE SANDLIN AND KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Calling an earlier plan for redevelopment districts something too big, too fost, Mayor Jim Dailey offered a scaled- down proposal Friday that does not include west Little Rock's planned Summit Mall. Dailey's recommendation for economic redevelopment using tax increment financing proposes three districts instead of six, limits those districts to a 10- year life instead of the maximum 25 years and asks for a moratorium on more districts until Jan. L 2003. This is something I feel is a reasonable proposri, Dailey said late Friday. I predict and welcome discussion on it, and if there are suggestions to improve this, I certainly am open to those. Cip' and Little Rock School District officials have clashed over the issue in recent weeks, as schools do not immediately benefit from the new tax base that redevelopment districts create. While Little Rock School District Superintendent Ken James said he took courage from Dailey^s scaled-back proposaL See DISTRICTS, Page 7A uisincis  Continued from Page 1A he indicated that legal questions about tax increment financing and schools remain unanswered and must be resolved before the city establishes such districts. The mayor and I have had some good conversations about this, James said. We have interests and concerns, and we have to protect the interests of the kids were here to serve, and when were looking at losing large sums of money, that raises our level of concern. City Director Michael Keck said he expects to offer an amendment or alternative to Dailey's proposal by IVesday, when the Little Rock Board of Directors meets for an agenda session. Keck has favored including the planned Summit MaU in a tax increment financing district, as proposed by City Manager Cy Carney. Carney could not be reached to comment on the mayor's proposaL We have the city manager's initial proposal, and now we have one from the mayor, Keck said. There may be as many as 10 other proposals out there to work throu^. This is another step in the process as we move forward. City oftlcials drew criticism for stretching one districts boundaries to include the $150 million megamall in Carneys eariier proposaL School officials, in partir-iiiar, con^Jaincd thar die city's public schools would miss out on SL5 million in new property taxes, even though the cip' approved plans for the mall, in part, because the development would provide new tax money for schoob. Ideally, tax increment financing. Imown as TIF. induces de- vuopers to build in run-down areas with declining property values. Opponents l^e argued that the wo^ed area considered for Summit Malt qualify. A N Tax incremenl financing districts IS CUfiton Dbrary Wwdl/ SOURCE: atyolUMRa o NewTIF proposal OWTIF proposal AHUKH Da(nocrs.Gaznt Rules for TIFs vary from state to state, but the concept nationwide is the same. When a TIF district is established. property tax values are frozen for collections that ordinarily would go to taxing bodies like schools or libraries. As property appraisals rise beyond at frozen level, the taxes on the added value are collected and distributed to projects within the TIF district. In Little Rock 24 percent of those taxes would be required to retire debt.___ Developers within a TIF district pay property taxes unless the city has awarded them some sort of tax break. After the TIF has expired  in Arkansas TIFs may last for up to 25 years  all property taxes go back to the usual taxing bodies. State voters approved the use of such districts by passing Amendment 78 last November. On Friday, Dailey reiterated earlier statements that he wouldn't support any proposal likely to harm schools. He also said legal questions that arose only in the past two days concemii^ the effect of tax increment financing on schools and on the state's funding schedule must be addressed before proceeding. We must make sure we have a legal system of instituting tax increment districts,'' Dailey said. James, who received a draft of Dailey's proposal Thursday, said the law establishing TIFs may conflict with Amendment 74, which guarantees schools a certain amount of money to pay for day-to-day operations. The law clearly states that school districts are supposed to receive their 25 mills, and nothing's supposed to get in the w^ of that,\" the superintendent sai\u0026lt;l Talks with James and School Board member Baker Kurrus. DaUey said, convinced him that the only way we could move forward with something is to have it in a scaled-down fashion. They said we started out with something too big, too fast, Dailey said. \"We have terms that were too long and we were, in their opinion, taldog mon^ from the school district that didn't fit, in their opinion, the criteria that tax increment financing would typically surest. It would be hard for me to support anything if we don't have the School Board saying, 'Yes, we're OK with this,'  Dailey said. Dailey's proposal would limit the three redevelopment districts to midtown in the Markham Street and Universi- ty Avenue area\nthe University Avenue and Asher Avenue area, including the University of Arkansas at Little Rock\nand downtown, including the River Market. south Main Street and the Hanger Hill neighborhood. Carney's proposal, originally for five districts, recently added the University and Asher avenue district, which includes UALR and the Curran-Conway neighborhood, as does Dailey's scaied-back version. The other districts in Carney's proposal are the Little Rock Port, a portion of southwest Little Rock, midtown, downtown and the Summit Mall area near Shackleford Road and Interstate 430. Tm surprised to see the number and the location of the three districts that were presented by the mayor, Keck said, adding that he hadnt seen the mayor's full proposal or its exact geographic boundaries. \"The mayors plan. Keck added, doesn't jeopardize Summit Malt I think it just limits the scope of what we could do, he said. If the school district is banking on that money, as School Board members have been quoted as saying, maybe we ought to leave it be. But we certainly can identify certain projects worthy of funding in TIF districts out there and not even get close to the Summit MalL John Walker, who represents bla^ students in the school district in a federal desegregation case, said earlier that he would oppose with vigor using tax increment financing to ben^t bur- geoning areas of the city. We will use this Tdesegre-- gation] case as the vehicle for seeking relief from [Chief U.S.' District Judge Susan Webber Wright] by seeking to bring the. dry of Little Rock into this case. Walker said. James said he has not talked about that issue with Walker, but he has had conversations on the - matter with city offtdais. The mayor and I have discussed that we have to be very carefill in terms of any ftnancial impact on the school district because of our obligations in this court case.\" James said. Anything that talws away resources that are going co inhibit us from meeting our obligations under the covenant, thats a problem. iSeptember 18. 2 0 0 1 Forum crowds skeptical ofTIFs Residents cautious of LR growth plan BY C.S. MURPHY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks designated redevelopment district expert listed public trust Monday night as a key component for success, but crowds gathered at two separate sessions on the financing technique exhibited little. Ray Gosack, deputy city administrator of Fort Smith, had difficulty getting through his presentation on tax increment financing, known as TIF, because audience members kept barking out hypothetical questions and critical comments. Who wrote this? one person asked of the legislation enabling the districts. Another posed the question, Can this be used to segregate a community?\" Still another asked, 1 Is there any federal input into these TlFs? About half of the participants in the session at the Central Arkansas Library left midway through the program to attend another meeting on the same topic held by the Pulaski County chapter of the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now at Rockefeller Elementary School. About 100 people attended that Save Our Schools forum where Little Rock School District Superintendent Ken James, School Board member Baker Kurrus, civil rights lawyer John Walker and other community i leaders warned that the broad formation of TIF districts pos- | es a financial threat to the states largest school system. TIFs divert growth in proper- ' ty tax revenues from schools to development within the district, they argued. Jim Lynch, co-chairman of the Little Rock New Party and a speaker at the ACORN session, called the citys TIF plans a \"clandestine attack on the school budget. . We ought to say no to these large TIF districts, Lynch said. They wont work, and they are bad for our children. City Director Michael Keck said earlier Monday that he was frustrated to hear that school officials were being billed as key speakers at ACORNS meeting. \"It concerns me that at the r time that we have our meeting scheduled that some of the leaders of the school district are choosing to participate in a meeting thats geared toward stopping the city from moving See TIFs, Paae 3B I I TIES  Continued from Page 1B forward, he said. James, who attended the city forum before speaking at the ACORN event, said ACORN established its agenda and lined up speakers before the city-sponsored meeting was formalized. The citys Board of Directors and the Little Rock School Board have set a joint meeting on the issue for 6:30 p.m. Monday at Parkview High School. City officii drew criticism last month when they unveiled five redevelopment districts, later amended to six. Some residents were particularly upset that one district included the $150 million Summit Mail in west Little Rock School officials complained that the citys public schools would miss out on $1.5 million in new property taxes, even though the city approved plans for the mall, in part, because the development would provide new tax money for schools. Traditionally, tax increment financing induces developers to build in run-down areas with deRules for TIFs vary from state to state, but the concept nationwide is the same. When a TIF district is established, property tax values are frozen for collections that ordinarily would go to taxing bodies such as schools or libraries. As property appraisals rise beyond that frozen level, the taxes on the added value are collected and distributed to projects within the TIF district. In Little Rock, 24 percent of those taxes would be required to retire debt. Developers within a TIF district pay property taxes as usual but the city may award them some sort of tax break After the TIF expires, all property taxes go back to the usual taxing bodies. State voters approved the use of such districts by passing what became Amendment 78 in November I dont think the voters wholesale imderstood that school districts were going to be impacted, James said before leaving the library meeting. We didnt have any idea some of this language was folded in. Information for this article ivas con- tributed by Cynthia Howell of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. dining property values. Opponents say the wooded area considered for Summit Mall doesnt qualify. Two weeks ago. Mayor Jim Dailey offered a scaled-down proposal that does not include the planned Summit Mall. Dailey proposed three districts instead of six, limiting those districts to a 10-year life instead of the maximum 25 years and asked for a moratorium on more districts until Jan. 1,2003. Keck planned to offer an amendment or alternative to Daileys proposal but postponed action last week after the terrorist attacks on the East Coast. Keck has favored including the planned Summit Mall in a tax increment financing district, as proposed by City Manager Cy Carney. On Monday, Keck said city leaders should take a time out and work with school district leaders to put the citys redevelopment future in perspective. We need to establish some principals we can work from, Keck said. But TIF districts are going to be created in the city of Little Rock Does that mean theyll all be the same? No. We cant t^e a cookie-cutter approach to TIF districts in the city.o o CM LR leaders shaving plans for redevelopment districts o JQ E o a w BY C.S. MURPHY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock leaders are backing further away from their original plan for the citys first redevelopment districts. Just a month ago city leaders stepped an eager foot forw^d to promote five, sizable tax-increment financing districts. But Little Rock directors have withdrawn considerably since the Little Rock School district complained that the districts could divert property taxes away from schools. On Tuesday, Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey took another step back by suggesting ^e city promote only one district that would encompass a portion of downtown. Dailey had suggested less than two weeks ago that city leaders reduce the original six proposed districts to three. Im willing to retreat one See DISTRICTS, Page 5B Districts  Continued from Page 1B more step on this, he said, suggesting Little Rock initiate planning studies on other proposed redevelopment districts. Theres not the same sense of urgency with these others as there is downtown. Taxes generated within a tax- increment financing district, except portions already pledged to retire debt, do not go to schools, libraries and other taxing bodies. Instead, cities can use the money in varied ways, from improving streets and upgrading sewers to repaying a developer's construction costs. Dailey said it would be sin^ler to move forward with only a downtown district because the city already has invested much time and money into developing the area- Other members of the Board of Directors also suggested re- evaluating how the city should use tax increment financing, called TIF. Tax-increment financing usually aims at inducing developers to build in run-down areas with declining property values. Opponents argue tlmt the wooded Summit Mall site near Interstate 430 and Shackleford Road, doesnt qualify. Some city leaders, however, have said they included the m^ in a district to benefit the John Barrow Road neighborhood, where substandard streets wind through the community and residents yearn for improvements. City Director Barbara Graves, echoing Keck, said directors should work with school officials City Director Michael Keck suggested city leaders work with school officials on guidelines for quired to retire debt. ___ Developers within a TIF district pay property taxes as usual, but the city may award them some sort of tax break. After the TIF expires, all property taxes go back to the usual taxing bodies. Several directors expressed dismay that school and city officials are working against each other. Somewhere along the line, it started to become us against them, said City Director Willie Hinton. \"Were all the same com- munity. Good communities build good schools. There are a lot of us who rushed to judgment. We to decide what they want to ac- complish with the districts and determine what percenta^ of the take a step back citys land districts should include -j^g city's Board of Directors Education is absolutely a pri- the Little Rock School Board The ority of this board collectively, she said. City Director Genevieve Stewart said leaders should start over before approving the citys first redevelopment districts. \"The city needs to create a policy for TIF districts even before districts are created, she urged. This is the No. 1 thing we need to do. have set a joint meeting on the issue for 6:30 p.m. Monday at Parkview High School. When a TIF district is estab- redevelopment districts before Ibhed, property tax values are districts are drawn. Lit- frozen for coUections that ordi- specific districts are drawn. Little Rock should share money col- lected in redevelopment districts with the school district, he said. I think we should work in a collaborative manner with the [school district]. I view this as a starting point, said Keck, who has supported a west Little Rock redevelopment district criticized because it includes the planned $150 million Summit MalL larily would go to taxing bodies ike schools or libraries. As property appraisals rise beyond that frozen level, the taxes on the idded value are collected and dis- ributed to projects within the TIF district. In Little Rock 24 per- :ent of those taxes would be re-Find our online edition at www.arkt1m^.com  ARKANSAS TIMES  SEPTEMBER 21.2001 15 City Hall starts over on tax plan School opposition pushes LR Board to bargaining table. BY MAX BRANTLEY Little Rock city government brought an expert on tax increment financing to town this week and nobody asked the obvious question about the appearance by Ray Gosack, deputy city administrator at Port Smith. Why wasnt this explanatory session held BEPORE City Hall proposed 11,000 acres worth of tax increment financing districts that could skim the school tax revenue growth from roughly 20 percent or more of the Little Rock School District? If Gosack had been involved sooner, city officials perhaps would have tried some of his tips for TIP success. (In a Little Rock TIP district, growth in property tax revenues would be diverted from the customary recipients  schools, libraries, the Childrens Hospital, the county and police and fire pension fundsto the city for any purpose it designated, though the program is nominally designed to spur development.) One of Gosacks tips: Keep other taxing districts informed. As everybody knows by now, the school district was blindsided by the citys initial proposal, which threatened to take a huge chunk of the schools most valuable property and use all future tax growth in that territory for the city, including taxes from the $200 million Summit Mall. In the initial proposal, city officials also ignored another piece of Gosacks advice  following a but for rule. This means that you shouldnt extend the benefits of aTIP district unless development wouldnt occur without it Por example, the Summit Mall was on the drawing board long before tax increment financing GXDGft GffGCtiVGlV Gosack effec- was even approved by the repudiated What lively confirnied what Little Rock initially tried to do. legislature. In the face of growing school and grassroots opposition, the City Board has changed course. It has now decided it wants to study the issue further and negotiate with school officials. Mayor Jim Dailey announced Tuesday that he now favors, at the outset, only one TIP district, down from six. It would target a smaller portion of downtown than the original downtown district. City Director Michael Keck, a leading TIP advocate, also pulled back from a planned compromise TIP proposal in favor of talks with the Little Rock School District The change is a response in part to public opinion. At the outset, when TIP proponents thought they controlled a majority of the City Board, they failed to notify the School District of the scope of the initial proposal, keeping it a secret until the last minute. But a leak of the details to the School District pompted a furious outcry from school supporters. Mayor Jim Dailey then encouraged a more deliberate approach and also proposed a 75 percent reduction in the size of the initial TIP districts. At the City Board meeting Tbesday night, he took it even further, to one small downtown district thats only a tiny fraction of the original plan. The change comes, too, amid growing legal questions about whether tax increment finance districts can ever tap school tax millages under the Arkansas Constitution. City Attorney Tom Carpenter has prepared a lengthy memo raising this and other legal questions. The Board informally directed him to attempt to intervene in the pending state school finance lawsuit to gel some answers and also talked of the possibility of a test lawsuit. Lawsuits were mentioned frequently Monday evening by school supporters who turned up at a pair of meetings  the citys information session and a Save Our Schools rally organized by Acorn at Rockefeller School. At the citys meeting at the downtown library, Gosack asked a pertinent question. What can make aTIPdistrict fail? One answer: Lack of public trust Distrust was abundant Monday night At the Acorn session, grassroots activists, a school teacher and former City Attorney Maik Stodola were among those who objected to the raid on school lax money, Stodola noted that the city had planned to establish the districts without first formulating any policies for use of TIPs or revealing details about the developments they were supposed to encourage. These steps, by the way, are all things that Gosack recommends for a successful TIE Tuesday night, city directors finally decided this might be a prudent way to begin. Under questioning critics had known for weeks. The constitutional amendment and enabling legislation were drafted by the city government lobby and bond lawyers. Both hope to reap a windfall. He offered no explanation of why school districts werent invited to the legislative table, as they have been in other states. The answer seems obvious. Gosack also said something, as a framer of the TIP vision, to remember in future court tests. While the statute lists a number of individual reasons that aTIP can be established, including a general economic development provision that would seem to open the door for almost any use anywhere, Gosack said he bel ieved that multiple criteria had to be met and that blight, environmental hazards and the like were the most important Gosack didnt appease civil rights lawyer John Walker, the most critical in a crowd that frequently interrupted Gosack with questions and criticism. Walker said he saw TIPs a.s nothing but a new version of Urban Renewal, Mode! Cities and a variety of other categorical federal aid programs that had encouraged suburban growth, segregated housing and caused blight in neighborhoods left behind. He warned Gosack AW Bib ft * if SHARP QUESTIONS: Little Rock's new school superintendent, Ken James, posed critical questions this week as city government tried to explain and defend its tax increment financing plan. of the perils of approving TIPs in light of both the Little Rock desegregation ca.se and the court ruling that the state public school system is unconstitutionally deficient, likely in need of hundreds of millions in new money. Gosack also was called down by School Board member Baker Kurrus when he spoke of the benefits of TIP districts. Kurrus said the.se statements presumed that growth within TIP districts would occur because of tax increment financing. Some of that growth, he said, could simply be normal property value growth and development that would have occurred TIP or no TIP. School people also challenged Gosacks assertion that voters knew they were approving a transfer of school tax when they approved the TIP constitutional amendment in 2000. Gosack tried to debunk critics argument that TIP money could be used for almost anything. But then he listed TIF-eligible costs  everything from land purchase, to private building construction, to legal and marketing fees to job training. It was hard to imagine what  THE INSIDER Continuedfrom page 3 This is the second lime the Summit developers and the city attorney have been at odds. He earlier objected to its intervention in the case, arguing that the city was the defendant in a suit brought by mail neighbors and it could protect the Summits interests. The Summit was allowed to intervene and now it wants to make much of the evidence secret. Hog time change Syndicated television network Jefferson- Pilot Sports could change its mind  particularly with another inept Razorback showing this weekend at Alabamabut apparently the was NOT allowable, save perhaps beer and dancing girls. Gosack came to Arkansas with experience in Illinois, one of the most aggressive users of TIP financing. Questioned afterward, he acknowledged that he was familiar with a report by a Lake Forest (Ill.) College professor. The professor concluded that Illinois cities that used TIPs had exhibited no greater growth than those that didnt. Gosack offered by way of explanation that Illinois had some complicating differences in its property tax structure. But many people believe Illinois is actually better situated to use TIPs because it has a higher property tax rate and thus can generate more money for development incentives. Gosack also acknowledged that UlinoisTIP districts generally are much smaller than the average 2,000-acre districts first proposed in Little Rock. He cited one large district of several hundred acres in Illinois, but it was a suburban citys creation of a giant TIP district on a former cornfield to lure a single retail operation. A revealing moment came when Little Rock School Superintendent Ken James asked Gosack about TIP plans in Fort Smith. The answer, if you presume Gosack the expert, effectively repudiated what Little Rock initially tried to do. Where City Manager Cy Camey envisioned perhaps 11,000 acres worth of TIP territory in six huge districts, Gosack said Fort Smith was tentatively looking at one district, aonc- or two- acre site on which a couple of buildings might be rehabilitated. And it will move forward only after a development plan is devised. City Director Keck said he was disappointed that school officials were rallying opposition at the same lime the city was trying to explain and negotiate. It was a stark illustration of the political sea change. When the TIP project was first floated, he and other proponents evinced little interest in study, negotiation with the schools or delay. The City Board and School Board will meet jointly on the issue at 6 p.m. Monday at Parkview High School. broadcaster of Southeastern Conference football ha.s decided to pick up the Arkansas-South Carolina game scheduled for Oct. 13 at War Memorial Stadium. Thal means a kickoff time change from 6 p.m. to 11:30 a.m. We hear that stadium officials have already been alerted to the impending change. The move also will mean that dating back to the end of last season, Arkansass football team  for better or worse  will have been televised in seven consecutive games regionally or nationally, which has never happened in school history. No word yet on whether TV will show the Auburn game Oct. 27 in Payelteville, but J-P has it under consideration. The Hogs dont play the other weekends in October. The explanation is greed Find our online edtion at www^rktlm\u0026lt;j^.coni  ARKANSAS TIMES  SEPTEMBER 21,2001 \u0026lt;7 A federal jurist of local distinction is reputed to have first uttered the proverb, Real estate rots the soul. What he meant was that the greed to squeeze the maximum wealth from property will drive a man to steal from small children. That is the best explanation for the Little Rock Board of Directors pell-mell rush to grab millions of dollars of taxes that people voted fotthe public schools and use them to bankroll developers. The skeleton key for this legalized theft, which will allow real estate interests and city haters who could countenance such a royal heist governments to break into the school fisc anywhere in Aritansas, is called' tax increment financing. The words themselves, along with the anesthetizing phrase redevelopinent bonds, are calculated to lull die reader to sleep or at least into complacency. They have indeed gulled the voters for the better part of a year now but in the end they will prove lethal, not merely anesthetic. Though the plans are now in limbo, the city Board has wanted to include much of the Little Rock School District in six redevelopment districts, which will enable it to siphon off school taxes to pay off bonds that the city will issue to defray real estate developers costs or to otherwise enhance their developments. As proposed, the biggest beneficiaries would be the developers of the giant Summit Mall in western Little Rock. It would be hard to find anyone outside the wM ERNEST DUMAS orbits of real estate interests and public school from the citys school children, but the city board could be about to do it anyway. The Little Rdck schools and its children are only the first victims of tax-increment financing\nother cities will follow once Little Rock shows that it can be done. Little Rock got to be first, only weeks after 140 years of constitutional protections for children were subtly dismantle^ because developers had acquired die Little Rock city government in a series of lethargic board elections. Once die board enacts ordinances creating die redevelopment districts, school patrons will circulate petitions to refer them to the voters, who will kill the financing unless the city can arouse the school haters in numbers enough to ratify them. Even at that, the Arkansas Supreme Court or the federal courts may not go along with the artifice, even though it was sneaked into the state Constitution. It is a good question whether even by a deceptive constittJtiona] amendment people can abrogate a solemn contract between government and the voters. Every school tax in Arkansas history was approved under a constitutional bond that guaranteed voters that none of the taxes they approved could ever be diverted to any use but the schools. Il appeared in the 1874 Constitution and in amendments ratified by the voters in 1926 and 1948 that authorized schools to collect ad valorem taxes if voters approved them. It was necessary to promise voters that the schools would not be used as a pretext for a tax increase that would then be used for another purpose. It was never done until now. That constitutional protection was quietly removed by Amendment 78 of 2000, or at least city officials and developers hope they have removed it The Little Rock schools and its children are only the first victims ot tax-increment financing\nother cities will follow once Little Rock shows that it can be done. How that came to pass at least should offer us a lesson we should not soon forget Tax increment financing was piggybacked onto an amendment that lets city and county governments buy expensive equipment on installment which was almost universally endorsed. The complicated redevelopment financing got almost no attention. It was supposed to be a method to let cities or counties spruce up a blighted neighborhood. Infrastructure improvements in a decrepit neighborhood that led to development could be paid for by the extra taxes generated by the property improvements. The amendment says the extra taxes for all taxing units would be diverted, but it was generally assumed that the extra taxes would be those that would be collected by all the taxing units of city and county governments: their general and capital-improvement funds, libraries, police and firemens pension funds, water and sewer improvement districts and the like. Nowhere in Amendment 78 does it mention that it alters Amendment 40, the school finance law. Nowhere are the schoolseven mentioned. Had it done so, school forces would have been aroused, and the amendment would never have been ratified. You cai search the newspaper stories and editorials about die amendment during the 2000 election without finding any mention (hat schod taxes would be those diveTtedL Not until 1,385 words deep in a 35-page enabling act passed by the legislature this spring does the word school finally appear in (he law. Under the definiticn of all taxing units it includes school districts. The bill was approved with scant debate and passing mention in the media. Hijacking the Constitution takes stealth and a couple years of planning. In the future, well have to check the passenger manifest for bond lawyers, developers and city officials. \u0026lt;6. o o CM City leaders ponder propriety of owning property in UF districts m csi e BY CS. MURPHY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey and two city directors own property within proposed redevelopment districts, die hotly debated financing tool that fonn^ tax dollars away from schools and li-jraries to revitalize targeted areas. Concerned that they could bt CITY BOARD, School Board face off on issue. Page 1B. have a conflict of interest. City Directors B.J. Wyrick and Dean Kumpuris say they will bow out of discussions and wont vote on the proposed districts that include their property. Dailey, however, says he will participate fully unless he directly benefits from the deal The city attorney says its legal for the city leaders to discuss and vote on how the districts should be drawn and how the money should be spent But Wyrick and Kumpuris say its not that simple when dealing with an issue that has school officials and some residents saying the districts would undermine public education. The city directors say they are trying to balance their desire to set policy with the need to avoid any appearance of crafting a scheme that would benefit themselves. I dont want peo^e to think Im trying to feather my nest Wyrick said. Within these redevelopment districts, tax increment financing. or TIF. would be used to channel new property taxes into revitalization projects, such as improvir^ streets, upgrading sewers or repaying a developers See DISTRICTS, i-'age 6A a 9 w Districts '  Continued from Page 1A construction costs. These taxes, applied to increases in property value, would otherwise go to schools and libraries. By channeling millions of tax dollars for specific initiatives, city board members ate in the position to alter dramatically the way Little Rock manages growth and redevelopment. Don Zimmerman, executive director of the Arkansas Municipal League, said city directors could easily protect public trust while discussing TIFs if they at least disclose possible conflicts of interest That way. everyone would know ahead of time that this particular director owns property that is to be included in a district,\" he said. liie size of a city directors property as it relates to the size of a proposed district should be considered, he said. If it was a small district that would benefit only the [city] director and one other property owner, then they should recuse,\" he said. If its just a situation where you are one of hundreds or thousands of property owners and your interest isnt more significant than anyone else, I think it would be proper to fiil-ly participate. A DIFFICULT CHOICE The potential conflicts arose last month when City Manager Cy Carney six proposed redevelopment districts that would include the Little Rock port a portion of southwest Little Rock, midtown, downtown and an area in west Little Rock that would include the proposed Summit Mall Little Rock School District officials immediately objected, claiming the districts would keep the citys schools from collecting new property taxes. Reacting to the criticism, Dailey recommended that city leaders reduce the number of districts ftom six to three. Then last week, the mayor proposed reducing them again  this time from three to one. Now the mayor supports a single downtown redevelopment district  one that includes a three-story warehouse at East Third and South Rock streets that Dailey is transforming into loft apartments. The S3 J million project would When the city board began convert upper floors of the old Daileys Office Furniture Co. into 36 one- and two-bedroom loft apartments. Office and retail space will be offered on the ground level Though TIFs Dailey are designed to increase the value of an entire redevelopment district, Dailey said he doesnt believe his property will directly benefit in a way that warrants his recusal. After all. he notes, his investment in his downtown property is already ------------- enhancing its value  with or discussing the TIF issue, Wyrick without a TIF. . was put in an awkward posi- If anything, well be adding  tax dollars to the district if a district is being formed, Dailey said Wednesday. Were going to be paying the same amount of taxes, one way or the other. New Party Chairman Jim Lynch, who successfully pushed Dailey to recuse on the Summit Mall issue over a potential conflict of interest, said he doesnt have a problem with the mayor or city directors current involvement in redevelopment districts. But the potential for future conflicts exists, he said. Its really hard for me to understand why he wants to continue to be mayor and be heavily involved in real estate, Lynch said. Youre obviously going to continue to run into a clash of conflict. I just dont see how he can do both. Dailey said the key to balancing his role as mayor with his private interests is to avoid anything that would directly benefit his property. \"If there was situation wh^ I would get direct personal gain, I wouldnt be able to accept that or I would recuse, he said. don because a proposed TIF district in southwest Little Rock could save her money. Wyrick, who owns 95 acres of pastureland off Alexander Road, pays about $16,000 annu-ally to a water improvement Kumpuris, an at-large city director, said he hadnt thought about a possible conflict of interest until Wyrick asked City Attorney Tom Carpenter about her property Tuesday. But it didnt take district that would be part of a proposed Wyrick 5,000-acre redevelopment district. Little Rock officials have said they could use money collected STEPPING ASIDE Little Rock officials have been intrigued by how redevelopment districts were used by other cities to revitalize once blighted areas. Noting that most other states allow TIFs, city officials lobbied state lawmakers to pass a law that would allow them in Arkansas earlier this year. from the district to pay off the troubled water districts bonds, issued 20 years ago to pay for wa-teriine extensions. That would reduce Wyricks annual payments. Ive not participated in discussions on this,\" said Wyrick, who represents Ward 7. 1 thought it was time for me to disclose that I own property down there.\" Wyrick said this week that she may eventually recuse herself but she has mixed feelings on it I represent the people who are ray next-door neighbors, she said. Weve paid on these taxes for 20 years, and its time for this to be over. But on the other hand, you should always avoid the presence of evil.\" Kumpuris' office and two family-owned buildings are located on University Avenue, inside a proposed midtown redevelopment district. Kumpuris long to decide how to address the issue. \"If we make that a TIF, I would recuse on it,\" he said. Kiimpurisand his family own a vacant building Kumpuris on the comer of Main and Fifth streets that would also be included in the proposed downtown district. He said he will drop out of discussions on that district too if city directors resolve to draw it If we talk about it in the abstract, like we do ri^ now, that's OK,\" he explained. But I think once you start saying youre going to vote for something that will do something, you probably should get out of that deal. MAKINS THE CALL Dailey decided to disqualify himself from voting on the Summit Mall development because his brother-in-law. Hank Kelley. has ties to the project Dailey said then that he feared the move could set a precedent that would bar him from voting on any city matters involv-irg Flake \u0026amp; Kelley, a Little Rock real estate and property management firm in which Kelley is a partner. Kelley is also coordi-natii^ the redevelopment of Daileys downtown property. Arfcan^s ethics la^ dont address when city directors should recuse or abstain from voting, said State Ethics Commissinn Director Graham Sloan. The city's code of ethics, however\nrequires public officials to disclose matters that have a financial impact on themselves or their relatives and refrain from voting when they or their immediate family could benefit. Although the city's ethics code allows city directors to sit with the audience when the board is discussing matters ftom which they have recused, Dailey left Summit Mall hearings entirely. Board discussions so far have been too general to merit recusals, said Carpenter, who issues formal opinions on conflicts of interest. We're talking about the concept of TIF districts and whether the city should be involved in them, he said. \"When the discussion starts getting into specifics such as b^oundmes or specific projects, then the question comes much closer. But I dont think theres a hard and fost Hile at this point. As long as the board is participating only in public mus-ing \n on die topic, recusals won't be necessary. Carpenter said. Until there is some sort of legislative action, such as an ordinance or a resolution, the board hasnt done anything,\" he said. \"Theyre quite sensitive to it and are not going to do anything inappropriate. i\". f- l it views swapped friendly but firmly School officials tell city their doubts BY EUSA CROUCH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock Board of Directors and the Little Rock School Board got down to the nitty-gritty Monday night while discussing tax increment financing  a redevelopment tool that both bodies view differently. Their first joint meeting on the issue sounded adversarial at times, as talk of legal challenges milled with a few friendly remarks about fmding middle ground on the tool known as TIE About 30 watched from wooden chairs as the seven School Board members and 10 of the 11 city directors bantered behind a horseshoe of tables inside Parkview Magnet High School. How are we going to move this forward? a frustrated City Director Dean Kumpuris asked. In the audience, a man held a yellow sign that said, Dont stiff our kids. Because TIF would divert some property taxes otherwise designated for schools to redevelopment districts, school officials I question its legality. School Su- ! perintendent Ken James sent a letter last week to Attorney General Mark Pryor asking him for an opinion. Though Arkansas voters approved TIF last November, doubts over implementing it have city officials worried, too. City Attorney Tom Carpenter plans to ask the Arkansas Supreme Court to consider the question when it takes up a lower court ruling that declared the states school funding formula unconstitutional. School Board members told city directors Monday they wouldnt file a lawsuit against the city but warned that others likely would take Little Rock to court if officials use TIF funds for development purposes. This is a serious constitutional question about whether a TIF district can take money thats been voted as school millage, School Board member Baker Kurrus said. I dont know how this case will See TIFs, Page 3B TIFs  Continued from Page IB come out. But it will be tried. Most certainly. Nearly all 50 states use TIF in some form to spur development and redevelopment by forming a district and freezing its property values. As a project increases those values, the additional funds are used for such improvements as road work or refurbishing old buildings rather than for schools. Once the districts expire  in Arkansas they can last for up to 25 years  the new property taxes start trickling into regular taxing bodies, such as schools and libraries. Little Rock would be the first Arkansas city to use TIF. In August, city leaders proposed creating six redevelopment districts  one of which encompassed the $b0 million Summit planned for a wooded site near Interstate 430 and Shackleford Road. On Sept 7, Mayor Jim Dailey proposed reducing the number of redevelopment districts to three. Last week, he retreated even further and proposed reducing the number to one downtown district. With redevelopment projects already under way downtown, Dailey said he wants to create the district and move forward. I just hope that we dont just shut down the progress on TIF while we work through the legal issues, he said. Most city directors said that its best to move slowly with TIF and that downtown  where growth is occurring but needs a push south along Main Street and east and west along Capitol Avenue  would be the best starting place. We definitely want it to be a win- win, City Director Barbara Graves told the School Board members. | While several School Board [ members nodded as their city counterparts talked about their desire to redevelop downtown and create a 10-year district rather than a 25- year one as law allows, the discussion ended up again and again at a possible legal roadblock. If its earmarked to come to us, its got to come to us, School Board member Tony Rose said of property taxes. School officials point to Article 14, Sect. 1 of the Ariunsas Constitution, which prohibits school tax revenues from being appropriated for any other purpose [or] to any other district than that for which it is levied. Another provision, Amendment 74, guarantees that at least 25 mills of assessed value go toward maintenance and operations at each of Arkansas 310 school districts. Approved in 1996, the amendment aims to correct disparities in funding between rich and poor school districts. A mill is one-tenth of a cent for ' every dollar of assessed property val-' ue. The Little Rock School District collects 44 mills on property tax bills. The debate over TIF will continue in coming weeks. Kumpuris suggested that the city board approve the downtown district and set aside the TIF revenues that would come from it until legal questions are settled. Though city and school officials left smiling at one another and shaking hands, they agreed that in the end, whether Little Rock uses TIF will come down to a court decision. What I keep hearing the city board saying to the School Board is, why dont we all work together to spend your money? School Board member Rose sail I dont like it o 3 O\" (D N) aiSti September 1 8, 2 0 0 2 Pulaski County district tax PRECINCT FOR 039A/098K/099B/299D Berea Bapt. Church . .11 097H Sherman Park Com.. Ctr. .......................0 . 098D Hanis Elementary School .14 098G/908N/998P/998Q Meadow Park Elem. .1 098J Calvary Baptist Church. 108L First United Methodist . .0 .58 120A/408A/4O8B First Baptist (Maumelle) .. .83 125H/135H Crystal Hill Baptist Church...........15 125I/725B/735A Henderson UMC ..................8 . 128K Outlook Pointe ........................... 135AZ135B/135E Winfield UMC........... 135C/135D Lake Maumelle F.D.............. 135F C.A. Vines Ark. 4-H Ctr................. 135G Highland Valley UMC.................. 135J/145A Maumelle Assembly of God 135K/155A Chenal Valley Church .... 135Q Parkway Place Baptist Church ! 139B/149A Bayou Meto Elementary 149C St. Stephens Episcopal ......... 149D St. Jude's Cath. Church ......... 149E First Presbyterian Church ..., 149F/149H Jacksonville B \u0026amp; G Club .129 .15 . .6 .. .14 14 .1 . .0 .4 .46 .65 .47 .26 .18 229B/329J/339K First Bapt. (Gravel Ridge) . .58 229E Sylvan Hill Comm. Church .. 239A Reuther Hall/I.E.U.Local .... 239C/299E Indianhead Lake Baptist 239F Jack Evans Senior Ctr.......... 239G Sherwood Youth Center .... 239H/298A First Baptist (Sherwood) .43 .88 .73 .51 .71 .60 300B/320A/320D Immaculate Heart of Mary .10 320C/320E Oak Grove High School .... 329F/329G Northwood Middle School .. 329H Sylvan Hills UMC........................... 3291 Good Shepherd UMC .................... 335J Chenal Rehab \u0026amp; Healthcare......... 349L Zion Hill Baptist................................ 408C/408D Belwood Elementary........... 408E/418F/420A Amboy Baptist Church 408J Berean Baptist Church .................. 408K/428L St. Anne Parish Hall.............. 428M/518C/529A Indian Hills Baptist ... 518K NLR High/East Campus................ 557K/957E/957M South LR Comm. Ctr. . 566H/956F Geyer Springs UMC ........... 5661 Lewis St. Ch. of Christ .................... 567J Cooperative Extension Serv.......... 7171/917B/957G Metropolitan Career Ctr 725A/726D David 0. Dodd Elem.............. 726K/726L LR. Fire Station #18 ........... 817C Parkview Christian ......................... 817D Baseline Elementary ..................... 817EArch SLVol. FD .............................. 817F/957J Mills High School .................. 817H New Haven UMC............................ .16 . .122 .36 . .22 . .2 . . .38 .1 . .4 .0 .11 .11 .0 . .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .2 .4 .17 .9 . .15 857G/917A/957L Wrightsville City Civic Ctr . .18 909M/909N Plantation Agri. Museum..............8 . 957H Pilgrim's Rest Baptist 9571 College Station Comm.Ctr. 957K L.R. Fire Station #4......... Early Vote Courthouse............. Absentee.................................... Totals......................................... .0 .10 .0 . .11 .. .40 .. .1430 AGAINST ..........12 .............0 .............9 .............0 .............0 .............9 ..........14 ...........20 ..............1 ...........19 ..............7 ..............8 .............1 .............6 .............1 .............0 .............4 ...........29 ...........35 ...........39 ...........13 ...........16 ...........46 ...........27 ...........51 ...........65 ...........45 ...........46 ...........36 ...........26 ..............2 ............95 ...........12 ...........16 .............0 ...........43 ..............0 ..............0 ..............1 ..............8 ..............7 ..............0 ..............Oi ..............0 ..............0 ..............0 ..............0 ..............2 ..............0 ..............4 ..............2 ...........34 ..............8 ..............7 ...........12 ...........10 ..............0 ...........16 ..............0 ...........20 ...........37 .........921March 1 4, 2 0 0 3 School Board backs break for Bass Pro LR district tentatively approves sharing future tax money to bring store to city BY ANDREW DeMILLO ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE ed, but city leaders say it would help them make their case for The Little Rock School Board the project. LciiLdLivci This helps immensely, Lit- tiveT^msday'to attract'^$18 tie Rock Mayor Jim Dailey smi tentatively endorsed tax incen- lived lULUOUa)' tw ' . ' , . million Bass Pro Shops outdoor They are a key partner in this.  '  A public hearing on the dis-  Ro Ji\n. trict is to go before the Little With a 5-0 vote, the board Rock City Board of Directors on gave initial approval to a pro- April 1. The Otter Creek Land posed redevelopment district Co. has offered Bass Pro Shops that would use tax-increment 30 acres west of the Interstate financing. Little Rock city lead- 30-430 interchange for an Outers want to use the financing door World Store. Legislation has been filed in the Arkansas General As- megastore to southwest Little method to help the company pay its debt on the project.  Approval of the district by sembly making large retail de- the School Board is not need- See TAX BREAK, Page 3B Tax breaks pires, which could take up to builds nearby. 25 years in Arkansas. Hodges has said he hopes the Under the Bass proposal. Little Rock megastore would an- however, the school district chor a complex of restaurants, stores, banks and offices.  Continued from Page 1B velopments such as the Bass Pro would begin sharing in the rev- store eligible for state tourism enue after the first three years, incentives now reserved for tra- and that amount would increase which Arkansas voters approved Past efforts to implement TIP, ditional tourist attractions. The throughout the life of the pro j- as constitutional Amendment 78 ! site requirements in the bill ap- ect. in 2000, have failed. Little Rock For the first five years of the leaders withdrew numerous TIP patently would lock out North i IF Little Rock, which has also of- redevelopment districts life, Bass proposals in 2001 after school of- fered Bass Pro a location. Pro will collect a higher per- ficials and others complained Tommy Hodges, president of centage of taxes than the school that the districts cheated schools Otter Creek Land Co., called district. out of revenue that flows from In the sixth year Bass Pro and increased property values. Thursdays vote an important mcreased values, first step. the school district will split the The proposed revenue shar-  Without the School Board money evenly. From the seventh ing of the Bass Pro TIF appeared approval, I dont think the city year to the 15th and final year of to quell that concern among would move forward with the the redevelopment districts life, some School Board members TIF, Hodges said. Theres still the school district will draw a Thursday. a lot of work that has to be done. progressively higher percentage I think we did the right thing. If the district is approved. Lit- of the property's taxes. We just need to pay close atten- tle Rock would be the first city In the final year, it is esti- tion to this, board member Larin Arkansas to use tax-increment mated the school district will ry Berkley said. Its got some financing, known as TIF. The draw $1.1 million, with Bass Pro huge potential for the city, and method was first used in 1952 in drawing about $528,000. we dont want to stand in the California as a development tool Its a great deal for the school way of that. for run-down areas with declin- district, board member Baker Board members added that ing property values. Kurrus said. If it needs a boost they want to continue reviewing Once created, a TIF district and it helps the school district, the proposal as it moves forward captures increases in property Im all for it. to make sure it benefits the dis- values and funnels new tax rev- Otter Creek Land has given trict. enue toward improvement proj- 200 acres next to its proposed Were basically setting a ects within the district. Unless site to the Arkansas Game and precedent here today, said board otherwise negotiated, schools Fish Foundation, the nonprofit member Mike Daugherty. I want and other taxing jurisdictions get arm of the Game and Fish Com- us to be real careful with what the same amoimt of tax revenue mission. One commissioner said we do. I would feel uncomfort- they did before the redevelop- last week that a state nature cen- able giving anyone a carte ment district was formed. ter that had been headed for blanche on something like this. Usually the jurisdictions do North Little Rock likely would Information for this article was con- not benefit from the new prop- instead be built on the land do- tributed by C.S. Murphy of the Arkan- erty taxes until the district ex- nated by Otter Creek if Bass Pro sas Democrat-Gazette.March 1 9. 2 0 0 3 Reel em in For Bass Pro, TIF and Little Rock ERE S AN easy decision for Little it?would start sharing the revenue Rocks not always decisive board from its tax break with the school district of directors: after the first three years. And by the sev- . new Tax Increment Financ- enth year, the school district would be mg (TIE) district for southwest Little able to collect a lot more of the taxes on Rock so it can land an $18-milhon Bass the property. Pro Shopand all the business t-h--a-t--s AU the while, a Bass Pro Shop would businesses to southwest Little , L remember Rock, which would reaUy benefit if these the, ufr tiff over TIF districts a couple of 30 acres near 1-30 and 1-430 became a years back. Some city directors wanted to hub of economic activity. CTeate a TIE ^trict for the Proposed By the way, just what is a Bass Pro Sumnut MalL But plans for the mall got Shop? Or, in this case, an Outdoor World Store? Think of it as a giant, outdoor, toe TIE i^trict never got started, mainly super-Wal-Mart of sporting equipment because it sounded suspiciously like cor- Dozens of bass boats, hundreds of rods n porate welfare. A tax break for maU de- reels, aU under one roof. Better yet visit velopem after theyd decided on toe site? the Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, Mo., Huh-uh. And a tax break at toe expense and see what we could have raht cheer in of a local school district? Double huh-uh. Little Rock, Ark. But a TIF ^trict can be a good thing Little Rocks school board has already when It s used for the right kind of proj- approved this TIE districtunanimously, ect A store and busmess magnet like Now its in the hands of toe citys board of Bass Pro Shop IS toe right kind of project directors. You can reassure City Hall For sixers. Little Rock (Otter Creek, about toe benefits of this TIE district at a ^ecifically) is still trying to land Bass public hearing on April 1st. But this ought J ^^^onderS a Bass Pro 1JEgosh, to be a no-brainer, even for City HalL sounds like a fancy fishing boat doesnt Lets reel in that Bass Pro Shop.\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_233","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2000-10-01"],"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 attendance","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and 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/233"],"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\n11/20/2000 11:43 5013242079 M TOM STUDEl\u0026lt;T QUARTERLY ATI'FNDANCE REPORT FY 2000/01 LRSDF INANCIALS ERV (FOR CALCULATING \u0026gt;m, ADA. A.ND ADM OF M TO M SOI~ STIJCllm'S n: Gll.l\\.OES K-U) LEA: 6001000 COUNTY, PUUSKl DIS:rRICT, Little Rock School District QUARTER NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 DAYS DAYS DAYS PJU!SEN't n: PRESENT NON- DA.YS A.OT ADA QTR l'!VWSPORTED TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2+3/1 II0!:1-RESXDEltt s=s 1\\1.:Q.IV?\nD TO (BY M TO M 't'RANSFJ.R.) 77 91 LITTLE ROCT. 42 0 0 0.00 0.00 7702 NORTH ,-ITTLI! ROCK 42 0 5S l3 o.oo ]..28 7703 PU\"!ASKI CO SPECIAL 42 0 15677 1154 Q.Oo 36~-Be 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 1.58 3,1. 74 TOTAL l\\DT, Al:lA, AND ADM OF l'I TO 11 RECEIVED, 0,00 366.16 3~3.n STtlDEN'tS El,IQIJ!LE TO l!E COUNTliD AS 'nUINSl/ORTED WCL\\IOE M81D~ 8tu0El'ITS RESIO~NG TWO llO\\ln: !'!IL$ OR l'IORE FP.OM T!!ElR RESPCTIVE ASSIGNED SO!OOLS PAGE: l PAGE 01 \u0026gt;:--. p- 4 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLAYT TENDANCREE POR? ., FY 2000/0l I FOR CJU.CULATINAGll T, ADA, AND AOM OF M TO M SCHOOLS TODE!rrS IN ORADes K-12 J LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-R~SIOENTS TUDENTSR ECErvso TO (BY M TO M TMNSF'ER} 7701 LITTr.E ROCK 7702 NORTH tlTTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS lN QI'R 44 DISTRIC'r: N. Little Rock School 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED a 0 J DA~S PRESENT NON- '!'RANSPORTED 777 0 4 DAYS ABSENT 78 0 DistrictQUAR'J'ER NO. 1 5 ADT 2/1 o.oo o.oo 6 ADA 2+3/1 17 ,66 7 ~DH 2+3+4/1 19.  3 44 0 11837 437 o.oo 'l'OTAL A\", Al\u0026gt;A, AND ADM OP M TO M RECEIVED, ~ . 00 286 . 6 6 298 . 37 SR'El'USPDE..C,.TS IVELEAI GSSIBIGLNE ETDOS C8EH OCOOLUSN TEO AS TRANSPO!!TEIDlf CLODER SStDEHTs ,:tlDENTS !IBSIDING\" '10 ROOTM ILtS OR MORB FROM THEIR 0,00 269,00 o.oo 278.94 l CS) I.D ~ U1 U1 CS) ..... --J .--.J. .. CD CS) CS) ..... CS) ........ l.e.s.\u0026gt;.. I I ,NOV-27-M00O 0N8 :08A M Melissa M to M as follows: NI.R to PULASKI LR to PULASKI Doug ADM -- 187.9 ADM--1122.5 FAXN O. P. 01 MAGNET STUDENI'. QUl\\RTERLY /,TTENDIINCE REPORT rt 2000/01 (FOR CALCULATING ADT. ADA\n,'ND A1lM OF ~GNE?: SCHOOL STI/DENTS IN Gl!ADES K-12) LEA: 6001000 COUNTY: PUI:.:.SKl DISTRICT, Lictle Rock School District QU?.RT.:R NO. l 2 3 4 5 6 DAYS DAYS DlYS PRESENT Il'l PRESENT NON DAYS = AilA QTll T!WisPOitTED 'l'.R.Mf8P0Rt:Bt\u0026gt; ll!ISBlr.r 2/1 2+3/J. 7601 Lil'TLE I\\OCI( STIJDENTS SE!ll' TO ?601 Unt.E ROCK 11AQNT SC!IOOLS 3 65406 32633 3819 1~21. 05 2279.95 7602 NORTH LITTLE ROCK S't1JDEl'l'I'S SENT TO 7601 LlTn, ROCK ~ONtl' SC!lOOl-$ 4.3 78 20-!97 873 l.Bl 479. 50 7603 Ptll.ASKI CO SP!iClAL STUDENTS SENT TO ,isoi LI'UI.11' ltOClt MA~ 8CllOOL9 u 7' -t0i55 15U l.B ~2. 6S TOTAL MlT, ADA, AND AllH OF STUDE1'1TS ATIEl'OINli MAGNET SCHOOLS: 111.24.71 3701-10 l'\"'A\\Jt:. t:J.I. l 7 ADM 2+h-t/1 23'S. 77 98. 751 ine.ss 3846 .11 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE 'IO BE COUNTED AS Tl!ANSPORI'ED INCLUDER liSIDENT STUDENTS RESI.llUI~ TWO ROUTS NILES OR NORE FROM. l 'l!EIR RESPECTIVE A.SSI\u0026lt;3NEP SCHOOLS CF- STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE LITTL~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 PHONE: 324-2272 FAX: 324-2281 FAX COVER SHEET To: p~ . . Fax Number:  3 7 1.--oI O 0 From:__..,)d.._.QM._....t ,.\\. {A__ ___ _ Oam:._ . 1_ 1 _-/-\\_f_-O_O_  # Pages Including Cover Sheet . C . . LRSD SCMDGCOL I.Jt~BTYSS C'HOOL 2000/l0/02 PAGE iOOL:0 3\u0026amp; ROCKfELi..ERIN CENTIV.S EC HOOL iass Black Black Ttal White White fo tal Ot.~e!' Other fot-.1 Tc-tal Bl\n.c:k l-lhi ti? Cth\nir Min ~~ !'\\.,)I '/. Mar. !'lale F~le Black Male Feliiale White Male Female Othe\nCuu~t Perce~t ?v.-cent Percer.t !Hark Blac~ Capaci tY 22 17 3'1. 11 12 ~,, i:: .. 2 ~\" 65 60.0Y. ~ 3S.4!4 4.6~ .(lt .% BO '1 2 3 5 3 3 6 (1 12 41.? * 50.Q 5.3% 50.0 50.0 12 12 C' 3 9 5 6 2 3 18 SO.O 33.3'/. 16.7 5(:,0Y, 50.0'/. 18 '3 8 3 16 4 5 9 2 3 28 57 .1 l 32.1 10.n 50.(lt:. 50.01. 36 \u0026gt;4 l~ b i'i 6 10 16 1 2 37 51.41t 4'.3.2'/. 5.4 50.0 so.ox 36 1P (l 0 (J l 0 ,~ ..-,. 0 i .(1)\niOO.Ol: .O .or. .O 0 :l 17 p\n34 8 4 12 l 3 4 50 68.0l( * 24.0Y. e.O'/. .0'4 O\" 60 4' . ~ ):.\n. 13 20 33 9 14 23 0 l 1 57 57.9Y. 'f 40:4 1.8 .O ~oi 6(l 13 i8 16 34 9 8 lb 1 0 1 -, :i. 66,? * 3l.4Y. 2.0Y. .c~ .oi 60 !4 11 13 29 13 5 18 2 0 2 49 59.2% * '.36.7'/. 4.!Y. .O ,0',{ 60 t5 i.o 19 38 b 9 15 2 55 69. l * '2.7.31! 3.6Y. .o~ .O 1,0 ,tal 129 127 25b 'l '75 145 13 'f 22 483 bu.SY. 34.~ 5,2Y. 482 ~~~c)0 8 It 1:/ @3 l~G_d:5 t 7)\n5g 001 CENTRAL .001 l~~~~~~~ l~1\n~~ j~~NTRAL . w:~\n,,-,,---..::: 002 'HALL 002 HALL  wr~\nOctober 2, 2000 Enrollment - Little Rock School District  ... 1~8 o 104: 107 138 ~ ~r~ ~r 11\nr \n1~ ~\n\nr 1\n~: } ) ~ o 101 99 160' w\n1[ w\nr\n:\n w~\n~\n~: w\n~\n:\n1 172: \n: w\nw~ 0. 47: w\n: 442. ::r\n:: w\n: w\nw\no w\nw\nw :\n: 002 r~:.~ :l ~\n116: w~l w\nw~ w~r w:\ni w.:\nww\nr 09.~ :~~~~  w. ::\n:\n.. ........ w\n~f 103: w\n11 8 w~f w~r\n1\nr 2781 ~\n1 \n:r 114\\ ~~~~r 72% 3 T 3: 81 I w7..oww.2 1 4wwo . 3:: 83.. ...45N.  003 MANN M/S  6 ...  .. ~~\nwl~~~~ ~\n:\n1 WW\n: W\nr W\n W\n1 w\n W~ WW~} ~:: W\nWW\n~i W \n1 WW\n~\n80i\n11 w\nr\nr ~I\nr\n:rw 452. :003  ~A~~ M'~. wr\nr :3?.l w~\n:w 53% 005 {P.I\\R.l:\u0026lt;Y.11:\n: \\'\\I 005 : PARKVIEW 005 IPARKVIEW w\n PARKVIEW 006 }BOOKER ~~~ : BOOKER t '006  BOOKER .......  .. 1~ ~~\n BOOKER w N t w\n~~\nl\nw. 11\nww~ nw\nw:\nw\nw ~r\n~ I w:\nl\nr 87.. ~1 w\nw\nl w~ w~t w~\n1 w~\nw~r 76: ~~ w\nr w~r 1 \n1 w\n1 WW\n: w ~\n:: w~\n w\nr w~r ~r w~f w\nr ----==------:r 1: 31\n23' 0 1  19: ~\n\n1\n~r-~~1r\n1 ~r 31 33:  ~\nr)\n1\nr ~I\n~ 2 ol  ~~ 16= 2r 1l ~r ~ .w\n:1 o w\ni ~~\n\nr- ~ w\n\nr ~1 w\n~r w\n~ 22\nr o 11  w\nr 303 007 iDUNBAR w\n91. ~\nr w\nw\n1 \n\n: ww\n007 I DUNBAR w r\nw~I :: ~\nr 72 w:: WW\nr\nt\n: :\nw\n: .007 l~:~\nWI~ \n1:.I w\n\n1 w\nr -~r\nr w:: :\n: w\n  w\n:1 008 r\n:\nw~r o\n~ 118\nw:\nw\n\n:1 w\nw\n~\n008 l\n:\n w~l --~ 86 w ~~I\n\nw ~tN ~\nr\nr 215: \n~: w\n1 \nr 1r ~ w~ 12:\niw 224 w I .... ::::\n~ . ..] !.\\ .. 2.. ~ .::::~\n:r:\n:\n.r.i. .v  ~\n\nr ~\n1 1, 82 981 3.. 2 o w~i 53I 35 w\n: w.\nr 1 : w\nw~: 42. \nr w\n::1 008 FAIR 008 1\n:\n. 009 i FORST HT 6 545:: 56% .... ...- .-,-.....j\n-,-,- \"\"\n3\"r :~J ,.% 2}=jjf:.O% 77 \nr 1\n! w~ 34 w :~!\n~~1~-.d 244 o. 1: ~~:\n~\n\nr 1  J ~r  ) 009 :\n~~~~ :\nw l\n ~I 009 \n~RST HT l\n~ WJ \nJ6?f o : )      , 35  63 2.2.!\\ .  0 3 67 78. 0 1  0 o: 58 6i 269 \nf 1I ..\n1 77 oi \n1~ I~ \n~ :I 46\n~~: :\n~\u0026gt;! ~~~ :\nPUL HT J\n01q ]~uLHT J 1~ 318! 10\nj:56% 011 isoUTHWST l~  ~I ~I 831 83:: ~r 3 ~ Oi 6 } 011 1\n~~~::\n~o! \noi\n1 95( \n\n~~:: 71 \n011 r\n~UTHWST w r~  ~1 N ~1 n 1 73\nr \n \no.  ~r 7 \n~:~r\n1 11   ~\n\nr 92% 012 .MCCLELLA : o ~r175( 16) :rN\nI\nw\n1 11} \n r 012 ::~~:~~:   :\n~1 ~r ~\n:= ::i \n0  \nw~  ~:r\n  . ... ...1 .1  . ... .. 4.....9.. .,,,,,., .,.=:.,:.,,. ..\n~\n1 :\n:~:r:\n ~o = 1\n~:\n\nT\nr \n\n\n\n012 i~\n:\n:~r\n:\n\n::.\n~.::i::i:\n~ :\n:~i 89 :: 4\n~:\n\n1 4 205{ 1041t .... ~9 19 91% P.1} .. H~N9..B~:~ 1~ 1: 0. w\n ::\nl  w\n w~ wr 17 \nr w r 013 HENDERSN 7 ~J~ 1 \n~~~)  \nr\n~r 12 1\nr 186' 1 M J ~1 11\n::i 65' :r~ ~ r~ :\nJ\n~r\nr 435} ~~\nr 28(  ~~~11 77% 2 ~I ~\nr 129  ~r 11\n)\n~: ~r\n~ w r 015 'CLOVRJR ~y ~1~~~\n~I~  ~)  ~: \n1~ 238' .,. w  l 015 ]~:~~\n:\n0 N\n:\n: \n ~1\n1 ~ ~\n\n11.~\nl 52. 55\n~\n186% ~:\n ~~~~~~~ ~r65 97:\n1 \nr\n: \n1 \nrw\nr 198:  r w  016 :~~~~~~~ ~r\n\nr\n:r\n1\n1'\n~\nr\n~ .:  :::::::::::::: 5 ::::: 1 :::: 1 J,,::::::::: ,016 1::\n~~~\nww~I w\nr w\n:: ~r\n\n: w\nr w\n:: J\n:i :\n!\nJw 17 79% 017 'BALE o: 251 \n: w\nl w~l w\n~ ww: ww\n \n: 017 .BALE w~i 18' \n1\nr\n~ 8}ww\nw\nI 017 (BALE ww~I ~ \n\nr ~l ww:1 w\n w :\n1 017 I~\n::~ w w~I w\n\nr 20! ~: \nw\no: WW\n: \nr 49:. 017 .ElA.LE: ::5  \nr 18' \n: w\nw\nr\nr ~1 ww\n1 WW: ::::::::::.:..:..:..:..:.1.:..  :.:.1.\n: ::: \n :\n:~:  ..~: \n o 11: oi -~- .. -\n 015 } CLOVR JR HENDERSN 338 76% 018 I~RADY ,. 1 w ~l\n~ 17 . 1  \nr ~r\nr \nr 018 r~~:~\n~   ~  ii ~\n1l 7\nr 1 ~ .~ ~1 1\n018 ~~:~~N \n 1=: 1  17. 231\n ~ ~r 0. 5 } 50 018 ~~\n~\nl:: J ~l 1 1~: ....? .P.,). ~\nr  ~\nr  ~l  54  018  B RADY 5 1: 0 17: 201\n~?\n)  ~~(  =. ...... ... .. .. . . 1..,., ..,.., . , .. = =,,.. . -. -  . . . .- . . - . ,.,,--,-,,--,,:\\.--.,,-- '018 W.==.\n:\nW : w 0 WW ~f\n W~r\nW ~\n:\nW\n: ~   \u0026lt; ~-r - --...- ----.--.{-.-- --\n:,i\n--:-:'---:'.----c4----o\n...\n_._o..\n:_.... =..-!.~ WW~: W ~'f\u0026gt;W W::::~\n~+{p\n~\nr 66:: 20 W ~~~r 75% 019 .BADGETT 19 0 0 w\n. ~ :r 019 r~:\n~~\n~ w ~ WW~ w~:\n~r \nr \nr W~ 0 ~ ~:\nr ii ::~J ~3% } 020 : MCDERMOT~-\" - - o: ~\n1~~RVER\n~: \nr -~: \n.....\n~ \\ 021 icARVER  r\n\nI ~r\n1 1\n~ t~ \n1r ~1  ~1~~r 021 icARVER N r~ 1. )I\n~:\n~T)\nr\no  1:\nr ~\nr  021 :~\n\n~~~  c 1 i  ~r\n~ \n:\n: ~ w~r  0 ~i\n:\n. .\n.: r 90 ~~~ ~ARVER  l~ ~: ~\nr~\n:~ 11~r r\no{ 20I 1\n, \n: ,\n-~~----- ,-..--------.\u0026lt;.....------- -~\n.- WW\n: WW\n022 .BASELINE \n1 3: ~\n 022 :BASELINE , r\n0} 0'\n:1\n:- ~1\n' \n' ~t 3} : '' : 022 : BASELINE \n-~  ~1\n~1\n:\n\u0026lt;..1\nr  \n1 0 \n ...\n  ::\n1\n.~C\n~a\n:. .a :\n1\n.~. \n1\n ~I 1: \n\nr 022 ~ASELINE .,\n.. 9. O{ 0 11\n\nO, )i \n 42' 'o\n2\n2:\n: .1_:B\nA~:S\n.E\nL~l\nN\nE\n::.::0 :. :~:: ::~.p1~6 c '\nl 2:. ~1 4\n1\n:,\n\"'38 ~ , ~ -~~- 34: 259 \n.,1:\n.:~\n.\n\n~ \\ o --~ \n} \n~! o:\n\na 7i 3 45t\n1\nAIRP .RK \n .. ~: --~ \n1\n:- ~\nw ~r N\nr \nr \n\nFAIRPRK \n.. ~rO:\n~1\n~\n-~\nr:~r\nr 023 ... :\n:\n:  : a .. ~ \n:.\n \n:.\n\n  ~l \n:\nr \nI 023 FAIRP RK  ~ a~ \n~ ~l r ) ) ~ ........ ... .... ..t\n. . 3 16 ::\n:::::~:~f}: \nJ\nl o' :.:.:.. ... 2 024 :FORST PK 1 10 024 \n~~\n~\n \na: -~ \n-~\n-r~ - -~\nr -~:\n:,\n024 FORST PK .. G , ~l 6 \n,\n ~\n --~ \n: N ~: 024 :\n~~ST PK 4 ... ~, \nr \n~ 1~: 0 0 \n~i 14. \n 024 :FORST PK l\nQ.\nr\nr ~ ~\nr\n\nr \n024 FORST PK ~.2.1. O  FORST PK 025 :FRANKLIN w\nr \n\nr ~1\n...: 31 ) 1 1 ar . . 40.' . t:~=t --.l:.....---\"\"------ .... t_~~:\nt: . \\' 2 0 71 ( 025 :FRANKLIN } :: '025 f,~J\\.t--lf\u0026lt;.Llt--1 027 ~IB~S 027 'GIBBS 027:G IBBS  w\n oiw w1~2l. w:\n:~ w\nr ~rw ~110  WW~ 027 GIBBS w  : ][ ~: w~w:\n~l\nI\n  Q Q:  ~: 6} w:w: 027i-~\n~BS 1~ 1 i ~ \nt 1~: 1 1 r\nr ~ 8 :'. :::.':::-  , 1  , ...:. .  .. ,{: ~=--- 028 }CHICOT 028 kHICOT ... f~. ~\nCHICOT w w\n~\n1~:\n~~\nw : 028 ~:\n~~\nw\nlwEsT HIL 029 wr:\n~\n:  w\n029 w:\n:\n:\n:  r\nw 029 w::\n:\n:\n~  w : 030 LEFFRSN 1 030 .JEFFRSN 1~   ~:\n 1:1 v\nr  :JEF\n~SN \n~-  ~141 1:r ) ,l ~ oi\n~1J 030 iJEFFRSN  \"\"C ~1 2:\n~:\n~  0 ~ ) )\n~ \n~   ~ ~ 030 iJEFFRSNW i\nw ~l w~w1\nr~ww~w\n~rwJw\n~r\\w\nw 030 c~\n~w : : w~r~ I\n:r ~w\nWW~ --~: 14 ::\n:.:::I: 031 ::\n:\n:\n\n~ 1 al oi 34 30' o w~: w\nr 031w\n:\n:\nw\n: l\nw ~r 1: 26.\n:~ Tw\nrr ai ~iww~Tww~ 0311\n:\n:\n: WW\nw~rw ~wT\nw\n:wT ~w\nr ~rw ~\niTww w~r 53% 7 ,....,.C.L..O..V..R. E.L. . .::-\n~.~~-\n,:~.- 032 ioooo 1 ~\nwr~QDD wl\nwww\n1\n1\n:1 2' 1 w~.w~ww~w\n' \nr 9.3.?r~~~~ W\nW\n1 a,\n:\n:\nW\nW~.......~ 1'\n 032 I~ODD w [ oi w\n:\n~} 9:\nw.\n.o : ~wr\nr WW: WW\n: 032 toooo 15  w\nl \nr\niw\n: :w\nw\nl ~rw ~r5 w\n:w w\nr\nWI~~~~ w :\nw\n! 15 w\nw\nr ~ WW~\nw :\n1:\n:w t:21! . :...2,. ....7:\n\n  033 fMEADCLIF 1 0 10\n~\nr\n. ~).~\n .:\nr\n~ iMEADCLIF r\n~t 0\n~r\n) \n\nr 0. ~\n1 ~\n  p~~.: ~:~\n~\n~ w\n~ o 1~: 1). ) ) ~ o  ~ ~r\nr 033 :~:~~:\n~  t ~w~l\n~ 1~: 11 1r} 0 ~\n 51{ 033 w1:\n:~~w:\nw:w ~wr ~\nr\n:w\n~w ~ r\nr\nww\nT WW\n w\nw :iw. 033 MEADCLIF : ww ~~w1w\nwi\nw~w WW\n: 7 034'M ITCHELL ==fJ- ... .-w-..o...- w.-l,.\n-. .-.~w-\nw1 --\nw\n w~ 1\nw-I\n.w~-\n.-, WW\nWW\nr\n: wr:\n:~:w:\nal ~w:\nw\nw:\nw\n w\nw ww~\n:lw ~ l ~\n1: :\n:~G::w o ~:w\n:\n):\n! o ..w\n r\n.  1: ww:\n: wr:\n:~w::  :  0. o 24. 0 w\n w\nw 0 . 0. w\nr [\n MITCHELL w~ w  ~ ~\n1 22\n1 0\no, \n1 ww\nl 0~1 w1:\n~:~::: w Q. d\n\nw:=\nQ Q. Q: 034 JMITCHELL\n,'-''' ......:.:---'''''--,,,....-,~- 035 .ML KING -.-..-::.-,,,--,,-,,-,, .... - 035  M ~ ~.l.~G .035  ML KING 036 R OCKFELR (\n~\nw ~~ :\n~:~ :. ...,...- ,.:...... ---r--.........----.--....... 037  GEYER SP  ..................................... ot--1.t' ~ /) .. ~-~--...i.~. \\ w\nl 1 89% 96% ............I. 33 5974 54% ::.:,=,V'\"-'-~'-\"'  037 =GEYER SP ~ ....:.\n1 ~r ~\n: wit\n\n: ~ ~.. ... }\n~- 037 .GEYER SP ......\n0 Q w\n. 26. ~ } 0 ......~..\\. . 2. 1 ...\n.~. r  037 ....~.\n: ....... ~1\n: 15 .....\nr\nr .\n. ... a -~ .. ~l : \n~. .... ... 037  ~~~~~ ~~ ,\n  ~: oi\nx 23 ...... ~ ......\n. ........ ..\n ','.'','.'~i' ,'.'','.'\n......:\nr  037 !~\n\n: \n~: ..\n.... ..\n. ... ..~..l. 1  038 P~~~~ E ... :: ....,, 038 iPUL HT E 2 ., , .......... - . 038 P ULHTE r~ 038 .PUL HT E  1: ..... 038 .PUL HT E 5 038 ~~: :\n~ l:\n.,.-.-.'.'.', ..,-,,---,_,,,,, .. .,,._..,_,. .., : ..,..--.,.-..- -.-.. . _. _ ._._..,._....._ .,_.. _. _ ....,, ,:..:.,,----,:._.. .. ---~-'-'''-:-:\"\"'''~-- 039  RIGHTS EL 039 : RIGHTS EL 039  RIGHTSEL :--,----- 039  RIGHTSEL :---,---- .039 j RIGHTSEL 9~9 :.~.IS3.HT~~L 'o39  RIGHTSEL '040 ......\n~:\n~\n q49 }R\u0026lt;?rv.i1r:-:,1c 040 .ROMINE 040 1R(?l',lllt-llc\n\u0026lt;t() ~OMINE 041 041 21 20 0 0 0 0. 0 0 41. a: 25\n: w\n1\nQ: 0 \nr ','.':\ni ....\n.: ...\n.\n. .....\nr\no o ......~... . .....\n.....\n~:.....  ...~..\n1 ....\n.:  .....\nr\n -~ ~r ~ ...\n.. 1. ...:r.. .w.1...,....6',.'. ..' al .....Q..... ...... o.......... 0' .w,.'w. OW r3. . 4..   }   ..\n.r. .\n..\n.. ..a 1 1... . ....\n.: ... .,..o .... .. . . ::.---.----\n- .-.--::- V .-.-..--..-.\\ ........... -.-c q: o o o. o ....\n.\n1 ....\n.\nr ~. .....\n ....\n. ..........\ni \n: -~r \n~: \n~\n2 \n.....~. \n..... :r \n: ...\n.\n. ~1 ....\n. ...\n.. at ...\n..\nr 042 r:ASHNGTN O 9  5r 042 .WASHNGTN wl\n2' ','.'\n:\n\n'1,'. '\nw\n: ','.'\n: ','.'','.'~i \n~: w\nr 042 ..... r::\n:~~l\n~ ~ 1:\nr ..\n.~.. . .\n. ....w ...\nr\n . .~.....\n.. .:.~. . :\n~A~~~~T.~ ]\n...... ~r~.I 24. 15. 3\n1 oi 0 .......\nw\n.w 71' 65% \\ 10~42 :\n1 W A:S~HNG\nT~N ~\n~ J\n.\n.:\n.: ::~\n:\n.\n.:\n::::~]-:: ~\n,..._--',._...-,- 043 WILLIAMS 043 1:\n:~\n~\n043 ::\n:~\n~\n043 .WILLIAMS 9: 1~ ~~1 \n: !.\n.:1: : :ri.~I \n.:,__ __.. .. ::=+ 1vy1g1AMS .... \n,: 1 .. S?~ ...,...... t ...-........ .............................. . ........... . ...............  24}. ~ 0 ) ~\n111\nr ~a: ~~~-~---~\nr: 14.J ~ 044 Iw1LSON 11 ~1~ r\n1 31 f 1  1   ~ ~t M~/\nr ~~ ~::\n~~~~- 2 .... ~ or\n)\n~1)~r\n~3 1r ~\n: 044 .WILSON ~ 1 i O 1\n23'. ) 1 } ~ 2 1 39 044 w1:\n~\n~~ tw ~:ww~} 1\n:w\n~: w\nlw~~ w~ww\n w:l 044 I:\n~\n~~ w l\nw . ~t ~ w\n~t 21 \n w\nr ~f\nI w~r\nr 43: .::....w.\nV 'w). O. .Kp.... \n w. I\n w~. .w. w0 0 . :.:\n1 i1 3 1 J:.,\n' 4-\n_ ,\n\n_~\n_-~- {]Sr} _0L ..\n:.w~ .,... . 3 16 r~\n57 045 :WOODRUFF 1 o w~r 1~ 1~\n0 o 0 \nr~ ~r ~r  \n: 1\n~\n~\n~ \n~ 1 ~ \n~..:.. 1 .1.\n\n  \n \n:~\n ~~.  045 wooDRUFF wl\n0. ~..\n~r 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. ~r  ~1l WW j 045 1:~~~r~: :\nw ~ WW~ w\n~J 16 w\nr w~ w\nw\nw s w\nr w\n:: w . J\n: IwooDRUFF r\nw~i w ~ w\n\nr w\n: w\nr w\nr\nr\n: w\ni WW\nw w\n: I 045 tvyqq[)~lJff 1:w o 17 w\nr w~ w\n w\n0 w.\nr\nl WW  OODRUF .w,.2.~1.~.2.W wo1l wwow..7. 0.  ww1 r w/4wt\u0026gt;. . .6J.. w 2 ... .....w ..s.. . , ?..~~(O, 9.1.~ ~\n~\n~,w r~   o  w~ w\n~f 1s ~ g\n ~t 1 ~( 50 046 .MABEL EL 1\n 0. 0 25.\n1: ) 0\n .w~\n \n~1r 046 .MABEL EL  ~ ~r\n: w~ ~:\n\nr ) ~~ (\nM ~l \n~r 046 .MABEL EL  ~  +~ ~\n~\n~ ~l 1r ) ~\u0026lt; 1~i  ~r ~~\n046 .MABEL EL \n. ~ ~r 2~\n~ ) 1 ) ~ J )\nr ~: .MABEL EL wl: w~ ~11\n.....~... ..w~ \nr\nw 3 w :\n~ ........ ......................... ww ww.  .w w  w 9 . 10.t~ ~~ i~~~~~~~ .. P ... q' .w4\u0026gt; s o\no: 3. 6 1a Q47 .TERRY 1  17 20 3 o 0 25 1~r 047 r\n~ ~r 5. W\nW\nW\nr\nl w\n W\n WW~ 12 W~:r  ~:\nw 1\n~RRY w\n\nr ww~I \nt ...\n~ \n  ~! w\nr\n~~\nr\nERRY w : \n w~r\n\n~) \nr\nw\n\n20' ~\nr 044 .WILSON 89% ~-\n-11\nj~\nj\n. ) 215 1 \nt::::\nJ 46% .\u0026gt; 048 1~~~~~1~~ :1 1  1: ~ ~\nr ~~r  1~r .~\n\n1\n::\n\n:\n\n1\nr\n:\n\n\n\nr~: 17} :\nr  62 048  F~~~~l~H 1\n\n:\n\n1\n~ \n\n,\nr~ \n,r :\nr \nr 9~ 1\n::\n\n\nL: \n:\n\n\nr- -~\n~::\nr -~\nr 048 1\n::\n: w\nw\n!. :\n1\n:\n\n\nr\nr w :t\nr  :\nr\n~: w 0~ :]\n~~\n~ : W \n: 1  .1 WM\n1\n:\na:\n\n72 'O_~.. .. J'ULBRIGH o  , m -18....\n.~\n.-.':-:- ~~\n:~~~~~~ 20, \n-~ ~\n: \n\nr\nr ~\ni'~\n\n~CR.. 1~\n: 1 ... .\n \n~ \n 1~l 1\n1 \n~ P~.P. O TTER c~ 3 o: 10 1~\nr\n ~r\n:\n~ 10  M :\n: 050 .OTT~~CR :. oi ~r\n1 ! \nr 1 ....\nr o ::\nJ ~~r .52 050 .OTTER CR r~ ~:~ 1~ ~.} )\n1f 16\n1r  52. 050 1~\n~\n~\nl\n\n- ~l.\n::::: 0 0 0 ]..'\n.::t:: :: 12\nr\n1:\n:::::::::::::~.~J~~i-::::,.  .\n:::tc.\n:r~\n:r:\n 051 ~AKEFIEL 1 o 20\n! )' 3 o oI 1, 6 59 051  ~~~~F'.1~.~\n w\n1\n: w\n\n1\nw\nr\n. w  \nr 051 :~AKEFIEL w  L 0. 22! 18: w.\nw :\n\n1\n1\nr ~\n=WAKEFIEL  r: \n w\n1\n \nr 2! w\nw 53! 051 lWAKEFIEL  w\noi 1 f 24 22)\n\nl \n 0 ,\n:r .. o ......... .5... ...A.:..W.. 1..F.. . 1. K...E. ..E. .L\n.  , ~ ~ 25. \nr\n \n, ~ o.\n \n :1: .......... ..Y)...... .P.  .. ......:.  J: .s ...o .  .. ...: .:.  ) :.  , .(iL 051 cWAKEFIEL ~/.~ 1[~ .\n:~~\n: ~J\no .. .9.'. J[ ~\n:::\n~~ 1 o o 30 38 ~ ~I()L ... 2 ... ?.. 1L 71 052 :WATSON r\n -~: '~I 38 :\nr o 1 r ~r o: 0 1 r\nr g~?..::\n~~ ~ -~ \n1-~ ~\n1:-:- ~\nr o: ::\n\n: 61 052 1:\n~ ~~ : o ~r ~~}\n~:\n= 2 ~r O o'\n052 :WATSON \nof ~:: .. -~1: ~1: 1  1  ~ ~: O=\n ~:r .052 :\n~~~ 1\n~ r~ :\n~\n~  1.=\n~r\n:  ~  L J'i/ ...,::: 725 .ALT AGCY 725  I ::\n:~~\n725 725 'A=L:-T- A,G CY ................ J2.5. A~TA.\u0026lt; 3-~Y.J\nTotal Elem Total Middle Total High Total Sec Total District ALT AGCY Grand Total 97 99 4377 4356 208 232 12 11 33 38 1828 1985 64 81 5 8 46 47 2422 2367 82 73 4 5 79 85 4250 4352 146 154 9 13 176 184 8627 8708 354 386 21 24 0 0 32 50 0 0 0 0 176 184 8659 8758 354 386 21 24 81 1728 1714 739 721 68% 69% 1033 978 1051i41as 2011 1251 \nos1f6 8% 1772 1699 12s5siaso2 fa471 F~i 12559: 68% 3500 3413 j~jsjf17.jj~]i~1:j 1145 253~\nr68 % 22 28 132}82 j5o fo 132 62% 3522 3441 25525 h 1411 I 6963 (1145  25525 68 % \u0026amp;7i!3 ~#,\n,, (,~~ /~8~1 l_, (f,_:~c-~ .~. 1\n,.,c.?J-P3. + Jo ~/ ~ a?\nSf-f._,1V-f\"P, ~ 74,3-- _i,(,,3- C:te~ /a:?,8 \"Ja-, ~ :, JY~P~ Cl . f_L~l-'(~~J-~~ ~~7~ \\ --\nI l'i~~ e,913 //-,S ~)\n$73 ,\u0026lt;t F\"e// -iL PJ-P~ ..\n,. ~D ~I ? ~\u0026amp;' 17t~t ~I 9\n-y' ~I$)- ,=\n\u0026gt;5,-l\u0026amp;I v'1o W( Q)I BT IBI ILIITTILJEI B( O)CI[C IPlUifIfLi I IC C~ CC1 BI COI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET December 12, 2000 Memo To: Melissa Guildin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: ,dj'Zt Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Requested Information This memo is in response to your recent request concerning school building capacities and plans for facility improvements or construction. We are enclosing a copy of school building capacities and a memo from Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, explaining the plans for facility improvements and construction. AN EQlJAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER [Z--~ ltL~~l From_:. .J~ez::.:.,__ __ _ Return D Keepo rT ossu JI' 1P oet-ll\"7688CC!M19 93 P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 North Little Rock School District School Building Capacities 2000-2001 Buildiag Qag\nu.i~ Buildiag ~agai:.i~ ~ Witb e~utable WiU]QUet Qttable Amboy 406 - Belwood 188 Boone Park 473 Crestvvood 318 Glenview 229 Indian Hills 426 Lakewood 254 Lynch Drive 506 Meadow Park 205 .-i,ee,~ North Heights 509 Park Hill 282 -ffl7I' Piv\"' 11\n,, 372 ( Redwood J /~ - ::,evemn :::,creet 429 Lakewood Middle 598 - Poplar Street Middle ' 814 Ridgeroad Middle 641 Rose City Middle 457 Argenta Academy 175 NLRHS-East Campus 1299 NLRHS-West Campus 1300 12/15/2000 14:54 501-324-2281 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: FROM: Mrs. Melissa Gulden Junious Babbs 1 SUBJECT:  Building Capacities DATE: December 15, 2000 LR SD SRO PAGE 01/02 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 324-2272 E-Mail: jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd,kl2.ar. us Please note attached information regarding your request for '00-01 building capacities. Sony for delay in this response. Adopted attendance zone boundary changes ('99-00) and the school transition piece, resulting in realignment / redistribution of grade levels between elementary, middle and high schools have resulted in numbers being altered. These factors include school or program modifications, renovation, portable addition / removal and/ or utilization rate that is factored. Recent approval of the May 9th Special School Millage Election has prompted additional monies in recommended repairs, renovations and additions that will result in future adjustments and revision. Exact tiroelines are now being established to project scheduled work over the ne,rt three to five years. I hope t.o keep your informed throughout the process and ask if questions come up, please feel free to give me a call. ______________________________ _. 12/15/2000 14:54 501-324-2281 LR SD SRO PAGE 02/02 Little Roc:k Schoo/ Dlatrict 2000.2001 Cspac/tles 2000-2001 Cepecitles SCHOOL Caoacl~ Genta/HS 2200 Fa/rHS 1200 Hal/HS 1300 includes portables McC/ell/lHn S 1440 includes annex P~ II~ HS 1200 Sub-Total 7340 750 DunbsMr iddle 780 FClffl$Ht eightMs iddle 780 HendersOMfild dle 960 M8belvBMleid dle 600 MllMM/ddle 900 Pu/sskHi el{ll1l1M1 iddle 750 SouttMreMs1ld dle 750 FllirPri 304 ForwPtlrli 400 F1anidin 532 Fu/bright 491 Geyer~ngs 358 Gibb$ 321 Jefferson 471 King 715 McDennott 453 MHdowc:liff 358 Mltch6/I 283 Otter Cr8ek 415 PulaskHi e/a/71s 350 Riams911 296 Rockefeller 481  P1 - 5th Grade t-::Rc--om-lne:-------+--.a=t3 :[:\n:\n:,.-.-,ce-/:d---_------++--_--=\n--19~\n:,\n~tJ:: e:\"\n~les Washington 678 WesternH ills 320 WilliBms 4.90 WIISOII 340 Wooctuff 314 12/151CO ( fiLE:D U. S. OISTrtl:\nT COURT OCT 15 1987 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS C~L[RK WESTERN DIVISION By:~ -r----------,,_..,..:..,.., \"\"\"'r:'\",\"1= - ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to the oral order issued from the bench on October 9, 1987, it is hereby adjudged that Aubrey Mccutcheon serve as master in this case in order to insure compliance with the mandate of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The conditions requiring this appointment are set out below. The filling of magnet school seats continues to be unsettled. I have previously approved making the racial ratio for the magnets more flexible, that is, permitting a black percentage of 50-55% rather than exactly 50%. The Little Rock School District (LRSD), in accordance with recorrrnendations of the Citizens' Comnittee, will use magnet vacancies to improve racial balance in the nine schools which are outside the balance guidelines set by the Court of Appeals. The LRSD has asked that these transfers to magnets be effective November 9, 1987. I have no objection to the November 9 date. I would ask that the master be imnediately apprised of the effect of the student transfers. . . '\n,\",. .,...,.. . . ~ \\, \" --~---~-~.- _ _J ( Measures other than the use of magnet seats must be explored ( in 6rder to deal with the schools whose black student populations exceed that which is permitted under the mandate. The Citizens' Corrrnittee has reconmended that the LRSD's entire student assignment plan be refined, changed, or discarded. This appears to be the most pressing assignment for the Master. The destablizing effect of yet another \"new\" student assignment plan  suggests to me that the 1988-89 student assignment plan may indeed be this school district's last bite at the apple of quality desegregated public schools. In short, the student assignment plan must be workable both in design and imp l emen tat i_on. Accordingly, I have appointed Aubrey Mccutcheon to serve as Master to assure compliance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals. Mr. Mccutcheon has played a key role in truly successful desegregation plans, that is, plans which improve schools in both quality and racial balance. I am convinced that such a plan is possible in Little Rock, Arkansas and I am confident that Aubrey McCutcheon's guidance as Master will make the difference in devising and implementing that plan. Mr. Mccutcheon has served (and currently is serving) as an attorney for school districts under federal desegregation orders. He has served as a deputy superintendent of a large metropolitan school district in the midst of a desegregation plan. He is an experienced educator and desegregation lawyer who is familiar with what works for children as opposed to what works - 2 - ' . ,,.- .. ( ( in theory only. The Master appointed herein shall be invested with the full range of powers allowable under Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. P. IT IS SO ORDERED this -7-day of October, 1987. - 3 - N0V-21-T00U E0 3:46P M FAXN O. c- SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AUGUST 18, 2000 HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville 1025 Mills 780 North Pulaski 900 Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson 506 Sylvan Hills 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOb CAPAC[[Y Fuller Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Junior Robinson (2rooms devided)'( Alpha Academy ~ Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACIIY Adkins 370 Arnold Drive 420 Baker 330 Bates 800 Bayou Meto 660 Cato 576 Clinton 833 College Station 340 Crystal Hill 820 Dupree 465 fulfer -5 Harris 525 Jacksonville 785 Landmark 568 Lawson 325 Oak Grove 476 Oakbrooke 500 Pine Forest 556 Pinewood 523 Robinson 450 Scott 280 Sherwood 460 Sylvan Hills 456 Murrell Taylor 450 ?~\u0026lt;if Tolleson 570 I?-, I P. 02 7-, qo~ NOV-21-T0U0 E0 3:46P M FAXN O. P. 01 ... j '  Pulaski County Special School District Date: f I }/1'1 loD I ' Time: -------- To:~C 7~o~ From: ~b~-~i---04 1:-.\n._[J_fJ FAX COVER Number of Pages: (including cover sheet) cQ P.O. Box 8601  Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-86D1 925 East Dixon Rd. (501) 490-2000  http://pcssdweb.k12.ar.us LEA #60-02-050 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 57 01 55 02 62 03 58 04 61 05 66 SCHOOL 359 TOTALS EXCLUDE 302 GRD K/J PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: WHITE BLACK M F M F 5 6 20 25 9 8 23 15 9 9 18 23 13 9 20 14 13 13 161119 13 ,,1.e 9 21\n}: 21 62 54 118 117 32.3% 65.5% 57 48 98 92 34.8% 62.9% GRADE SPAN: HISPANIC ASIAN/PI M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 i 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 t,57-- 2. 2% .0% 4 3 0 0 2.3% .0% OCT2 3 'lOOO OfflCEOt WEGREG1O'1N\\0\\lNO R\\NG AMBOY ELEMENTARY K-05 AM IND/ALS NAT M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% LEA #60-02-058 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 44 01 42 02 42 03 41 04 47 05 45 SCHOOL 261 TOTALS EXCLUDE 217 GRD K/J PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT M F M F M F M F M F 18 10 7 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 13 10 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 13 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 9 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ~? 10 11 :'?) 14 0 1, 0 0 0 0 0 75\\ 60 56\\?-: 67 1 0 1 1 0 0 51. 7% 47 .1% ~11, . 4% .8% .0% 57 50 49 60 0 0 0 1 0 0 49.3% 50.2% .0% .5% .0% ~-------------- -- -- -- ---- PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-054 OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F :\n- 13.,, 11711 J 34 0 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 K 84 6 3 32 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 70 3 3 28 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 65 4 2 28 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 68 4 3 37 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 73 0 )l 8 26 ~39 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 51 0 1 25}..o 24 1 j- 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 445 17 22 189 214 2 1 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8.8% 90. 6%- f/'l- . 7 %- . 0 %- . 0 %- EXCLUDE 327 11 17 144 153 1 1 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 8. 6%- 90. 8%- . 6 %- . 0 %- . 0 %- ~---------- ----- - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-069 OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 54 1 1 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 53 2 0 17 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 68 3 3 35 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 50 6 4 22 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 43 2 3 15 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 47 6 ?P 2 17,22 0 l) 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 315 20 13 132 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 10.5% 89.5% 1f)1 .0% .0% .0% EXCLUDE 261 19 12 106 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 11.9% 88.1% .0% .0% .0% LEA #60-02-060 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 01 02 03 04 05 59 65 74 71 59 53 SCHOOL 381 TOTALS EXCLUDE 322 GRD K/J PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE M F 8 5 7 7 15 8 9 11 2 6 4 i~ 7 45 44 23.4% 37 39 23.6% BLACK M F 29 16 20 31 26 25 23 26 25 :,26 23~1) 19 146 143 75.9% 117 127 75.8% HISPANIC M F 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ~ , ~ 1t..,1, . 8% 1 1 .6% ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,-  0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-061 OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 23 4 3 7 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 01 24 6 3 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 34 7 3 11 11 0 0 0 0 1 1 03 28 3 6 9 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 04 33 2 2 16 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 41 2 ~{p 5 16 JD 16 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 SCHOOL 183 24 22 681 62 1 1 1 1 2 1 TOTALS 25.1% 71.0% 117, 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% EXCLUDE 160 20 19 61 55 1 1 0 1 1 1 GRD K/J 24.4% 72.5% 1.3% .6% 1.3% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-063 OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM. GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 73 13 11 22 20 4 3 0 0 0 0 01 71 20 10 16 13 5 5 0 1 1 0 02 75 10 16 19 21 8 1 0 0 0 0 03 83 16 18 19 24 4 1 0 0 1 0 04 81 17 10 16 25 7 6 0 0 0 0 05 64 9#~12 19 b11 91.P 4 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 447 85 77 111~114 ~ 37 20 0 1 2 0 TOTALS 36.2% 50.3% J\"  12.8% .2% .4% EXCLUDE 374 72 66 89 94 33 17 0 1 2 0 GRD K/J 36.9% 48.9% 13. 4% .3% .5% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-055 OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 54 20 15 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 61 18 16 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 21 20 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 17 13 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 51 17 18 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 45 11 0 '/16 9 ,\\ 9 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 323 104, 98 60 \\ 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 62.5% 37.5% J11\" . 0% .0% .0% EXCLUDE 269 84 83 52 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 62.1% 37.9% 0~  0 .0% .0% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-064 OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 32 4 6 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 1 01 29 6 6 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 36 7 6 10 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 03 46 8 10 14 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 04 35 4 8 11 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 05 48 11'611.0. t. ue,'~13 0 '3 1 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 226 40 46 67 65 ~~1-4 3 0 0 0 1 TOTALS 38.1% 58.4% 3.1% .0% .4% EXCLUDE 194 36 40 59 53 3 3 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 39.2% 57.7% 3.1% .0% .0% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-065 OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 61. 01 62 02 59 03 51 04 63 05 64 SCHOOL 360 TOTALS EXCLUDE 299 GRD K/J 11 9 18 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 1. 9 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 11 14 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 14 1.1 27 A 7 1 0 1 0 1 1 10 ,i 16 24? 14 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 64\\ 64 122 102 t.~1-3 2 1. 0 1 1. 35.6% 62.2% 1.4% . 3% .6% 53 55 1.04 80 2 2 1 0 1 1 36.1% 61.5% 1. 3% .3% .7% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-053 OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 27 5 4 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 23 3 7 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 33 14 4 6 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 03 22 4 8 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 27 5 10 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 05 13 4 1 3 ~5 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 1 ,tO 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 146 36 34 36 36 ~91 1 3 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 47.9% 49.3% 2. 7% .0% .0% EXCLUDE 119 31 30 26 28 1 3 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 51.3% 45.4% 3.4% Og,.  0 .0% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-056 OCTOBER 2' 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 17 1 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 21 0 3 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 31 4 3 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 25 3 2 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 31 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 31 3 'J,.'?2J 13f/'13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 156 11 12 77 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 14.7% 85.3% \u0026lt;-p7 .0% .0% .0% EXCLUDE 139 10 10 69 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRD K/J 14.4% 85.6% .0% .0% .0% LEA #60-02-057 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEM. GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 68 21 24 11 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 01 71 27 22 10 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 72 24 26 9 11 0 0 1 l 0 0 03 64 21 23 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 71 18 26 10 15 1 0 0 0 l 0 05 59 18~:\\ 17 ll~ 10 0 ,o 0 0 2 0 l SCHOOL 405 129 138 58 70 2 0 3 3 1 l TOTALS 65.9% 31.6% p?o .5% 1.5% .5% EXCLUDE 337 108 114 47 60 2 0 1 3 l 1 GRD K/J 65.9% 31.8% .6% 1. 2% .6% LEA #60-02-067 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 130 K 16 SCHOOL 146 TOTALS EXCLUDE 0 GRD K/J PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: K-05 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT M F M F M F '8'17 M F M F ,o ,,~ -4 4 6 58 58 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1\\ 1 7 19\\ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 65 66 2 2 0 0 0 0 7.5% 89. 7% ~o7 2.7% .0% .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% .0% .0% O!l-  0 O!l-  0 ELEMENTARY WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M \u0026gt;\\DF'\\ M f6F M F M F M F h ).,ti\u0026gt; 1\\~ ELEM 4153 716 691 1305 1323 60 36 6 6 6 4 WITH K 33.9% 63.3% t,'1' 2.3% .3% .2% ELEM 3320 595 583 1021 1026 48 31 2 6 5 3 W/0 K/J 35.5% 61.7% 2.4% .2% .2% LEA #60-02-076 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 09 23 3 1 7 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 10 120 19 11 50 35 3 2 0 0 0 0 11 588 153 145 120 149 5 8 1 4 1 2 12 514 137 133 103 129 2 5 1 4 0 0 SCHOOL 1245 312 290 280 322 12 16 2 8 1 2 TOTALS 48.4% 48.4% 2.2% .8% 2 9-  0 l,() 'Y l.toY \u0026gt;l \\ Ji'67,. LEA #60-02-075 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 09-10 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 09 669 158 165 162 167 5 8 2 2 0 0 10 687 156 159 165 197 6 3 0 l 0 0 SCHOOL 1356 314 324 327 364 ll ll 2 3 0 0 TOTALS 47.1% 51.0% 1.6% .4% .0% ,.,~~ \u0026lt;,I\\ ~1 jlt\" LEA #60-02-076 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 13 07 6 08 27 09 57 10 40 11 17 12 11 SCHOOL 171 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 7-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT M F M F M F M F M F 1 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 5 28 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 26 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 9 92 44 0 1 0 0 0 0 19.9% 79.5% .6% .0% .0% ~4 ,i4 ie1 LEA #60-02- COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 2 10 6 11 16 12 4 SCHOOL 28 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SHORTER NOW GRADE SPAN: 7-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS M F M F M F M F M F 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 53.6% 42.9% 3.6% .0% .0% /? f?' _\n/?.1. 1 NAT LEA #60-02-072 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 267 08 245 SCHOOL 512 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS M F M F M F M F M F 42 37 90 89 6 2 0 0 0 1 40 47 80 70 3 4 1 0 0 0 82 84 170 159 9 6 1 0 0 1 32.4% 64.3% 2.9% .2% 2 !!,,  a ,i~ .??-9 ,1 \u0026amp;~7 NAT LEA #60-02-070 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 259 08 216 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS M F M F M F M F M F 83 92 46 35 2 1 0 0 0 0 69 61 43 42 0 0 0 0 0 1 SCHOOL 475 152 153 89 77 2 1 0 0 0 1 .2% TOTALS 64.2% 34.9% .6% .0% Jo? ,tt4 1 jl/??o NAT LEA #60-02-077 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 1 07 124 08 122 09 5 10 1 SCHOOL 253 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS M F M F M F M F M F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 14 42 50 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 24 48 36 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 39 94 87 1 3 0 0 0 0 26.9% 71.5% 1.6% .0% .0% (qi ,~, 1 ~~o NAT LEA #60-02-059 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR ST MIDDLE GRADE SPAN: 06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 06 643 125 116 209 179 7 5 1 1 0 0 SCHOOL 643 125 116 209 179 7 5 1 1 0 0 TOTALS 37.5% 60.3% 1.9% .3% .0% ~4\\ :,i~ ,\u0026gt;/ ~o7 SECONDARY WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M F M F M F M F M F SEC 4683 1043 1026 1269 1236 43 43 6 12 l 4 44.2% 53.5% 1.8% . 4% .1% ,?,ol, ~\n?.~r\u0026gt;? 109 ~~7 I ---------- DISTRICT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M F M F M F M F M F 8836 1759 1717 2574 2559 103 79 12 18 7 8 39.3% 58.1% 2.1% 3 g.  0 . 2% W/0 8003 1638 1609 2290 2262 91 74 8 18 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE , LEA #60-02-000 OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK GRADE SPAN: PK-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M ~ F M F M F 4 #\" 8 71 ,~ 176 '70(1 J 164 3 2 0 0 0 0 K 669 117 100 213 221 9 3 4 0 1 1 01 647 124 105 194 209 7 6 0 1 1 0 02 711 138 117 216 218 11 6 1 2 1 1 03 659 124 127 205 188 9 5 0 0 1 0 04 675 107 126 201 220 9 8 1 0 2 1 05 627 101 108 205 191 12 6 0 3 0 1 06 658 127 117 219 181 7 5 1 1 0 0 07 656 143 143 180 176 9 4 0 0 0 1 08 610 127 134 187 151 3 6 1 0 0 1 09 756 173 172 201 190 7 9 2 2 0 0 10 854 180 173 242 243 9 6 I 0 1 0 0 11 621 157 153 129 160 6 8 1 4 1 2 12 529 137 134 111 135 2 5 1 4 0 0 EX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8836 1759 1717 2574 2559 103 79 12 18 7 8 :.4'71., ,.,?\"\u0026gt; 1?~1 ~1\" -~f /9 I~ I \u0026lt;g,io~ ~1~/ \u0026lt;:9/~d c\n\u0026gt;\nlt, 'i-/4 LEA #60-02-050 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 57 01 55 02 62 03 58 04 61 05 66 SCHOOL 359 TOTALS GRADES 3 02 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOO GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK e E\\\\JE 12 45 17 38 QC1 2 i 1\\1\\1\\1 21 41 Go~f\\~~:o tt\\10\\\\\\\\\\G 24 34 Ot~tlti~ 26 35 24 42 124 235 34.5% 65.5% 112 190 37.1% 62.9% LEA #60-02-058 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 44 01 42 02 42 03 41 04 47 05 45 SCHOOL 261 TOTALS GRADES 217 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 30 14 23 19 21 21 20 21 24 23 20 25 138 123 52.9% 47.1% 108 109 49.8% 50.2% LEA #60-02-054 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 34 K 84 01 70 02 65 03 68 04 73 05 51 SCHOOL 445 TOTALS GRADES 327 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 3 31 9 75 7 63 6 59 7 61 8 65 2 49 42 403 9.4% 90.6% 30 297 9.2% 90.8% LEA #60-02-069 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 54 01 53 02 68 03 50 04 43 05 47 SCHOOL 315 TOTALS GRADES 261 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEMENT GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 2 52 2 51 6 62 10 40 5 38 8 39 33 282 10.5% 89.5% 31 230 11.9% 88.1% LEA #60-02-060 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 59 01 65 02 74 03 71 04 59 05 53 SCHOOL 381 TOTALS GRADES 322 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 14 45 14 51 23 51 22 49 8 51 11 42 92 289 24.1% 75.9% 78 244 24.2% 75.8% LEA #60-02-061 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 23 01 24 02 34 03 28 04 33 05 41 SCHOOL 183 TOTALS GRADES 160 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 9 14 9 15 12 22 10 18 4 29 9 32 53 130 29.0% 71.0% 44 116 27.5% 72. 5% LEA #60-02-050 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 73 01 71 02 75 03 83 04 81 05 64 SCHOOL 447 TOTALS GRADES 374 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTA GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 31 42 42 29 35 40 40 43 40 41 34 30 222 225 49.7% 50.3% 191 183 51.1% 48.9% LEA #60-02-055 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 54 01 61 02 60 03 52 04 51 05 45 SCHOOL 323 TOTALS GRADES 269 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 35 19 34 27 41 19 30 22 35 16 27 18 202 121 62.5% 37.5% 167 102 62.1% 37.9% LEA #60-02-064 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 32 01 29 02 36 03 46 04 35 05 48 SCHOOL 226 TOTALS GRADES 194 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 12 20 12 17 15 21 20 26 13 22 22 26 94 132 41.6% 58.4% 82 112 42.3% 57.7% LEA #60-02-065 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 61 01 62 02 59 03 51 04 63 05 64 SCHOOL 360 TOTALS GRADES 299 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 21 40 20 42 18 41 22 29 29 34 26 38 136 224 37.8% 62.2% 115 184 38.5% 61.5% LEA #60-02-053 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 27 01 23 02 33 03 22 04 27 05 13 06 1 SCHOOL 146 TOTALS GRADES 119 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCH GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 9 18 11 12 20 13 12 10 16 11 5 8 1 0 74 72 50.7% 49.3% 65 54 54.6% 45.4% LEA #60-02-056 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 17 01 21 02 31 03 25 04 31 05 31 SCHOOL 156 TOTALS GRADES 139 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 3 14 3 18 7 24 5 20 0 31 5 26 23 133 14.7% 85.3% 20 119 14.4% 85.6% LEA #60-02-057 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 68 01 71 02 72 03 64 04 71 05 59 SCHOOL 405 TOTALS GRADES 337 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTAR GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 47 21 50 21 52 20 44 20 46 25 38 21 277 128 68.4% 31.6% 230 107 68.2% 31.8% LEA #60-02-067 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 130 K 16 SCHOOL 146 TOTALS GRADES 0 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 14 116 1 15 15 131 10.3% 89.7% 0 0 .0% .0% ELEMENTARY NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS ELEM 4153 1525 2628 WITH K 36.7% 63.3% ELEM 3320 1273 2047 01-05 38.3% 61.7% LEA #60-02-076 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 23 10 120 11 588 12 514 SCHOOL 1245 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 11-12 NON-BLACK BLACK 7 16 35 85 319 269 282 232 643 602 51.6% 48.4% LEA #60-02-075 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 10 669 687 SCHOOL 1356 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 09-10 NON-BLACK 340 325 665 49.0% BLACK 329 362 691 51.0% LEA #60-02-076 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 13 07 6 08 27 09 57 10 40 11 17 12 11 SCHOOL 171 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 7-12 NON-BLACK BLACK 1 12 2 4 8 19 16 41 5 35 2 15 1 10 35 136 20.5% 79.5% LEA #60-02- COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 2 10 6 11 16 12 4 SCHOOL 28 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ARGENTA-SHORTER NOW GRADE SPAN: 7-12 NON-BLACK BLACK 1 1 4 2 11 5 0 4 16 12 57.1% 42.9% LEA #60-02-072 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 267 08 245 SCHOOL 512 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 88 95 183 35. 7% BLACK 179 150 329 64.3% LEA #60-02-070 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 259 08 216 SCHOOL 475 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 178 131 309 65.1% BLACK 81 85 166 34.9% LEA #60-02-077 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 1 07 124 08 122 09 5 10 1 SCHOOL 253 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK BLACK 1 0 32 92 38 84 1 4 0 1 72 181 28.5% 71.5% LEA #60-02-059 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 643 SCHOOL 643 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 2, 2000 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET MIDDLES NON-BLACK 255 255 39.7% BLACK 388 388 60.3% GRADE SPAN: 06 .__ _________ - ----- SECONDARY TOTALS SEC 4683 NON-BLACK 2178 46.5% '---------------- BLACK 2505 53.5% DISTRICT NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS 8836 3703 5133 41.9% 58.1% W/O 8003 3451 4552 GR K\u0026amp;J 43.1% 56.9% M(D)JETIBIL IITTIL~ JE(D)CClfFil:1 IJiffiILIICCC CIBI@@IL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 20, 2000 Ms. Melissa Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 501 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin: 2700 POPLAR STREET RECE\\\"E QC,' 2~. 2000 Ofr\\COtr lllQ OtStG\\\\t~\\\\OII0\\\\\\ \\\\10W Enclosed please find the October 1, 2000 report from the North Little Rock School District. Please call me if you have any questions. Francical J. Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Enclosures AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :29A M FAXN O, P. 03 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRADE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL IAd~ins Elem~ntary J PK .. 0 4 8 8 0 0 20 K 10 8 12 16 0 1 47 1 12 9 11 8 1 0 41 2 13 8 9 12 1 0 43 3 8 12 10 7 0 0 37 4 14 13 13 7 0 0 47 5 12 7 8 4 0 0 31 School Totat 69 61 , 71 62 2 1 2661 leaker lnterdistrict.. , K 17 19 2 2 0 0 40 1 25 13 3 4 0 0 45 2 23 19 3 4 0 0 49 3 26 19 2 1 0 0 48 4 16 12 5 4 0 0 37 5 16 19 5 7 0 0 47 6 23 22 3 5 0 0 53 School Total 146 123 23 27 0 0 319! Crystal Hill Magnet .  PK 15 9 13 16 1 0 54 K 25 30 19 24 0 0 98 1 32 22 29 21 0 0 104 2 28 18 28 20 0 0 94 3 29 24 19 22 0 0 94 4 34 20 23 33 0 0 110 5 27 28 30 21 3 0 109 6 :25 30 21 15 1 1 93 chool total 215 1B1  182 172 5 1 756] . Bayou Melo Elemetita!l'. K 46 27 0 1 2 0 76 1 35 45 1 0 1 0 82 2 33 43 1 1 0 1 79 3 38 45 1 0 1 3 88 4 41 35 2 0 1 0 79 5 38 42 3 2 1 2 88 6 32 29 0 3 0 0 64 , ~chool Total 263,' 266 8 ,7 6 6. 5561 Page 1 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :29A M FAXN O. P. 04 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL Clinton Magnet School . 1 PK 21 18 12 17 0 4 72 K 21 22 24 13 1 0 81 1 21 21 22 21 6 3 94 2 17 31 25 29 2 0 104 3 18 27 16 25 2 1 89 4 29 24 27 32 0 0 112 5 20 20 20 25 4 0 89 6 21 16 19 25 2 2 85 School Total 168 : 179 165 187 17, 10 7261 Dupree Elementa~ : I K 26 15 5 6 0 0 52 1 12 18 9 8 1 2 50 2 11 17 7 8 3 3 49 3 29 17 11 8 0 2 67 4 10 23 7 6 4 0 50 5 13 18 7 8 1 1 48 School Total -101 108 46 44,' g 8 3161 C: .Harris Elementary ] K 6 2 6 5 0 0 19 1 7 2 8 10 1 0 28 2 11 6 14 4 0 1 36 3 4 5 8 12 0 0 29 4 9 8 14 14 2 1 48 5 8 5 15 7 1 0 36 6 7 9 8 10 0 1 35 School Total 52 37 73 62 4 3 231f Jacksonville Elementary K 30 23 30 23 0 0 106 1 26 23 20 25 0 0 94 2 16 17 22 31 1 1 8S 3 23 21 31 24 0 0 99 4 16 21 28 19 0 1 85 5 22 19 25 24 0 0 90 School Total ~33 .  124 156  146 1 2 5621 Pago 2 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :29A M FAXN O. P. 05 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRADE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL   . Landmark Elementary PK 8 8 5 9 0 0 30 K 11 7 10 10 0 1 39 1 18 10 13 10 1 0 52 2 15 11 9 9 1 0 45 3 15 21 10 16 0 1 63 4 17 15 14 18 1 1 66 6 18 19 14 12 1 1. 65 6 15 18 15 12 0 0 60 C School Total 117 109 90 96' 4 4 420! Lawso.n Element.ary :1 K 20 16 5 4 0 0 45 1 17 14 0 1 0 0 32 2 11 10 4 4 0 0 29 3 22 13 3 4 0 0 42 4 15 14 4 3 0 0 36 5 21 18 7 4 0 0 50 6 14 11 1 2 0 0 28 School Total 120 96 24 22 0 0 262! Tolleson Elementary K 26 18 5 8 2 1 60 1 24 21 4 8 1 1 59 2 20 20 9 8 5 3 65 3 21 23 8 9 0 1 62 4 22 16 7 6 3 3 57 5 22 15 11 4 1 2 55 6 14 24 10 4 2 1 55 SchQoi Total 149 137 54 47 14 12  .. 1.3! Oak Grove Elementary : I PK* 22 30 12 5 2 0 71 K 20 15 6 5 0 0 46 1 16 21 5 5 2 1 50 2 15 18 3 8 1 0 45 3 15 21 5 7 1 0 49 4 28 16 7 7 0 0 58 5 18 22 8 6 1 0 55 6 16 20 4 6 3 0 49 :, , School Total 150 163 50 I D 10 1 4231 Page 3of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :30A M FAXN O. P. 06 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAOE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL Robinson Elementary.,  K 21 14 5 4 0 2 46 1 22 16 4 3 0 0 45 2 26 15 8 5 0 0 54 3 24 16 4 11 0 0 55 4 30 20 7 8 0 0 65 5 21 14 8 9 1 0 53 6 33 21 14 12 0 1 81 [ School Total 177. 116 50  52 1 31 399 Scott ~lementary School ] K 12 8 2 2 0 0 24 1 12 8 1 7 0 0 28 2 7 4 3 4 0 0 18 3 3 7 5 3 0 0 18 4 5 7 2 5 0 0 19 5 4 2 1 4 0 0 11 6 8 7 7 2 0 0 24 School Total 51 43 21 27, 0 0 1421 Sherwood Elernemtary, ] K 24 11 9 6 1 1 52 1 15 17 7 12 0 0 51 2 16 22 10 6 0 0 54 3 24 17 11 10 0 0 62 4 15 18 7 9 0 0 49 5 15 17 10 12 1 1 56 6 17 14 17 4 0 0 52 SchoolTo~I 126 116 71 5.9 2 2 3761 I\n:  S~lvan HIiis Elementary K 18 21 6 10 0 3 58 1 16 15 5 4 0 0 40 2 13 15 9 12 0 0 49 3 23 19 6 16 1 0 65 4 29 20 16 9 1 0 75 5 31 25 9 10 0 1 76 6 23 14 17 15 1 2 72 SchoolTotal 15~ 129 68 'ii 3 6 ~51 Page 4 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :30A M FAXN O. P. 07 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRADE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL Jacksonville Middle School .1 6 93 100 75 65 2 1 336 7 92 107 59 72 2 3 33, School Total 185 207, 134  137\" 4 4  511.1 Jacksonville Jr High 8 107 97 77 67 0 1 349 9 103 95 76 80 0 0 354 School Total 210 192 . 1~3 147, 0 1 1-031 Fuller Jr ~if!h School. 7 56 56 64 53 0 2 231 8 75 57 57 50 1 1 241 9 75 64 66 55 2 1 263 'Sct,ool Total ,206 177 187 .158 3 4 7351 Sylvan Hills Jr ttigh. 7 113 81 61 54 5 1 315 8 104 73 51 61 4 3 296 9 98 98 56 46 0 2 302 School Total 315 .252 1'70 , 161 9 6 9131 C Jacksonville Sr High 10 105 102 56 52 2 2 319 11 100 98 47 61 0 7 313 12 77 69 42 48 2 1 239 School Total 28~ 269 . 145 , 161.' 4 10. 871) Mills niveralty High .. I 10 39 42 36 37 31 29 214 11 69 44 37 39 6 2 197 12 62 49 32 35 2 0 180 School Total 170 135 105. 111 '3$. 31 5911 Page 5 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :30A M FAXN O. P. 08 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRADE WM Wf BM BF OM OF TOTAL c:Oak Grove Jr/Sr High . I 7 45 51 13 27 0 0 136 8 61 41 21 20 2 0 145 9 70 60 19 26 3 1 179 10 63 56 17 21 2 2 161 11 50 54 18 10 1 1 134 12 38 34 7 13 1 0 93 C School Total 327 296 95 117 9 4 8481 [- ~obim\non Sr. Hi!ih 10 88 58 25 14 2 0 187 11 54 41 26 20 0 2 143 12 43 48 16 12 0 0 119 School Total 185 147 67 46 2 2 449J Sylvan Hills Sr High 10 111 96 33 44 0 0 284 11 97 83 39 32 0 0 251 12 64 62 21 30 0 0 177 Schoo 1 I Total 272 241 93 1Q6 0 C) r121 Catq Elementary K 28 21 9 8 0 0 66 1 34 26 5 9 2 3 79 2 20 22 8 12 1 2 65 3 37 17 10 12 2 1 79 4 27 23 11 7 1 1 70 5 27 25 12 7 0 0 71 6 28 27 14 12 0 0 81 [ : School Total  201 1,61 . 69 67 '. i 7 5111 Pinewood Elementary : ] K 32 19 15 10 3 0 79 1 18 18 15 11 2 0 64 2 27 17 11 14 0 0 69 3 24 23 8 14 0 2 71 4 18 18 15 19 3 0 73 5 15 20 14 13 0 0 62 'School Total 134 115 78 '81 8 2 4181 Page 6of 10 Date: 11109/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :30A M FAXN O. P, 09 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAOE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL    college Station Elementary  I K 5 2 1 2 0 0 10 1 2 0 6 4 0 0 12 2 2 1 5 5 0 0 13 3 12 5 9 17 0 1 44 4 17 8 9 12 1 1 48 5 16 21 5 6 2 1 51 6 13 21 8 5 1 1 49 School Total 67 58 43 51 4 4 221I ( Nort\" Pulaski 1:iigh 1 10 100 75 50 43 6 6 280 11 81 66 30 30 6 4 217 12 61 58 22 22 4 4 171 School Total 242 199 102 95 16 14\n668! Arnold Drive Elementa~ J K 35 23 7 10 2 1 78 1 32 24 4 6 3 5 74 2 27 23 12 4 1 2 69 3 21 20 9 8 3 3 64 4 27 14 8 6 1 4 60 s 9 15 6 8 3 2 43 6 24 9 9 7 2 1 52 School Total H5 128 55 49 15 18 4401 L Oakbrooke Elementary K 11 16 4 7 0 0 38 1 16 16 7 11 0 0 50 2 20 12 13 10 0 0 55 3 15 23 7 8 2 0 55 4 16 12 3 9 0 0 40 5 24 18 13 14 0 0 69 6 19 22 7 7 0 0 55 School Total 121 119 54 .66 2 i5 3s21 Northwooc\nJtr High 7 90 77 29 37 3 2 238 8 93 83 50 38 6 3 273 9 121 90 24 33 4 8 280 School Total ,304 250 '1Q3 108 n 13 .7911 Page 7 of 10 Date: 11/09(2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :31A M FAXN O. P. 10 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAOE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL Murrell'.Taylor Elementary . :1 K 17 18 9 10 0 1 55 1 14 17 9 9 0 0 49 2 19 12 14 15 0 0 60 3 20 18 20 4 0 0 62 4 19 13 14 7 0 0 53 5 23 22 13 15 0 1 74 C School Total 112 100 ,79 60 O 2 3531 [ f:'ine For~st Elementari  K 22 20 10 6 0 1 59 1 23 24 2 7 1 1 58 2 26 11 9 3 0 1 50 3 36 30 5 6 0 4 81 4 26 26 5 6 2 0 65 5 32 31 14 7 2 1 87 6 32 19 11 5 4 2 73 . _ School Total 197 1'61 56 40 9 10 4731 Robinson Jr High 7 67 54 35 18 0 1 175 8 58 54 21 28 0 1 162 9 46 54 26 16 0 1 143 School Total 1-71 162 82 62 0 3 48ol Bates Elementary PK* 14 11 22 13 0 0 60 K 25 22 13 28 0 0 88 1 23 25 29 19 0 0 96 2 18 20 20 19 1 1 79 3 25 19 24 29 2 0 99 4 21 32 27 32 1 0 113 5 24 23 38 34 0 0 119 6 31 17 28 25 0 0 101 . Sct,ool Tot.ii 181 169 201 199 4 1 ' 7551 Page 8 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :31A M FAXN O. P. 11 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment Count for October 1, 2000 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRADE WM WF BM BF OM OF TOTAL [ TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLL~INT I : Grade Total: PK\" 80 :so 72 68 ,,3 4 3071 K 508 397 214 220 11 12 1,362 1 472 425 219 223 22 16 1,377 2 434 392 256 247 17 15 1,361 3 512 462 242 273 14 19 1,522 4 501 428 275 278 21 12 1,515 5 476 465 296 263 22 13 1,535 6 488 450 288 241 18 13 1,498 Grade Totals: K  6 3,391 3,01~ 1,79Q 1\n745_ 125 100 10,1101 ~ - -  Eiamenta-fotai-\n. -  - 3Jrr-. jjiu. -im -LID-. ~.ur-3. ~. TliJii~ ------ __ 'I_ _______ ----~- -- ___ _.. -- -----~--- ---- -  7 464 427 264 263 10 9 1,437 8 503 406 279 266 13 9 1,476 9 533 466 282 260 10 13 1,564 [ Grade Totals: 7  9 1,500 1,2~9 825. 789 33 31 4,41-,1 10 515 432 221 216 44 40 1,468 11 458 389 202 197 13 17 1,276 12 353 327 150 168 9 5 1,012 'Grade Totals: 10 -12 1,326 1,148 573 '581 66 62: '3,7561 1 - -  -secondiryToT-aiS- .  - ~-Im. uia- Ui.b-:.-.- u. - i 3  -i2'13i ---~---~---~---~-----~-------~-~--------------- -  - -orstriciTotaT- s... .. - ... -. -  f4- - -. -~- -m --iii- -- ., I. -  -  -  - .. -  -  -  -  -  -  -~. -  - .. --~..\n.. -  -  -- -  -  -  ~I Page 10 of 10 Date: 11/09/2000 NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :29A M FAXN O. P. 02 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 13, 2000 Ann Brown.Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown-Marshall: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Ro~k. Arkansas 72216-8601 .. (501) 490-2000 Atlached is the October 1, 2000 enrollment counts for Pulaski County Special School District. The following schools are outside the racial balance guidelines: Adkjns Elementary - 52% Bak.er Elementary - 15% Bates Elementary - 54% Harris Elementary- 61 % Jacksonville Elementary- 54% Landmark Elementary - 45% Lawson Elementary - 19% Fuller Jr. High 47% Sincerely, Karl Brown Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services ac c Houston Yuille Sam Jones John Walker NOV-15-W00E 0D9 :29A M FAXN O. P. 01 Pulaski County Special School District Date: \\ \\-\\ 5- 'D D Time: 9'. is o...m FAX COVER To: ____,__\\\\.i..:,:.~:)_._o~c-=\nc\n=\n.\n.....,~..o_\u0026lt;...:.._.v:':.:\n_::l_.~-_-_,_ _ _ Number of Pages: (including cover sheet) -\"-- Message: _____________ _ P.O. Box 8601  Little Rock, Arkansas 722168601 925 East Dixon Rd. (501) 4902000  http:l/pcssdweb.k12.ar.us\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_1027","title":"\"Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation Two Year Comparison: Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS), Department of Planning Research and Evaluation,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-09-22"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["\"Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation Two Year Comparison: Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS), Department of Planning Research and Evaluation,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1027"],"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\nArkansas Aviation Historical Society banquet programs (1992), Legal documents, correspondence, newspaper clippings, notes\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nS /J// . mwd /Ill ~ Exhibit No. 67: Ll230-90 Program Evaluation for Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College. 12:02 PM I I Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation Two year comparison: Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS) September 22, 2000 Dr. Ed R. Williams Little Rock School District (LRSD) Department of Planning Research and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2125 Draft Summary Performance and achievement data, plus year-end survey data from students, parents, staff, and building principals for the Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS) Program at Philander Smith were collected and analyzed for SY 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The LSHS program is a computer-based instructional learning environment using PLATO software. Program goals are to improve student achievement, grade level perfonnance, and attendance via an alternative learning environment (ALE). Student perfonnance data indicates a reduction in school absenteeism, but an increase in days suspended. Student achievement data is mixed. LSHS students, as measured by the PLATO software, are performing at grade level. Also, LSHS students outperform the LRSD average scores in math Achievement Level Test (ALT) scores. However, these students are below the LRSD average in reading and language usage ALT scores. SYl 999-2000 survey results indicate that student satisfaction increased over the SYI 998-1999 results. However, students, parents, and staff continue to be dissatisfied with food service. Also, both students and parents would like more classroom time and less time on PLATO. Students and parents are also dissatisfied with the morning bus arrival times. Staff would like more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools would like more data and information about the program and LSHS staff should provide LSHS information to all LRSD principals. It is recommended for SY2000-2001 that the meal situation be resolved, that a ibnasltarnucceti obne ael sstaubplpioshrte. d between classroom and PLATO time, and that teachers receive more 12:02 PM 2 Draft Introduction The Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS), grades 9 and 10, is one of three ALE programs in the LRSD. The other two programs are at Pennick Boys club, a middle level program, and Camp Pfeifer, an elementary program. The LSHS is designed for students with a high potential for success yet for several reasons are not progressing satisfactorily in the regular school setting. Students appropriate for the LSHS demonstrate excessive absences and need individualized teaching and instruction. The LSHS is designed to provide a success-oriented environment for students who would not nonnally obtain success. The LSHS offers a small class setting with an emphasis on core subjects. The curriculum is computer-based using PLATO software. Using this software, students can accelerate to a higher-grade level. The LSHS program is designed for completion of the entire secondary ocur rrreitcuurlnu mto. thAet rtehgeu claorm apslseigtinoend o sfc ehaocohl. academic year, a student may reapply to remain at LSHS LSHS admission requirements are 1. completing an application, 2. volunteering and remaining at LSHS a full year, 3. ahsasviignnge da srecchoomolm, endation from the Principal or Vice-Principal at the student's 4. having no long-tenn suspensions, and 5. being reviewed by a screening committee. Purpose The purpose of this evaluation is to 1. report and compare participation, perfonnance, and perception data on students in the LSHS SY1998-1999 and SY1999-2000\n2. ddaettae\nr manind e the relationship between PLATO assessment scores and other achievement 3. review results and propose recommendations. Methodology The following data will be compared: Participation data  Race  Gender Performance data 12:02 PM 3 Draft  Average number of days suspended  Average number of days absent  Currant grade and grade gains of all students and of students who had attended an ALE the previous year, as measured by the PLATO computer software in:  Language  Math  Reading  Average Achievement Level Test (ALT) scores in math, reading, and language usage  Correlation matrix using ALT scores and current level of PLATO assessment Perception data  Survey results of students, parents, teachers, and administrators Results Participation Data SY1998-1999. Thirteen (13) students participated in the program, with eight students participating the full year, and five srudents participating less than a full school year. Demographic data for the students are 77% male and 23% female, and 77% Black and 23% White. Eight students completed the survey. SY1999-2000. Twelve (12) students participated in the program. Ten of the twelve srudents had attended an ALE the previous year, 6 at Pennick and 4 at LSHS. Eight students completed the survey. Demographic data for students completing the survey are five males (62.5%) and three females (37.5%), and 57% African-American, 29% White, and 14% Other. Five of the students had been at an ALE the previous year. Performance Data Suspension and Absenteeism Data for LSHS Students SY1998-1999 Average days suspended from LSHS SY1999-2000 2.07 .58 Average days absent from LSHS 3.92 5.83 increaseWd.h ile the average number of days suspended has decreased, the average days absent has 12:02 PM 4 Draft Average Grade Level Gain for LSHS Students SY1998-1999 Program -SY1999-2000 Program Change Program Program Change entry exit entry exit Language Arts 3.51 7.7 +4.19 3.22 9.7 +6.48 Reading 4.49 8.08 +3.59 4.05 9.05 +5 Math 4.96 6.67 +1.71 5.29 9 +3.71 Students during SY1999-2000 had greater grade gains than students during SY1998-1999. Average Grade Level for Students who had attended an ALE for Two Years Average Average Change: Average Change: score: score: Spring to score: Fall to Spring Fall Fall Spring Spring 1999 1999 2000 Language Arts 6.71 2.45 -4.26 9.57 +7.12 Math 6.63 4.73 -1.9 8.92 +4.19 Reading 7.4 3.81 -3.59 8.95 +5.15 There was a sharp decline from spring of 1999 to fall of 1999 scores as measured by the PLATO software. However, gains during SY1999-2000 (Fall to Spring) resulted in average scores at least one and a half grade levels above the end of SY1998-1999 results. Average ALT Scores ALE Student ALT Average Score Middle District Average ALT Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Level Math Level 3u, Grade Math 210 202 21 6 213 216 218 SY1999-2000 (N = 3) 9u Grade 218 208 215 213 221 223 SY1999-2000 (N = 4) Both grade levels were below the District average in reading and language, and gth grade students were below in math. Ninth grade students were above the District average in math. However, the District average was based on 30 students. 9th grade students typically take the Algebra I test 12:02 PM 5 Draft LSHS Student Scores Compared to their Assigned School: Southwest Middle School ALE Student ALT Average Score Middle Southwest Average ALT Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Leve] (N =2) (N = 1) Level Math Math (N = 2) 8u' Grade 210 202 216 209 2 12 215 SY1999-2000 (N= 3) Students at LSHS did as well in math and language as students in their assigned school. LSHS Student Scores Compared to their Assigned School: Central, Fair, and HaJl ALE Student ALT Average Score Assigned School Average ALT Middle Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Level (N=4) (N=4) Level Math (N = 4) Math 9\"' Grade 218 208 215 240 223 224 SYI 999-2000 (N = 4) sScthuodoeln.t s at LSHS did not do as well in math, reading, and language as students in their assigned Correlation Matrix: ALT scores to Current PLATO Level at the End of SY 1999-2000 Math ALT Reading Language PLATO PLATO PLATO ALT ALT Math Reading Language Math ALT 1.00 .919* .854 .057 -.053 .277 Reading 1.00 .949 .353 .139 .173 ALT Language ALT .207 -.231 -.050 PLATO - 1.00 .885* .847* Math PLATO Reading .721 * PLATO , ~'''}~~~! Language 1.00  ~ .01 level 12:02 PM 'I 6 Draft The number of students used in this analysis was low (N = 12), which makes interpretation difficult. Data from the other two ALE programs could improve the power of the correlation design. However, while there is a significant relationship among subject scores within ALT and sPuLbAjeTcOt s creosrueslt.s , there is no significant relationship between ALT subject scores and PLATO Perception Data Program evaluation surveys were distributed to students, parents, and teachers who participated in LSHS. Surveys were also sent to school principals from whence students last attended. Survey participants were asked to respond either very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied to statements concerning: 1. application process, 2. facilities, 3. student services, 4. interactions with personnel, 5. instructional program, 6. transportation, 7. administrative support, 8. staff and student/parent interactions, and 9. food service. Additional questions were asked of the participants concerning: 1. plans after high school, 2. plans for next year, 3. would the participant recommend the program to others, 4. overall satisfaction with the program, and 5. need for program expansion. iSmpparcoev wemase naltsso. available for comments by participants concerning program changes or SY 1998-1999 student results. Students were dissatisfied with the following: 1. Student Services  Health services 2. Instructional Program  English instruction  Social studies instruction  Homework 12:02 PM 7 Draft 3. Food Service  Meals provided by LRSD  Meals in student center Students were satisfied with the remaining statements. Responding to the question concerning overall program satisfaction, 37.5% (N = 3) were very satisfied, 50% (N = 4) were satisfied, and 13% (N =I) were dissatisfied. Concerning plans after high school, 25% (N = 2) plan to enroll in a four-year college, 25% (N = 2) to enroll in a two-year college, 13% (N =1) to enroll in a technical training program, 25% (N = 2) were undecided, and 13% (N = 1) did not respond. Student comments are in Appendix A. SY1999-2000 student results. Students were dissatisfied with:  restrooms,  orientation,  meals provide by LRSD,  meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College, and  morning bus arrival. Students were satisfied with the remaining statements. Responding to the question concerning overall program satisfaction, 37.5% (N = 3) were very satisfied, and 62.5% (N = 5) were satisfied. Concerning plans after high school, 50% (N = 4) plan to enroll in a four-year college, 13% (N = 1) to enroll in a two-year college, 25% (N = 2) were undecided, and 13% (N= 1) did Ano).t respond. Students would like less time on PLATO and more classroom time (see Appendix SYI 998-1999 parent results. Three parents responded to the survey. Parents were very satisfied with their child's persona] academic progress and were satisfied with most of the statements. Parents were dissatisfied with:  classroom environment,  field trips,  health services,  meals in the student center,  meals provided by LRSD,  staff providing nurture and support to students, and  social studies instruction. Half of the responding parents had volunteered at the school and wished for their child to return to the LSHS program next year. Most parents, 67%, were satisfied with the overall program and half of the responding parents would recommend the LSHS program to others. Parents were concerned about the quality of the food and interaction of students with teachers. Parent comments are in Appendix C. 12:02 PM 8 Draft dissatisfSieYd1 w99it9h-:2 000 parent results. Ten parents responded to the survey. Parents were  meals provided by LRSD,  meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College, and  morning bus arrival. Parents were satisfied with the remaining statements. Less than half ( 40%) of the responding parents had volunteered at the school. 70% wished for their child to return to the LSHS program next year. All of the parents were satisfied with the overall program and 90% of parents would recommend the LSHS program to others. Parents would like to see less time using PLATO and more classroom time (see Appendix B). SYl 998-1999 staff results. Staff (N= 2) were both satisfied with:  student selection process,  qualifications of staff,  relationships with college personnel,  mentoring/counseling,  expectations for student behavior,  support for disciplinary actions,  service of Lyceum students in the student center,  bus arrival and departure times,  parent/staff interactions, and  classrooms. Both of the staff were dissatisfied with:  support in instructional tutoring,  administration of food service,  distribution of LRSD prepared meals,  delivery ofLRSD prepared meals, and  janitorial services. One of the staff recommend that the program continue next year and that the program be expanded to add another grade level. Also, half of the responding teachers/staff wished to return to the program next year. Recommendations for staff development and program change include Athpep neeneddi xf oCr . college level classes, security, and staff selection. Additional comments are in SY1999-2000 staff results. Staff (N = 3) were dissatisfied with  support in instructional delivery,  meals provided by the LRSD, and  meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College. 12:02 PM \\ 9 Draft Staff were satisfied with the remaining statements. All of the staff  recommended that the program continue,  recommended that another grade level be added,  wish to return to the program next year, and  were satisfied with the program. Staff would like more space and teachers (see Appendix C). SY 1998-I 999 principal results. Principals (N ~ 2) did not have any recommendations for change and were satisfied with most of the statements. However, they were very satisfied with the qualifications of staff, computer-assisted instruction, and instructional methodology. SY 1999-2000 principal results. Principals (N== 3) were satisfied with all the Dst)a.t ements. Principals would like more data and infonnation about the program (see Appendix Discussion While suspensions were down from S YJ 998-1999 to SY l 999-2000, the average number of days absent was higher. PLATO gains and current levels for S YI 999-2000 are higher than the S YJ 998-I 999 results. However, these increased gains barely offset the sharp decrease in PLATO levels from spring to fall. Student's OUlperfonned the LRSD average in math ALT scores, but are below the LRSD average in reading and math. LSHS eighth grade students performed better in math and language, but 9 grade students performed below in math, reading, and language as compared to their assigned school peers on ALT scores. Due to a low sample size, it is difficult to interpret the relationship between ALT scores and PLATO levels. Students, parents, and teachern continue to register theIT dissatisfaction with the food service. Students and parents are also dissatisfied with the morning bus arrival. Staff would like more instructional LsuSpHpSo.r t and improved janitorial services. Principals would like more data and information about 12:02 PM IO Draft Recommendations 1. Resolve the dissatisfaction with the food service. 2. Improve the absenteeism rate. 3. Provide teachers with instructional support. 4. Determine and commit to a balance between PLATO and classroom time. 5. Resolve the dissatisfaction by students and parents with AM bus arrival. 6. Inform principals about the results of LSHS. 12:02PM Draft Appendix A Student Comments: S1998-1999 Better food next year. For the food to change \u0026amp; we have better lunches Student Comments: SY1999-2000 Less PLATO, more class time (This comment was made on fou,- surveys J Lunches 12:02 PM 12 Draft Appendix B Parent Comments: SY1998-1999 Have vou volunteered at school this year? II 'dw orautlhde nr onto mt. ind volunteering to end the Lyceum High School. As for any other reason Recommended changes: oTuhtasti dthe et hree mclaaisnsirnogo mstu. dents attending the Lyceum High School have a privilege to eat Recommended program changes: Just one teacher we has a problem with my daughter said she picked at her all the time. This teacher should have tried to find out why my daughter was feeling the way she was. And try to talk to her on her level (teen-ager), than just calling her a problem child. It atargkuesm tewnota ttoiv he.a ve a argument. My daughter \u0026amp; the teacher sounds like there both are wThhaetr et hhee pbreinlocnipgasl. would follow through on promises an my child to attend regular school The lunches that they are fed are terrible. Parent Comments: SY1999-2000 Less PLATO and more class time. (This comment was made on five surveys) 12:02PM 13 Draft 13 Appendix C Staff Comments: SY1998-1999 Recommendations for staff development: Let us take classes that count on the college level. Some of us just came out of college and can work a computer better than those who do staff development. Recommended program chanizes: eed security guard. Administrator on site everyday for program. Better selection, the process of selecting certifled teachers. For people over the program to visit more often and talk with the children. More visits among the Advisory Committee. Staff Comments: SY1999-2000 I would like to see more class space in the future. I haven't been teaching in the program long enough to make any recommendations. eed security officers and additional teachers. 12:02 PM ...I 14 Draft 14 12:02 PM Appendix D None Principal Conunents: SYI998-1999 Principal Comments: SYJ999-2000 You might consider providing us with more data about the program. You might consider yseeanrd. ing a representative to a faculty meeting for a short presentation early in the school 15 Draft 15 PROGRAM EVALUATION Philander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1999 - 2000 This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals: A. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with students emolled in the Lyceum program Section II is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for the year and a report comparing student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. KEY FINDINGS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were: Student Survey - 8 Parent Survey - 10 Staff Survey - 3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. 5. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very favorable. 6. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with Staff/Student Interactions/Communications. 8. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 9. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. 11. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of the parent responses were either satisfied or very satisfied. 12. The Staff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14. Lyceum students showed an 85% reduction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math- 3.71 Reading-5 Valid PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999 - 2000 GRADE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 9.00 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 10.00 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Gender Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Female 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Race Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent African American 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Caucasian 2 25.0 28.6 85.7 Other 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Age Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 14.00 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 15.00 3 37.5 37.5 50.0 16.00 2 25.0 25.0 75.0 17.00 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 School attended prior to the Lyceum Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 8.00 1 12.5 16.7 16.7 725.00 5 62.5 83.3 100.0 Total 6 75.0 100.0 Missing System 2 25.0 Total 8 100.0 Written Application Fonns Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 85.7 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Personal Interview Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 37 .5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Notification of Acceptance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 4 50 .0 57.1 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Classrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Restrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 50.0 Dissatisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 . 42.9 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 85.7 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Media Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 28.6 28.6 Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 85.7 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Computer Lab Access Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 7 87.5 87.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 62.5 Dissatisfied 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 4 50 .0 50.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25 .0 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Faculty Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Support Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50 .0 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Security Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 ~00.0 100.0 Administration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Classroom Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Instructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Textbooks Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 English Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Math Instruction Cumulative FreQuencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Science Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Social Studies Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Communications Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisf:ed 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Personal Academic Success Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12..5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Group Work Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Projects Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 75.0 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Grading Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Field Trips Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Homework Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 7 87.5 87.5 87.5 Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 15.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 so.a 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatsified 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Very Dissatisfied 7 87.5 87.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Meals in Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 37.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 50.0 Very Dissatisfied 4 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 7 87.5 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Continued Enrollment 6 75.0 85.7 85. 7 Undecided 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 What are your plans after graduation from high school? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Enroll in Four 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Year College Enroll in Two 1 12.5 14.3 71.4 Year College. Undecided 2 25.0 28.6 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM PARENT SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Gender Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 1 10.0 10.0 1-0.0 Female 9 90.0 90.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Race Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid African-America 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Caucasian 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 School Last Attended Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 10.0 12.5 12.5 8.00 2 20.0 25.0 37.5 725.00 5 so.a 62.5 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing System 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0 Relationship to Student Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parent 10 100.0 100.0 100.0 My Child's Grade Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 9.00 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 10.00 4 - 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Student Referral Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 90.0 22.00 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Personal Interview Cumulative Freauency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Notification of Acceptance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 - Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 6 60.0 66.7 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Freauency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 44.4 Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 22.2 22.2 Satisfied 7 70.0 77.8 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 55.6 Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Faculty Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Support Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 55.6 Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Security Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 6 60.0 66.7 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Administration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 22.2 22.2 Satisfied 7 70.0 77.8 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Classroom Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Instructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 50.0 62.5 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing System 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0 Textbooks Cumulative FreQuency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 English Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Math Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Science Instruction Cumulative Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Social Studies Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Communications Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Group Work Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Classroom Environment Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Grading Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Field Trips Cumulative .Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Homework Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Parent/Teacher Conferences Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachers to Student Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied . 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Staff Respects Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 10.0 10.0 10.0 Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 30.0 Dissatisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Very Dissatisfied 2 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Meals in Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 90.0 Very Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 2 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 ( Bus Safety Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 No 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Do you wish for your son/daughter to return to the Lyceum ALE Program for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 7 70.0 70.0 70.0 No 3 30.0 30.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 9 90.0 90.0 90.0 No 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied - 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Valid Valid Valid Missing Total Valid Valid Valid , PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD ~ YCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Student Selection Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent  Percent Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Curriculum Offered Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Expected Outcomes Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 100.0 100.0 System 2 66.7 3 100.0 Selection of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Teaching Perfonnance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Relationships with College Personnel Cumulative FFequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0  100.0 Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Preparation/Planning Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 l ' Support in Instructional Delivery Cumulative Freouency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 lntructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Professional Evaluation Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33 .3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Expectations for Student Behavior Cumulative Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Administration of Food Service Program Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatsified 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Very Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival Times A.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 From Ale Administrator Cumulative (_ Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Lyceum Advisory Committee Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Parent/Staff Interactions Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Parent Involvement Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Parental Support Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Cumulative Frequencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Behavior Management Training Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Ongoing Staff Development Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Plato Training Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Classrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Dissatisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Library Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Computer Lab Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Janitorial Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Comfortability Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? Cwnulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program expand to another grade level for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Do you wish to return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 . ,, . Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Student Referral Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Opportunities for Acceleration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Student Parent Contact Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selection of Students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Cuniculum Offered Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Verv Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Expected Outcomes Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Verv Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selection of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Relationships with Program Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7  Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Expectations for Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From ALE Administrator Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent . Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Freouency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Student/Parent Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent ( Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Instructional Methodology Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Davi1, John 3110/00 9  .33 9 56 Davis, Lrt,ona 11/11W9 10 2.2 10.57 Lacy, Aneuah 6/24199 9 2.2 9 56 LanOI, aulanll 6/24199 9 3 8.11 Lockhart, Ray 812  1911 8 2 .  7.57 Mayfield, Branlaha 2122/00 10 7.1 11 McCoy, Nicole 8124199 9 28 7.85 Parl\u0026lt;\u0026amp;1, April 6/2.WS 10 2.8 11 Simpson, Palrlcl\u0026lt; 6/2  1911 9 2.2 g  Simpson, Shelly 812m 10 2.2 9 .  4 Slanlay, JamH 6/2,wg 9 H 911 Vian,, Rataal 6/2.WS 9 2 6 79 Program Evaluation Philander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 5.22 B.37 7.36 6.11 5.17 39 5.35 64 7 . 2  7 . 2  6.71 8.79 1999 - 2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/Post 6.5 7.87 5.6 9.5 2.56 8,75 52 6 83 2 56 3.83 6 57 825 5.6 8.21 57 10.22 9.25 5.7 917 5 2 76 Bl  Compiled - 4128/00 1.37 3.8 7.18 3.73 1.28 2.86 2.71  . 52 4 25 3.47 5 37  . 85 9.2  . 35 2.73 10 7.27 2.73 9.2 6.47 2 38 8.93 6.56 2.09 2 08 0 45 10 55 3.7 7.8 4.1 7.4 10.77 3.37 7.67 10.  1 2 . 7  3.6 10.82 7.22 3.7 10.23 6.53 2.09 6.07 5 86 Davis, John 9 3/10/00 Davis, L one 10 11/10/99 Lac , Aneesah 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 Ma , Brenisha 10 2/22/00 Mc Nicole 9 8/24/99 Par ii 10 8/24/99 Sim atrick 9 8/24/99 Sim hell 10 9/2/99 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 '-- Program Evaluation Philander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Attendance \u0026amp; Sanctions 14 3 -11 9 1 -8 35 3 -32 29 13 -16 6 0 -6 45 5 -40 14 3 -11 51 24 -27 68 2 -66 43 7 -36 33 4 -29 97 5 -92\n,,} ..... Compiled- 4/28/00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 +1 1 I 0 0 1 +1 0 0 0 I 0 -1 1 0 -1 I l 0 5 2 -3 \" .~, '\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1709","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-09/2001-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tools"],"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/1709"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED EAsTMk 5 N gi,ii~1,g ~~~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION SEP 11 2000 ~~:M\\3/W~\u0026t~2tERK DEPCd!RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff: * vs. * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., * * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2000 OfflCt Ur OESEGRE~l\\ON MONITORING Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (''MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-7000 school year. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the budget as submitted. When the budget for the 2000-2001 school year is final, the MRC should submit it to the Court for approval. A. IT IS SO ORDERED this _LL day of September 2000. ~~2 ~'~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMP~C~ WITH RULE 58 ANC'.WOR !9(a) FRCP 0N -//-Oo __ IV _vt;:: - -- 1 The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000. For a copy of the letter, see docket no. 3389, attachment. ---- - ----- I - I .IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2000 ~o-mnEO-F  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for September, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED NOV 1 2000 OFF/Cf Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for October, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General TIMO Assistant Atto neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2000 information available at Septernbef 30, 2000, the ADE calculated the ===:a:F.,.;u::\"n\"'\"d\"'i=ng for FY 00/01 sul:fect to eriodic adjustm~\"nts, B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION nc;.\\D~i v g;;,u DEC 1 2000 OfflCEOf IJESEGREGAllOM MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for November, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atta e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for January, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atta ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  This 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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1512","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-09/2001-08"],"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--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1512"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1315","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''"],"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/1315"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["233 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1357","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''"],"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/1357"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1720","title":"Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"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--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool"],"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/1720"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEiVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SECOND AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, for its second amendment to motion for protective order states: 1. The District filed its motion seeking a protective order on July 28, 2000. The District filed its first amendment to motion for protective order on July 31, 2000. 2. Attached as Exhibit A-2 is the latest FOi request, received by the superintendent. As the Court can note, this request seeks copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last three years. 3. On September 30, 1999, Joshua submitted a request to the District via Ms. Mildred Tatum seeking copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last two years. Thus, as the Court can see, the District 193769-v1 continues to receive, in many instances, the same request from Joshua to which it has previously responded within the past twelve months. WHEREFORE, the District prays for the relief it has previously sought and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 37i-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By '- )  PulasJ4 C nty Special f S ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August_!_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193769-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193769-v1 3 JUL-31-00 MON 02:50 PM JOHN W. WAT.KER HALl'li WASHTNGTON \\RK aun~F.TTF: SHAWN CUTT.OS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools FAX NO. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATioRNl!:Y AT I.Aw 1723 BnoATJWAY LI'M'T.B RocK, ARKANSAS 72206 T~:r.~:l'HONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 37 4-4187 Via lland Deliveay July 31, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smilh: P. 02 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 ZQGO This request is pursuant to the Arkansas :Freedom of Infonnation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, inspection and copying: CACI l) copies of all FOI A requests presented to the District over the Ja:;t three years; 2) copies of all invoices submitted by lhe District in response for FOJ A copies. r will be available to review your responses on f riday, August 4, 2000. EXHIBIT l IJ-.;,z IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THIRD AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 ZDOD OFFICE OF OfSEGREGATION MmJJTORiUB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their third amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A-3 are copies of Joshua's latest FOi requests. All are addressed to Dr. Smith, two are dated August 1, 2000, and the third is dated July 31, 2000, although all were received on August 1, 2000. 2. The request dated July 31, 2000, is of particular significance. It contains 43 numbered requests, some of which have multiple subparts. 3. Several of the requests evidence an ulterior motive prompting the request. For instance, the July 31, 2000, letter requests job postings, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms for a warehouse supervisor, a custodial supervisor, a head custodian for Homer Adkins - Elementary School, a carpenter helper's position, a painter, a lead custodian for 193848-v1 Bayou Meto, a lead mechanic, a custodian for the administration building, a custodian for Robinson Elementary, a laborer for the Transportation Department, together with secretaries and paraprofessionals. It is respectfully submitted that none of the information demanded could reasonably implicate the issues of the pending requests for Central Office reorganization or the proposed reassignments to new Bates Elementary School, neither could they reasonably implicate implementation issues that might be raised in the future concerning Plan 2000. 4. As the Court can see from the dates furnished in the July 31 correspondence, many of the positions were posted more than one year ago. 5. The filing of the District's motion for protective order seems to have accelerated Joshua's request for records via the Arkansas FOIA. As previously noted, the earlier threat of disruption has now turned into actual disruption itself. 193848-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew their request for relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 We8t Cc1pitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _L, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193848-v1 3 AuG-Ji-uU IUt ud:JJ n~ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JoaN W. WALKER, P.A. ATrORllllY AT LA.w 1723 BIOADWAY Lmu: RooK, Aluv.NBA.8 7:1206 TELEPHO?\\'i (501) :!7,4,$758 FAX (1501) 37Hl87 RECEfVED JOHN W. WALICll RALPH WASHINGTON MARX BUltNE1'I'E SH.t\\WN CHI.WS Or. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, Pulaski County Special School Oisirioi 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: Via Fac1bnile  4900483 July 31, 2000 I, , .., 1 r,'..10 7.uOJ This request is pursuant to the Ar~u Freedom otlnformation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, Inspection and copying: - a copy of the Irnplen1ematio11 Plan for PCS SD Plan 2000 - job po$ting1, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms inclucilng the rating received for each applicant interviewed for these positiona: 1) MIS Operations \u0026 Proaramming - 7/21/2000 2) Assistant Prinoipal - Jacksonville Jr. High. 7-264 2000 3) Secondary A4si1tant Principal - 7-14--2000 Jacksonville Middle Mills High North l1ulaski Oak Grove Jr./High Robinson Jr, Sylvan Hills High 4) 21111 Century Community Leaming Center Program Coordinator 5) Director ofMaimenance Services. 7-12-2000 6) Direwtor ofTrP!'.!pcrtation  7-6-20(1 7) Computer Sttvlee Technician .. tS-6.2000 8) Administrative Assistant - Security \u0026 Safely - 4-7-2000 9) Principal - Baker  6--6-2000 10) Director of Support Staft'Peraonnel - 6-6-2000 11) Guidance Secretary Sylvan Hilla Jr. - 5-22-l0OO 1::2) Pupil Accounting Supc,visor  4262000 13) Director of Purchuirig- 12-1-99 14) Sp~ia.l Education teacher-Jacksonville Jr. - 4-25-2000 1.5) Warehoue Supervisor - 7-14-99 16) Custodial Supervisor - 7-99 ---- --------------- EXHIBIT I /l-s ALlG- Ji-uU tGt ~d:J J rlM CACI 5013744187 WALK~R LAW FIRM 17) Seere~ry for Safety \u0026 Security - 18) Head Cu~todian  Homer Adkins - 2-14-2000 19) Information Services Specialist  20) Carpenter Help position - 2-9-2000; l-11 2000 21) Director of Technology Services - 12-2-99 22) Painter- 11-1199 23) Payroll Specialist - J 1-8-99 24) Secretary Safety\u0026. Security- J 1-1-99 2S) Lead Custodian -Bayou Meto - 2-21-99 26) Lead Me\u003c:banic  l llCi-98 27) Paraprofessional - Harris Elementary 9-23-99 28) Eneri)' :M.anaaer Position - 9-l 99 921 P03 29) Maintenance Custodian for Administrative Bldg. - 8-13-99 30) Secretary - Special Ed - 8-6-99 31) Lead Custodian - Robinson Elementary  7.3 099 32) Administrative Asst. - Trinipo111tion - 8-2-99 33) Director of Transportation 8-4-99 34) 8 HoUJ' Laborer Transportation 7-29-SlSl 35) Jacuonvill Middle - 6-23-99 36) Oak Grove Jr./Sr . 6-23-99 37) As\u0026t. Supt. Business Affairs - 2-3-2000 38) Director of'Legal Afflun - 12-8-99 39) Principal  Lawson Elementary  9-29-99 40) Director of Accountability~ 9-29-99 41) Asst. Principal - Landmark  7-1-99 Baker Lawson 42) Principal- Landmark 7-1-99 43) Elemenury Asst. Principal - Arnold Dr. Batel College Station Oakbrooke Oak Grove I will be available to rm~ your respon~s on Friday, Augwt 4, 2000. AUG- 01-00 TUE 08:53 AM 5013744197 l.RKER L~ FIRM ,JOHN W. WALK.BR ~ WASHINGTON BUl\\NKTTt 8 WNOHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1728 BROADWAY LrmR ROCIC, MXANBAll 7ll206 TEUPHONE (601) S743758 FAX (601) S14-4187 Via Fncsimilt  490-0~83 August 1, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 92S Di,;:n Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: '322 ?02 RECEIV'.ED I,'u'U.., 1 I understand that you have agreed to provide to us a copy of the Board agenda booka and other supporting for each of your Board's meetings in the future, Would you also ,imultaneously share your BoardGrami, or will you require a Freedom of Infonnation request for each one? Thank you for your cooperation, Sincerely, JWW:js cc: Theresa Wallont AUG-01-00 TUE 08:54 AM FAX NO. ?. GS 50137441 87 Wl=U\u003cER ~F(J FIRM 922 F'03 ~G 01 0~ 0'3:03 JOHN W, WALK!ilR IULPK WA8HlNOTON MARK BURNETTE BKAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTOIINIY AT I..\\W 1728 BROADWAY Lt't'l'UI ROCK, Aluwl.w 72206 TZU:PH0N8 (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-~ 187 Via Facsimile  490-04'3 Auguat l, 2000 J\u003eulasJci County Speci~ School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED 1.uG 1 2oou Th.is request is punuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and copying the following: J) requisition requests for office equipmen1, furniture, other materials and supplies for yourself and all Senior adrninJatrators (Assistant Superintendent,, Director of Accountability and Legal Affairs, and other Director\u0026) that have beon made for the period of June 1, 1999 to present: 2) all expenses reports (and requisitions) Including car~ car allowances, beeper,, mobile phonc:s, credit cards, etc. incurred by yourself' and Senior administrators for the period of June 1, 1999 to present; 3) bids submitted in response to request number 1 and 2; and 4) minute$ of the Board approving items 1, 2 and 3. Would you please make this information avPilable by Friday, Augoat ~. 2000. CACI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AUG 2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their fourth amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as Exhibit A-4 is Joshua's latest FOi request directed to Ms. Wallent. 2. As nearly as we can interpret this request, it first asks for written instructions provided secretaries as regards responding to Joshua's FOi requests. We understand that if there are no written guidelines for responding to these requests that Joshua wishes to depose each secretary. 3. The PCSSD defendants respectfully submit that taking the depositions of secretaries regarding whether or not there were written FOi response instructions and, if not, what their oral instructions were transcends the 193901-v1 scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the PCSSO defendants request that no such depositions be permitted. WHEREFORE, the PCSSO defendants pray for the relief previously requested and as supplemented above. Respectfully submitted , WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 060) aunty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _j_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193901-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193901-v1 3 AUG-01-00 TUE 01:14 PM FAX NO. P. 04 :;ll0l.l.('l4ltff WHu\u003c.t:t\u003c LHW 1-lt\u003crl HL..b ~l ' \\dlj l 41~b JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNll:T1'E SHAWN CHILDS Ms. Theresa Wallent JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'M'ORNZY Ar LAw 1728 BROADWAY UTl'LE ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72206 ' , TEt.EPHONI (~01) 874-8758 FAX (501) 314,4187 Via Facsimile AUS:,'\\ISt 1. 2000 Director of Legat and Community Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Pear Ms. Wallent: RECEIVED AUG 1 ZOOCl This is a follow-up to the FOlA request for written communication from and b~ween Dr, Smith, Dr. Fox, senior administrators and others. This request also includes written correspondence where there has been a written evaluation done of any subordinate employee, In addition, r would like to have any written instructions provided to secretaries regarding requests for written correspondenca and files. If there are no written instructions, I would be interested in taking the depositions of all the secretaries of your Senior stuf\u00264ministrators, l r.walt your response. NIW:js ec: Mi, Sam Jones Ms, Ann Brown --- _ ,., __ Sincerely, EXHIBIT I RECEIVED AUG 4 2000 OffiCEOF IIIGREGATIOff MOITOAING :  . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. On June 23, 2000, the PCSSD moved to modify its student assignment plan in respect of Landmark Elementary School and the new Bates Elementary School. Beginning at page 5 of the brief which accompanied the motion, the PCSSD explained that it was also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002,, school year. 2. The PCSSD now desires to withdraw that portion of the motion seeking Pf:lrmission to shi~this program for the 2001-2002 school without prejudice to raising the issue again at a later date. 194183-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B ~~:;..__-r.--,--~~~o=)------ ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ,2,-2000, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504- Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 194183-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 194183-v1 M I 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 2000 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * vs. * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2000 Oiif',Cftlf OE\u0026Bffiflffl: MONITIJRlNW Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year, The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year; however, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MR.C's final budget for 1999-2000. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order iroving the budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,A3 day of August 2000. ~J,~lt;w CIIlEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET LN GOMPLIANC: Wl.~RULE 58 ANDJO~a) FRCP ! ?N~ ,i: 0V BY - Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 28, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302  Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright:  .\"., At its July 14, 2000 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal    motion and 5-0 vote (the Pulaski County Special School District representative was not present but later voted the District's approval via telephone), approved the interdistrict  magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school yec:U\" (Draft 1 ). FINAL 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount budgeted, $21,351,086, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $5,597.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of3,814.79 . students. This budget reflects an increase of$470.00 per student over the . 1998-99 budget, with the fol;1rth year of the five-year proposed program improve~ ... ment plan included. This final 1999-2000 budget reflects actual figures and takes  into account the variables (teacher retirement and heajth insurance changes\u003e\" that' ' were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1999 .  \u003c: ''.. This :finai budget also reflects costs associated with the additional seats  . . -.. ,.. ,. ,, . i  ', ... which were added during the Little Rock School District's grade configurati~m{:: :  '.' . :,:;. ,,,~y~f f~;C .::0:: 2 : : 0 2:. 0 :~~,eo~i  .  '.5~:}xi~I;::,l}i ,(  . -\u003e: :;,:,;' ,prtammously approved the proposed budget for the six original St1pulat10n magnet , .: '.\u003c;--: . ,:t;,;.1_:~,!.{\\~ ::1i-:;.~'.ir~:; \"  , '\". tj, ... ~,\" J,; .  ' , ,  .  , J\"\"' ''f:   ., ' J , .. :,. t'~ ;r l  -: ... . schoolsforth~2000-200l'schoolyear.  .  , ;,_ -~-;\\\\;,: :.:\"t:f/\\'. '.'t'  ,   :: ' .. .:\\:-1.,':.t\\fp::~.:;~ ;' .. . , PROPOSED 2000-2001 STiPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET ,.~..... t;  I  -:, -'i/: ., . , ,;, . ,, .~~ The total proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year is $22,500,211, which. ' - results in a per-pupil expenditure of$5,898.00 and an increase of $30i .OO over/;_ :. ..  .,  the 1999-2000 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should~ :    ' noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 2000-2001 proposed, : /_  :: budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit :    1,:    .. this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. -  \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\"  .. , .,. , ', ,. . , ... , . ':: _;/.;t , .. .al.;,  ( '.\u003e~ .t~//~\u003c:,:~~'  i --~,,.. ,.,...: .;;'Jtt;\\,    I , ~: 'tJtils\u003e\u003e( The Honorable SusanWebher Wright . . . ' . . . -2- \\.l ,  Magne~-Review 0?~ r~~trulfy requ~-~~ tii~' Court's. r.eVIe~ ~n~-~~~~i~y~~f-the 1999-2000 fiilaliz.ed budg~t, as 'Y~ll as tlie proposed 2000-2001 b~dget;-l?othflttach~d :_ herewith.    , '  - :  '~:. .,   -  -- -, ., 'h , .~t?  . ~ ,-._,; ,. ... ' ..' .. ,: . _1.:).' .. : ,i::\\ ...  .. ~~',: .. ;, ... :. ... ~--~~--\\:':,1~':-:./-:'!\u003e  The ~etJ~:~~ew_ Cominitt~ is_f ~IDpi~~-fo ~t~iE)~g.m~.~~l!l~~q~f9.f ie-'. origiilal ~et~schobls. We~ CQnt~uM~;.v.vor~ ~tlie.hg~disti,ict as we:'efj ercise sttjngent oveijig):ii 9f the magnet ~hQ\u003cSJsf oodgt?f ~ ah. effort io \"iichlev ait~.e~ , _\u003e . ., efficient ttiimage~nt and cost: coii~V\u003c?- th~:gr~t~st e:irte,nt po~sibI~~ -C:, / -  ..... . . ' .,_ .... ;..  . . . . . smc~r.eiy, ,  t~: Yiutc1.11t~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson ~etRevie:w comttrittee cc:, ' .., .. ,. .: . '- \\~... ,;' ,-, -~ , '!:' ~ --~ .... '. ~  I ':\"' ' 't -~'~:-( .. ~ ::' 'i\\;~_; ':. ;, ?'',. . . .  .  t,,, : :}(::'..:: 1 ,'._._;~,..- _ :__._:,:_~:'-_;_~_,:._:_:::;:_-:__-, :. :,_;,._:_i_.:~,:_:::-~_:,;'.'.~.-.:_._~_:_ ;:;f './. ,,\\, -:\\ - ? : .\\}?r~i-. -;~ -~ ~. ., , . .-~ ', ,.... ,_:: . ~ .-.~ .  f)'.'!t ?,1ff~~tt . . . rt~~\u0026~FM~~~~f-:1~:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~: ::::n::!~:~:.:.: ::;~~: :::~f::::~::: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 6.0 $423,711 6.0 $441,017 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $540,287 10.0 $572,704 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Soecialists 40.2 $1 ,638,478 40.2 $1,736,787 04 Counselors 13.4 $592,038 13.4 $627,561 05 Media Scee. 6.5 $288,210 6.5 $305,502 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $37,570 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign LanQ. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $349,156 7.6 $370,106 10 Soecial Education 9.2 $340,504 9.2 $360,934 11 Gifted 5.4 $227,711 5.4 $241,374 12 Classroom 190.8 $7,180,546 188.8 $7,611,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $196,924 0.0 $206,000 14 Other-KinderQarten 15.0 $621,745 16.0 $659,050 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 305.1 $12,434,753 304.1 $13,169,982 15 Secretaries 20.4 $517,493 21.4 $568,543 16 Nurses 6.0 $223,684 6.0 $237,105 17 Custodians 30.0 $431,533 30.0 $457,425 18 Information Services 1.0 $51,156 1.0 $54,225 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $165,698 6.0 $175,640 20 Other-Aides 35.0 $405,160 35.0 $429,470 21 Fringe Benefits(20' ~  $3,599,572 ~  $4,022,814 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 $5,394,297 99.4 $5,945,223 TOTAL (10-20) ~ j $17,829,050 ~  $19,115,205 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ j $454,368 ~  $485,060 SERVICES t--23--t-T-ra_v_e_l- -------~-,:-\"\"::' \".\"':'\" .'\":./,.,t--------$-2_9. .,..9 _3_7~, .,,..,\".\"':'\" :,\".',:.,'.\\,..1----$,-4_1_ ,4_50--1 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~  $393,895 ~ i $187,123 TOTAL (30) ~ i $878,200 ~ i $713,633 26 Princioal's Office ~  $419 ~ i $1,750 27 Reaular Classroom ~ i $632,772 ~  $503,452 28 Media ~  $45,163 ~ : $46,900 29 Other ~ : $25,424 ~ : $20,797 TOTAL (40) ~  $703,778 ~ : $572,899 30 Eauioment ~  $369,502 ~ i $452,387 31 Buildino Reoair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) ~ i $369,502 ~ $452,387 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $33,474 ~  $17,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ i $33,474 ~ i $17,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ j $1,984,954 ~  $1,756,419 TOTAL (10-60) 403.5 $19,814,003 403.5 $20,871,625 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $1,537,083 ~ j $1,628,587 :\u003c\u003e\u003e i)iS.AANOJ'.O.lAt)!H?t : ~  ) t $.~f;)$.'Ul$.$i ~  ) j/ $~ZOOPi~1l: Stipends $21 ,871 $37,400 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,411,708 $1 ,487,687 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted Proorams $504 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 Readino $500 $500 Science $0 $0 Enolish $1 ,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 Total Line Items $1 ,537,083 $1,628,587 e.~fJiii111:c6st:::ri::i,:,:::,::iin i:n:::j !lil!M!on:::,: ni:n,::2000.--01::::,u:: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,814.79 3,814.79 Total Costs $21 ,351,086 $22,500,211 P~rJ!ib.1t:(i~t:niun:::n:t ,,i:: ::: :::::n,:i,n:iiJ$.=s-91:: :i::n,::::::i:i::$.i:i;8~t:: fjl~~immw.~m~ffimM~ffl-~illl!l!lil!!l!!illl1l !llllill :::::: :i:::::::::.::~::::::::::: :::'rtE\\i: :::::1::i~::it~:::::1:1 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,272 1.0 $ 73,428 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $56,669 1.0 $ 60,069 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 03 Specialists 7.0 $293,910 7.0 $ 311 ,544 04 Counselors 2.0 $87,214 2.0 $ 92,446 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $47,376 1.0 $ 50,219 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $ 37,570 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $62,744 1.3 $ 66,509 11 Gifted 1.0 $43,999 1.0 $ 46,639 12 Classroom 32.6 $1,165,224 31 .6 $ 1,235, 13 Substitutes $18,609 $ 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $171 ,635 5.0 $ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 51.9 ,052,095 51 .9 $2,176,495 15 Secretaries 2.0 ,286 2.0 $ 36,344 16 Nurses 1.0 $37,591 1.0 $ 39,846 17 Custodians 4.0 $57,275 4.0 $ 60,712 18 Information Services 0.2 ,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraorofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $93,153 7.0 $ 98,743 21 Fringe Benefits(20 ~ . $603,562 ~ : $648,855 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $834,396 14.2 $893,538 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ' $2,886,491 ~ : $3,070,033 22 Utilities ~  $57,485 ~ : $61,400 23 Travel ~ : $6,356 ~ : $10,000 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~  $16,038 ~ i $26,025 TOTAL(30) ~ $79,879 ~  $97,425 26 Principal's Office 27 Regular Classroom ~ . $86,038 ~ : $67,403 28 Media ~ . $6,572 ~ : $7,000 29 Other ~ : $3,490 ~  $5,050 TOTAL (40) ~ . $96,101 ~ i $79,453 30 Equipment ~  $86,476 ~  $108,560 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~  $86,476 ~i $108,560 33 Dues and Fees ~  $6,258 ~ : $2,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,258 ~  $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $268,714 ~ $287,938 TOTAL (10-60) 66.1 $3,155,205 66.1 $3,357,971 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $217,044 ~ i $228,001 U/ i)d~AA'tilP.iT-O.T:A1;i)/HHH fflffii' i))/$:3\\:31ZZ4it nitxibtii i)f:)\";S$$;~72i :w,~,)t~:~~~:?::::::u::::::::::::: :::1:n::A~~~1::u::::: 1:u:p;tjpp~~::::::: J~(i!ii~ij-!HJ::nt::::::u:::::r::::ur 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $9,891 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $201,576 $212,425 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $151 $151 Plant Services $4,569 $4,569 Reading $71 $71 Science $0 $0 English $214 $214 Special Education $571 $571 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,044 $228,001 P~f ~~P.i~:9.~fi!1::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::d~~~~~:::::::: u:::::~99H~1.::::::::; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 544.71 544.71 Total Costs $3,372,249 $3,585,972 P~!~~Pi~!.~~t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::1:::$.~!1:~j!! :::::::::::::u:~~~~ij1! ~:~1~~~~~l~~~mq~~~RMtr~:r::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~.:. ::::,:,:,:::~::::::: :!~+~::: ::,:::~~:.:~~,:::::,: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $65,840 1.0 $ 69,790 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $51,989 1.0 $ 55,108 03 Soecialists 8.0 $314,459 8.0 $ 333,327 04 Counselors 2.0 $72,367 2.0 $ 76,709 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $61,802 1.5 $ 65,510 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.5 $38,627 1.5 $ 40,945 11 Gifted 1.4 $56,496 1.4 $ 59,886 12 Classroom 21 .3 $683,203 21 .3 $ 724,195 13 Substitutes $28,558 $ 30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $185,552 5.0 $ 196,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1,558,893 42.7 $1,652,155 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $61,721 3.0 $ 65,424 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,340 1.0 $ 38,520 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,669 4.0 $ 59,009 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $107,386 11.0 $ 113,829 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $479,870 ~  $ 542,901 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $749,514 19.2 $828,724 TOTAL (10-20) ~ - $2,308,407 ~ : $2,480,879 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ - $49,101 ~ ! $52,300 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $5,151 ~ : $12,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements 25 Other ~ $14,934 ~  $13,055 TOTAL (30) ~ $69,186 ~ ! $77,355 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ - $118,231 ~  $56,046 (40) 28 Media ~ - $8,911 ~ : $9,500 29 Other ~ - $3,904 ~ : $3,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $131,046 ~  $68,546 CAPITAL 30 Eauioment ~ - $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OUTLAY 31 Buildina Reoair, etc. ~ $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $5,154 ~ ; $2,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ $5,154 ~ ! $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $255,209 ~ : $189,703 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $2,563,615 61.9 $2,670,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $205,684 ~' $223,951 Stioends $4,277 $12,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,985 $206,533 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $147 $144 Plant Services $4,442 $4,442 Readino $69 $69 Science $0 $0 English $208 $208 Special Education $555 $555 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $205,684 $223,951 J~ei:J~~i)!liC9$~:n::,:::,::::n:::::::n::,:: :::::n::,:$~9.~I):::::::: ::::::::~P~iHHi:. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 529.60 529.60 Total Costs $2,769,300 $2,894,533 1F.1et:P.~Pft,co~t::,1:u::1:::1::::::n::::,::: :::::::::::::,::::is;~~:: .,:,:::::,:::,:u:$.SA$$:: ~:1,,~~~illlifm~ffimM~ffl~ffi~J~::ilillililllllil:iilil11l l::::::1 ::::::::::::::~::::::::::: :::+r~:l: ::::::::~~:flt~:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,456 1.0 $ 68,323 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 03 Specialists 6.8 $239,142 6.8 $ 253,491 04 Counselors 1.0 $48,372 1.0 $ 51 ,274 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $49,380 1.0 $ 52,343 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $78,541 2.0 $ 83,253 11 Gifted 1.0 $36,021 1.0 $ 38,182 12 Classroom 13.5 $501,102 13.5 $ 531,168 13 Substitutes $13,155 $ 14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $126,118 3.0 $ 133,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 30.3 $1 ,202,588 30.3 $1,274,799 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $29,738 1.4 $ 31,522 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,314 1.0 $ 35,313 17 Custodians 3.0 $46,030 3.0 $ 48,792 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,981 5.6 $ 43,440 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $338,590 ~ : $392,172 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.2 $497,181 11 .2 $560,278 TOTAL(10-20) ~ : $1,699,769 ~  $1,835,077 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $27,159 ~ i $29,660 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ : $4,646 ~ : $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ : $10,739 ~  $13,818 TOTAL (30) ~ : $42,544 ~ : $48,478 26 Principal's Office ~  $0 ~ : $1,000 27 Reoular Classroom ~ : $46,173 ~ : $40,000 28 Media ~ : $2,257 ~ : $3,500 29 Other ~  $2,740 ~ : $334 TOTAL (40) ~ : $51,170 ~ : $44,834 30 Eauipment ~ - $19,503 ~ : $8,497 31 Buildino Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ - $19,503 ~  $8,497 33 Dues and Fees ~ $6,977 ~  $1,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,977 ~ ; $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $120,194 ~ ' $102,809 TOTAL (10-60) 41 .5 $1,819,963 41.5 $1 ,937,886 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ - $108,028 ~  $113,686  :t=)J~AAND.:tO.'tAk)))) ~  /(:)$.1(927:~92H xmio( )))~~05Mu,2 .. W@rn~:~tit::::n::t:\\:H\\: n::::::HAi::'t~~n:::::n: }1/ P#iDP~~::j:jj\" :~~~l:/:\\:\\J:H\\/t/HH/: 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $0 $0 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $105,120 $110,777 Vocational $0 $0 ~~~ ~ ~ Gifted Programs $79 $79 Plant Services $2,383 $2,383 Readino $37 $37 Science $0 $0 Enolish $112 $112 Special Education $298 $298 )00()()()( )00()()()( Total Line Items $108,028 $113,686 tPer:~ij11:c;o~t::::::::i:::iti:::::::i:i: 1:::::::1~~9.~a:::::1:1 :::::i::~PQP~~ :ni:::: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 284.06 284.06 Total Costs $1,927,992 $2,051,572 p~:Fc'uomoo~t:ri:::i:::::i::::::::: 1:::1::::::::i::$.Ekl\u0026.1: ::i:::::i:i:u~iz:i ~~~1~il1if~\u0026l~ffll~ITT~ffi~~illlllilllillillll:i:ililii ::::w:: l:::::::l:l:W~~:::::l:l:l: ::~~w:: rn:::::~~:.t:rn:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $76,612 1.0 $ 81,209 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 5.0 $221 ,42 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1190","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Students","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1190"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\ns\np.~ ~nnln,gr B~~q, :, L,_. ft.n d,.~y ijlU at i On \\A,M9 lL .\\.iAP.O TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 26, 2001 Board of Education ?~l-1-6( eflu_J)N'l}. -~ fxw: ~~~/ cru I ~s~ J FROM: . .) ~/\\Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program The Board of Education approved the current assessment program in August 1999. Attached for the Board's information is a matrix that outlines the tests administered in 2000-01, dates, grade levels, and definitions. In addition to the tests listed on the matrix, we also have others, such as the Language Assessment Scale used to identify limited-English proficient students\ndiagnostic and screening tests used to . identify students for special education\nthe ASVAB at the high school to identify vocational aptitudes\nAdvanced Placement tests for students in grades 10-12\nthe SAT in grades 11-12 who need it for college admission or scholarships\ncredit by examination at the end of the year for credit recovery\nplacement examinations for entry or re-entry of home schooled students\ntests that teachers administer as a part of their instructional program\nand so forth.  After many discussions evaluating this program during 2000-01, including feedback from parents, students, principals, teachers, counselors, and curriculum and assessment staff, we have determined the need to revise the program. We request the Board's approval of the following amendments to our program: 1. Eliminate the fall administration of the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) in reading, language, mathematics, and science for grades 3-11-except for students new to the District. Rationale: We learn very little valuable information from the fall scores that we do not already know from the spring scores received a few months earlier. Eliminating these tests would save considerable staff time at both the District and school levels-in planning, administering the tests, scanning the answer documents, running reports, distributing reports, interpreting and analyzing the reports, etc. We would save money in licensing fees, scan sheets, delivery costs of materials to and from schools, paper to Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Two run the reports for students/parents, schools, and central office, etc. Perhaps most importantly, we would save at least a week of instructional time for virtually all students since schools tend to shut down instruction when any grade level is being tested. By continuing to test in the fall the new students to the District, we would then have diagnostic information for all students, and we would be able to have necessary data for SAIPs (Student Academic Improvement Plans) and to compute a growth score for all students. 2. Eliminate all AL Ts in grades 10-11 at the high school level. Rationale: Using the AL Ts at the high school level in any meaningful way has presented several problems. Perhaps the one that is most important is that high school students have few courses in common at any grade level since many of them repeat courses, take advantage of choices they have (e.g., taking either Algebra II or Statistics to satisfy graduation requirements), and/or intentionally delay some courses (e.g., a science or social studies course) in order to take Career Focus courses or electives in which they have interests. In other words, the grades 10-11 AL Ts are not necessarily aligned with the courses that the students are taking. It is, therefore, difficult to interpret the scores since we are not always clear about which courses the students have actually completed. Another high school issue is that they already take so many other tests, and the AL Ts are so unimportant to them that they lack motivation to do well. Students take both the SA T9 and PLAN in grade 10, and almost all of them take either the end-of-course Algebra I or Geometry test required by the state. In grade 11 by the time they receive their ALT scores, they have already taken all the required state endof- course/level tests, their last SAT9, PLAN, the PSAT, and, perhaps, either the ACT or SAT. The grade 10-11 ALT scores, therefore, are not going to be significantly informative to anyone. 3. Eliminate the mathematics and science AL Ts at grade 9 (leaving only the reading and language AL Ts at this grade level). Rationale: Again, the issue is alignment. Once students start taking Algebra I the mathematics ALT is not helpful. The ALT science test at grade 9 is not well aligned with Active Physics and Physics I Pre-AP at this grade level either since so few students in the nation even take a physics course. We can make the case with the National Science Foundation that our criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) for mathematics and science are better measurements for program evaluation and the diagnosis of individual student needs than the AL Ts. Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Three 4. Eliminate the mathematics ALT for students in grades 7-8 who are enrolled in Algebra I or higher-level mathematics. Rationale: The ALT is not a good test for students after they begin Algebra I. 5. Eliminate the criterion-referenced tests in English language arts administered at the end of the second and third quarters, grades 3-8. (The CRTs used at the end of mathematics modules in grades 3-8 and the end-of-unit tests used in grades 3-8 in science will continue since they are an important part of the evaluation plan submitted to the National Science Foundation.) Rationale: Staff at both the District and school levels have recommended that the energy and money spent on the current CRTs in language arts would be better used in providing quality professional development for teachers in how to write their own assessments and how to use rubrics (scoring guides) in assessing student performance. The data gathered from language arts CRTs have not been helpful at the . District or school levels in assessing program effectiveness since the instruction in this area is highly individualized. The content (what students read, as opposed to skills emphasized) and sequence of lessons also varies from classroom to classroom. The value of the assessment results is at the teacher level\nthe assessment instrument, therefore, will likely be of higher value if designed by the teachers, particularly if they have been trained. Other issues in the language arts is the cost in time of scoring openended responses and the related delay in getting results back to the schools. 6. Begin the grade 9 Civics/United States History assessment in spring 2002. Rationale: The SA T9 battery includes a social studies assessment in grades 5, 7, and 10, but these tests are not necessarily aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks for social studies, nor the District's grade-level and course benchmarks. The social studies staff recommend that we add this assessment so that we measure students' understanding of key concepts in United States government, civics, and history. This test can also prepare students to take the up-coming State end-of-course test in United States History, as well as provide the school and the District with diagnostic information in this subject area and evaluation data for the program. Our initial plans were to begin this assessment in spring 2001 . We made a decision to delay it due to the illness of the Director of Social Studies and due to a need to align our item bank with other important social studies assessments, such as the assessment used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. BAL/adg Attachments I I I I i l District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade TEST K I 1 2 LRSD Observallo11 Survey Sepl. \u0026amp; Sepl. \u0026amp; Sep!. \u0026amp; bohoviorAI obss,vstion of lllmcr skms April April  April LRSD Achi0ver11enl Level Tes! (ALT) Rssdt,rg, LsnguafJ Arts, Alef/o, \u0026amp; Scislfco I LRSD 1st O\\lerler CRT, October 1 LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, Januarv LRSD Jrd Quarter CRT, March End or Module - Malh End of Uni! - Science End or Level Social Sludle~ Tesl April 3  4 5 I 6 7 8 Sepl \u0026amp; Aorll Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Seol \u0026amp; Aoril Seol.\u0026amp; Aoril Sep! \u0026amp; April Seol \u0026amp; Aorll Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Langtia_ge Ms Arts Aris Aris Aris Aris Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language Aris Aris.: Arts Aris Aris .Aris As Modules are As Modules are tis Modu'.es are As Modules As Modules /Is Modules compleled compleled corppl11led are compleled are compleled are compleled As Units are As Unlls aro \" AsUnll'iare NJ Unll:s are As Unlls an, completed compleled COOlpluled compleled co111pleled 9 Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Trigmiomelrv Algeb1 a 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, T rlgonornelrv May 10 Sep! \u0026amp; April Sep! \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, I Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geon1elry, Geomelry, Trlgonomelrv Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Algebra t \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Geomelry, Triaonomelrv Trigonometry 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geornelry, Trigonometry Algeb1a l \u0026amp; 2,1 Geometry, . , Trlaonomelr-v  \\~~l .. 'll:.11%\nate?~Elr.J... ~ IUllttr. ~--~- .Uti(WJ.\n.~FH~.ni'\":m\"'~JI ~'.J!li.:r~~~,:t:_~..,l ~ .- f:~ .S!f:. ~nn1jfr7-$. =~Jl.l:!: . ... ,,f!ii::,11' i.:S::::l:::a:::le::..:B=-e=n:::c::l.::.1m:.:a=:r:::k::..:: ::M.::,iO::.:r..:\u0026amp;:...:L::::::ra=cr_....:..._ _- l------l---~1-------1-------+---'A-'\\o\"-r'-ll-'._+-~---1--.c....A,p:'- ri'-l -+-----1----,-A\n-p_ri_l -1--~--- , :2(1 - ....~\n~r' . End or Course Algebra_ I May May Mav Mav Mav May End or Course Geomeltv Mav May Mav May Mav End or Course Lileracv Mav '-~,.... lf(i'~\"\"Ji.llj:r~f:\n(\u0026gt;\n...., .~'.'\"''~ 'i111i-'. ~a1i1):\\1'J,.\":P.1~'l\n.:\"ilj._, ,,_ ' l-t-\\: ' , - ' .' $A T-9: Nomr Rfsrencsd ToI Seplember Seplember Seplember PLAN Oct \u0026amp; Nov EXPLORE Oct - FelJ. PSAT NAEP lrandomlv selecled schools 1 February February Ocl (plaGIIGB} .October February 7118/00 Revised DRAFT 1. t I I - Glossary of Terms LRSD Observation Survey is an assessment instrument developed by Marie Clay to assess K-2 students in letter identification, word identification, concepts about print (CAPS)\nwriting vocabulary, and dictation. The Developmental Reading Assessment is also used-as part of this assessment. LRSD Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) are tests consisting of multiple levels. 111e ALT measures student progress in mastering the skills of Mathematics, Reading, Language, and Science. The District administers the ALT to students in grades 2-11. LllSD Crileria referenced test are administered in math, science, social studies and language arts to measure student progress in mastering the district's curriculum. End-of -Course Algebra )/Geometry are *criterion-Teferenced state assessments administered to eligible students** at the end of course to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content areas. End-of-Comse Literacy is a criterion-referenced state assessment administered to eleventh grade studenls to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content area. State Benchmark E:ums are criterion-referenced assessments designed to measure how well students are learning the state's academic standards in Mathematics and Literacy (reading and writing). The Primary, Intennediate, and Middle Level Benc~ark Exams are administered to students in grade~ 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition (SAT 9) is a norm-referenced assessment designed to test broad concepts in specific subject areas. Nomi-referenced tests are initially administered lo a national sample of students in order to develop testing \"norms\" or normative results thal will be used in comparing local stndenl performance. As such, norm-referenced testing fostrument9 provide important information on how students in Arkansas perform when compared to nnlional sample group results. The state mandates norm-referenced testing of students in grades 5, 7, and JO. PLAN academic tests are designed to measure student attainment of the knowledge and skills acquired through the early years of high school, specifically among tenth giade students in the fall term. There are four PLAN academic tests: English, Mathematics, Reading and Science Reasoning. PLAN is the second part of the ACT assessment program. EXPLORE serves as the first step in an integrated series of American College Test (ACn assessment programs designed to enhance eighth grade students'  preparation for careers, vocational training, or higher education. EXPLORE is made up primarily of four academic achievement tests: English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning. Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) assesses knowledge and skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through experiences outside the class1oom. The PSAT measures critical reading skills, verbal reasoning, math problem-solving skills, and writing skills. Juniors take the test to prepare for college admission tests. Test results provide valuable feedback about academic skills and can be used to identify students for honors classes. This is the qualifying test for the National Merit Program. National Assessment of Educnlional Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what st11dents in the United Stales know and can do in various academic subjects. NAEP is authorized by Congress and directed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NAEP assessments are administered to rep1esentative samples of students at the national and state levels in grades 4, 8, and 12. *Criterion rcrerenced examinulions are based on the A1kansas Cu1Ticulum Framewo1ks and designed to measure student accomplishment of the conlent standai ds therein. ** All students who llave completed the course of study.   District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LRSD Observation Survey Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; behavioral obse,vstion of literacy skiffs April April April LRSD Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arls, Math, \u0026amp; Science April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April LRSD 1st Quarter CRT. October Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, January Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 3rd Quarter CRT, March Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts As Modules are As Modules are As Modules are As Modules As Modules As Modules End of Module - Math compleled compleled completed are completed are completed are completed As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are End of Unit - Science completed completed completed completed completed End of Level Social Studies Test State Benchmark: Math \u0026amp; Literacy April April April End of Course Algebra I May May End of Course Geometry May End of Course Literacy SAT-9: Norm Referenced Test September September PLAN EXPLORE Oct - Feb PSAT NAEP (randomly selected schools) February February 7/18/00 Revised DRAFT 9 Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May 10 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv May May September Oct \u0026amp; Nov 11 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May Oct (practice) .. October 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry - -:-, ~ ,- ...  :1-'' \u0026gt; May May February    SAS Co EN-S ING, ASSESSMENT,~ PROGRAM Arkansas Department of Education Ray Simon, Director June 1999 Revised June 2000    INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes:  To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand  To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates \"that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments.\"    ACADEMIC STANDARDS The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas' academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a State Board of Education adopted schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and Smart Step, and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-8 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-8 Curriculum Model documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a K-3 grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. 2    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be required for each certified employee in the school district. Beginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours annually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students' academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shall relate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on statemandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP . 3    STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterionreferenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. 1 orm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas' academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm-referenced test data will not be a primary statemandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessments should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows: Assessments Grade Level Month Administered Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Grade 4 April Intermediate Benchmark Grade 6 April Middle Level Benchmark Grade 8 April End-of-Course - Algebra I When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Geometry When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Literacv Grade 11 Januarv/Aoril Norm-Referenced Grades 5 7 and 1 O Seotember The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-ofCourse Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the school's option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas' curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each student's transcript or permanent record. 4    An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention and .~remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the school agrees to the guidelines as established. The timing of such requests must also fall within the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students and remediation strategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation program during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 5    Optional Assessments There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the annual school report to the public. ote: Although AEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999 . 6    ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS '\",,I,. .  Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically-defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only tests for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set are the Primary Benchmark and Middle Level Benchmark Exams. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Definitions of Performance Levels Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond proficient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide wellsupported explanations and arguments. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. 7    Basic students demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the proficient level. They show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics\nhowever, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. Below Basic students fail to show sufficient mastering of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level. Performance Levels for the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Examinations Performance Scaled Score Ranges for Scaled Score Ranges for Level Performance Levels for Performance Levels for Literacy Mathematics Primary Middle Level Primary Middle Level Advanced 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above Proficient 200-249 200-249 200-249 200-249 Basic 155-199 149-199 179-199 164-199 Below Basic 154 and below 148 and below 178 and below 163 and below c Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to .statistical scaling and variability in the test.) 8    Public Reporting Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public with data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the school's performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility. The purposes for tracking performance of these student groups are to focus on narrowing any achievement gap between them and their peers and to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: Disaggregated Reporting General population students are those participating in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments that are not classified as special education, limited English proficient, or highly mobile. Combined population students include all those participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments regardless of classification . Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education program (IEP). The student's IEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. Beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000-2001, the scores of all students classified as special education students participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments with or without accommodations shall be aggregated ( combined) with those of the general population students according to the following calendar: 2004 - 05 Primary Benchmark 2005 - 06 Fifth Grade orm-Referenced 2006 - 07 Intermediate Benchmark 2007 - 08 Seventh Grade Norm-Referenced 2008 - 09 Middle Level Benchmark 2008 - 09 End of Course (where applicable) 2010- 11 Tenth Grade Norm-Referenced 2011 - 12 End of Course Literacy 9    Limited,. English proficient students are those having a language background other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of  academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The district's Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October I of the previous school year. Beginning with the 1999-2000 mandatory assessments, results will be reported separately for the following categories of students: General Population Special Education Students Limited English Proficient Students High Mobility Students Combined Population Beginning with the 2000-01 mandatory assessments, the number of students not tested through either the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments or Alternate Assessment program will be reported by school. Schools should make every effort to assure that all students are tested. Annual School Report to the Public: Each year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the school's improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Department's World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September!, 1999 and annually thereafter. 10    School Improvement Planning As part of the state's accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of the state-mandated criterionreferenced exams. The initial step in the planning model is a structured process that leads to disaggregation of student achievement and other student data. The study of this data helps schools identify areas within the curriculum where student performance does not meet expectation. Schools prioritize the needs areas, then develop performance-based benchmarks that can be tracked during the implementation phase of the plan. Schools then identify intervention and remediation strategies that, if effectively implemented, will move students toward meeting the established benchmarks. Finally, schools develop an action plan that assigns tasks, identifies resources (including the source of funds), and projects evaluation strategies that will signal movement toward meeting the performance standards. The process requires that the intervention and remediation be research-based and linked to proven practices. Rewards Rewards will be based on a system structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on both the state-mandated and school-selected indicators. Rewards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adapted in other schools and districts across the state. Each year the ADE will recognize individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in two categories: Performance Awards - Absolute levels of student achievement and other indicators. Growth Trend and Improvement A wards - Recognized growth trends and improvement in student achievement and other indicators. All award categories, which could include cash payments to individual schools, will be phased in over time and will be implemented as the indicator performance levels are established through the standard setting process. The focus of any cash awards must be to enhance the capability of the school to better serve its students. Awarded funds shall be used to expand programs, provide additional materials and supplies, support technology, provide bonuses to staff, or make possible other enhancements that serve the needs of the school or children. 11    Sanctions Sanctions are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. Intervention from the state is not meant to be a permanent solution to unacceptable student achievement, but a way to help local schools improve student performance. It is expected that individual schools and districts will monitor their own progress and take corrective steps to improve student achievement prior to intervention from the state. To avoid sanctions, each school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points given for the accountability indicators described within the threetiered system. Failure to do so will result in the following designations:  High Priority Status - first year.  Alert Status - second year.  Low Performing Status - third year.  Academic Distress Phase I Status - fourth year. To be considered for removal from any sanctioned designation leading up to, but not including, Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the school's designation as Academic Distress Phase II and/or Academic Distress Phase III . The ADE reserves the right, for any school in any of the designations above, to mandate a specified intensive intervention plan which could include, but not be lin1ited to, specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This plan could also include a mandated summer school program for students perfoffiling below grade level. Current rules and regulations governing schools in Academic Distress will remain in effect until the ACTAAP system described here is fully operational. 12    Accountabilitv Indicators Definitions of the non-academic (learning environment) indicators are provided later in this document. Tier I Indicators, all state-mandated, are based on performance goals and apply to every school in the state, where appropriate, by grade level configuration. They are as follows: Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance 100% of a school's students shall perform at or 41 \", 61 \", and 81 \" on State- above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Mandated literacy. Criterion- Referenced 100% of a school's students shall perform at or Tests above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics. Performance 100% of a school's secondary students shall on State- perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Mandated Algebra I. Criterion- Secondary Referenced 100% of a school's secondary students shall Tests perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry. 100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy. School Drop At least 99% of secondary students will remain in 7'\" through 121 \" Out school to complete the 12th grade. Average Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. Kindergarten Daily through 12th Attendance Classes 100% ofa school's classes will be taught by an Kindergarten Taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. through 12th Appropriate! y Licensed Teacher Professional 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at Kindergarten Development least 30 hours of approved professional through 12th development annually. School Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and Kindergarten Safety violent acts. through 12th Note: For purposes of assigning points for criterion-referenced tests under the Tier I accountability component, only the performance of general population students shall be measured. 13    Tier II Indicators are based on trend and improvement goals on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests and on school-selected indicators. Any \"Other School Selected .. Indicators\" must have prior approval of the ADE. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students using cross-sectional data from the same indicator (e.g. Primary Benchmark Exam). Statistical techniques will be developed, by averaging multiple years of data, to minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in performance of these different groups. This means that if a school is continuing to improve, the trend will be a consistent indicator that fewer students are below proficient, with the effect of \"off-year\" or \"good-year\" performance minimized. Improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students using a longitudinal database. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. Tier II - State-Mandated Indicators Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance on The percent of students performing at or above 4th , 6t\\ and 8th State-Mandated the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Criterion- literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will Referenced meet or exceed the trend and improvement Tests goals each year. -- - -- ---- -- - -- ---- -- --- -- --- - -- The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on The percent of secondary students performing Secondary State-Mandated at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I Criterion- will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: For purposes of assigning points for state-mandated criterion-referenced tests under the Tier II accountability component, the performance of each of the student categories - general population, special education students, limited English proficient students, and high mobility students - shall be measured. 14    Tier II - School-Selected Indicators (Schools select any 5) Indicator Goal Grade Level(s) School Drop Secondary schools will improve the percentage Secondary Out of students who stay in school to complete the 12th grade. Average Daily Schools will improve their average daily All Levels Attendance attendance rate. Classes Taught Schools will improve the percent of classes All Levels byan taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Schools will increase the percent of certified All Levels Development staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and All Levels violent acts. Other School Schools will select trend or improvement goals All Levels Selected directed to student achievement in specific Indicators sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Trend and Improvement Goals on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests On average, each school's trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. To help establish improvement goals, each cohort of students will be monitored, beginning with the 1999 Primary Benchmark Exam, and a longitudinal database developed. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. This information will allow for the assessment of performance changes relative to initial performance and will assist in the development of expected improvement models. Test analysis and methodical planning to reach these goals will be facilitated and guided by the state school evaluation process. Trend and Improvement Goals on School-Sclcctcd Indicators The school, with approval of the ADE, selects five additional indicators to complete Tier II. These additional indicators can be selected from among school drop out, average daily attendance, teacher licensure, school safety, or professional development as defined in Tier I\nOR, a school may identify trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas related to the criterion- 15    referenced or norm-referenced tests. Guidelines will be developed for use in selecting minimum numbers of students for sub-population study in order to preclude identification of individual students. In order to protect the integrity of the accountability system, the ADE must also approve the trend and improvement goals selected by the school. If a school elects to include results of its norm-referenced tests within its Tier II indicators, points will be assigned even though no points are given for these exams in Tier I. Note: The Professional Development indicator is set at a minimum level of 60 hours in order to encourage schools to offer more than the state-required minimum of 30 hours. Thus, schools will be rewarded for encouraging additional professional development opportunities for its teachers and administrators. Once selected, Tier II indicators will remain until they have been substantially attained or alternate indicators approved by the ADE. The following are examples of indicators based on sub-populations:  The gap between the scale score in mathematics on the Primary Benchmark Exam for African-American students and white students will be decreased by 10% each year.  Title I eligible students will improve 5 percentile points in reading comprehension each year on the fifth grade norm-referenced test. Voluntary Reporting of Off-Grade Data The ADE strongly encourages, and will provide assistance toward, voluntary implementation by local schools of an expansion of the process of measuring improvement goals by utilizing data for a longitudinal study of students' performance on off-grade tests. Participating schools may include results from off-grade testing as Tier II indicators, if so desired. Tier III Indicators Tier III is a narrative developed by the staff of each school. This annual narrative of approximately 500 words generally describes data sources ( e.g., criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, etc.) used to address state and local performance indicators. The narrative also describes progress that the school has made in formulating the plan and in successfully implementing the trend and performance indicators within the school improvement process. This narrative, which shall be sent to the ADE during the spring of each year, will be incorporated in the School Performance Report that will be disseminated to the public. No points will be assigned for the narrative. 16    Sample School Narrative For the last three years, scores on the Primary Benchmark Exam's reading test have exceeded the district's average. Each child from kindergarten through fifth grade receives an hour and a half of developmental reading instruction per day. Emphasis is also placed on the implementation of activities as outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Independent reading of books by primary and intermediate grade level students has been a priority - a goal was set for each student. This year 85% of the fourth grade students met or exceeded their goal compared to 70% last year. Students are being taught writing skills using many different approaches including computer word processing. The writing and scoring process is designed to help students improve writing scores on the Benchmark Exams. The computer-student ratio is 1:4. Children have access to the Internet and the school has a homepage on the Web. In mathematics over the past five years, fifth grade students scored below the district goal of 50% above the national average on the SAT-9. This year, a staff focus group supported by a Title I supplemental grant, recommended a teacher accountability math pacing chart. It included chapter test scores, a consistent five-day math homework policy, in-service for staff and parents, a student test awareness program, homework room and a Math Intervention Assistance program. All recommendations were implemented with the approval of the school council. In May, an in-service continued to provide staff with training on computer software and accessing the Internet for mathematical teaching materials and techniques. Parent involvement (via parent-teacher conferences) increased by 40% this year. Parents participated in developing instructional materials for use at home to reinforce skills, learning instructional uses of the computer, donated time to serve as individual tutors for students during the school day and assisted with holiday events for the students. Definitions of Non-Academic (Learning Environment) Indicators School Dropout means the percentage of students who leave school for any of the following reasons as defined in the Statewide Information System (SIS) database: incarcerated, failing grades, suspended or expelled, lack of interest, conflict with school, economic hardship, pregnancy/marriage, peer conflict, Jack of attendance, alcohol/drugs, other. A code will be used for GED participation but will not count as a dropout for ACT AAP purposes. A student will be considered a dropout for the previous year if he/she has a Dropout/Withdrawal date between October 1 of the previous school year and October 1 of the current school year and has not re-entered. The percentage completing will be calculated by dividing the number not dropping out by the previous year's October 1 enrollment. Average Daily Attendance means the total number of days attended by students divided by the number of days actually taught by the school. The number includes those students who attend school outside of the resident district on a tuition agreement between the two respective districts. 17    Appropriately Licensed Teacher means that a teacher has the appropriate license and/or approval to teach., the respective class. The teacher is teaching a class that would not .cause the school to have a citation in the accreditation process. For the purpose of this calculation, the teacher would fill one of the job assignments as defined in the SIS database. (These are instructional positions, not administrative or supervisory job classifications.) The percentage of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher will be determined by dividing the number of classes taught by appropriately licensed teachers by the total number of classes taught. Professional Development is as defined in the component definition earlier. School Safety means a percentage safety index determined by dividing the number of violent incidences involving students by the current year three-quarter average daily membership of the school and subtracting from 100%. A safety infraction committed by a student includes any of the following as defined in the SIS database: drugs, alcohol, student assault, staff assault, knife, handgun, rifle, shotgun, explosive, club, and gang. Schools reporting user-defined infractions should request confirmation from the ADE as to their inclusion in this indicator. Each reported incident will be factored into the calculation\ntherefore, there is no difference between one student being reported four times and four students being reported once . 18    Calendar for Data Collection and Point Assignment Svstem -~ .,\n-~ _..,.~ Since the determination of rewards and sanctions will be based on points assigned to the Tier I and Tier II indicators, it is extremely important that such a system be fair and statistically and legally defensible. It is also necessary to allow appropriate tin1e for sufficient data to be gathered that will permit an accurate measurement of trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators. Once the assignment of points is initiated, the ADE, through a contract with the University of Arkansas' Office of Research, Measurement and Evaluation (ORME), will be responsible for all calculations and rankings. The local school should not need additional personnel or resources to respond to the requirements of ACTAAP. The following calendar outlines the Baseline Year, or the first year in which official data for each Tier I indicator will be collected. 1998- 99 1999 - 00 2000- 01 2001 - 02 Primary Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark School Dropout Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety None Intermediate Benchmark End-of-Course Algebra I End-of-Course Geometry End-of-Course Literacy The Baseline Year for trend goals with each Tier II indicator will be two years following that indicator's introduction in Tier I. The Baseline Year for improvement goals will vary, depending on when the same cohort of students reaches the next appropriate, measurable indicator. Even though baseline data accumulation was begun with the 1998-99 year, actual points for rewards and sanctions will not be assigned until 2001-02, and then only for those indicators for which sufficient data has been gathered. The complete accountability point system will become fully operational, with all indicators, in 2003-04. Note: In order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000-2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. 19 Observation Survey    DRA Kindergarten Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness--LRSD Average: 72% Basel 51 King .64 Bale 59 Brady Gibbs 89 Chicot 56 Badgett 22 Bal Chicot 56 Mitch 91 Brady 77 Dodd 87 Willia 89 Dodd 87 F.Park 68 Frank Clover 56 Right 92 Fair P. 56 McDer 95 Booker 81 Mabelv 61 Jeff 90 Geye~ 85 Wakef 47 Steph 41 F.Park 68 Romie 67 Carver 81 Meado 77 King 64 Mead6 77 Watson 56 -Wash 81 Frank 64 Terry 92 Otter 90 PH 83 Stepb 41 Woodr 69 Fulb 95 W.Hills 15 Rocke 76 Wakef 47 McDer 95 Wilson 67 Wash 81 W.Hilis 75 Steph 41 Woodr 69 Wilson 67 DRA Grade 1 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 54 % CMS DMMS FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Basel 30 King 57 Bale 67 Brady 35 Gibbs 66 Chicot 27 Badgett 06 Bale 67 Chicot 27 Mitch 25 Brady 35 Dodd 58 Willia 84 Dodd 58 F.Park 70 Frank 58 Clover 28 Right 36 Fair P. 63 McDer 80 Booker 69 Mabelv 51 Jeff 69 Geyer 47 Wakef 22 Steph 24 F.Park 70 Romine 60 Carver 76 Meado 70 King 57 Meado 70 Watson 25 Wash 36 Frank 58 Terry 47 ' Otter 68 PH 50 Steph 24 Woodr 84 Fulb 61 W.Hills 81 Rocke 76 Wakef 22 ~ McDer 80 Wilson 83 Wash 36 W.Hills 81 - - Steph 24 Woodr 84 Wilson 83  CMS DMMS Basel 47 King 81 - Chicot 39 Mitch 49 Clover 58 Right 95 Wakef 40 Steph 31 ., Watson 54 Wash 63 Woodr 78 ,-  DRA Grade 2 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 68% FHMS HMS Mann MMS Bale 72 Brady  71 Gibbs 81 Chicot 39 Brady 71 Dodd 52 Willia 90 Dodd 52 Fair P. 63 Mci\u0026gt;er 67 . Booker 80 M\nabelv 43 F.Park 90 Romine 69 . Carver 82 Meado 58 Frank 81 Terry 81 Ofter 87 Fulb 79 W.Hills 90 McDer 67 Wilson 60 - Steph 31  PHMS SMS Badgett 12 Bale 72 F.Park 90 Frank( \u0026lt; 81 Jeff 71 Geyer 73 King 81 Meado 58 PH 45 St~ph '. 3'1 Rocke 71 Wakef. -40 Wash 63 W.llills 90 Woodr 78 Wilson 60  6/15/00 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - Districtwide by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8,20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 +4.51 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.44 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 18.99 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ,, Chanae 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 I +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21 .26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21 .30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 ,, +10.31 1759 1775 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient In first grade. Sagments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. \"** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. OS2000-Camlna K_/hn,_2  6119100 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chancie Assessment Assessment Chancie 8.20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 +4.51 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.45 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 19.00 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chancie 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21.26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21.30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 +10.31 1759 1775  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!!ghted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2oootables  6/19100 Badgett Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 3 White Male Mean N Total Mean 3.00 N 3 Female Mean 0.38 N 16 Black Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.40 N 30 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.79 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.64 N 33  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 1.13 +0.75 1.56 6.93 +5.38 16 18 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.04 +0.64 1.37 6.29 +4.92 28 27 24 ' I :, 1.47 +0.68 1.58 6.93 +5.35 19 19 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.26 +0.62 1.39 6.29 +4.90 31 28 24  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.00 40.00 +32.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 0 1 1 , 4.50 20.50 +16.00 2 2 1.44 3.00 +1.56 9 8 1.95 10.55 +8.60 19 20 1.79 8.39 +6.61 28 28 2.10 7.11 +5.01 10 9 1.90 10.10 +8.20 20 21 1.97 9.20 +7.23 30 30  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of /he population no/ testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOlables  6/19/00 Bale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.25 N 4 Female Mean 2.19 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 15 Total Mean 1.33 N 36 Female Mean 0.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.67 N 6 Female Mean 1.82 N 28 Total Male Mean 0.11 N 18 Total Mean 1.15 N 46  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.50 +3.00 8.40 25.57 +17.17 2 5 7 1.00 +1.00 4.00 14.00 +10.00 2 2 2 2.25 +2.00 7.14 23.00 +15.86 4 7 9 5.77 +3.58 9.13 22.53 +13.40 22 15 15 0.60 +0.47 9.25 21.33 +12.08 15 12 12 3.68 +2.34 9.19 22.00 +12.81 37 27 27 4.20 +3.40 1.50 8.00 +6.50 5 2 2 2.00 +2.00 6.75 20.00 +13.25 1 4 5 3.83 5.00 16.57 I +3.17 +11.57 6 6 7 5.34 +3.52 8.27 22.21 +13.94 29 22 24 0.72 +0.61 8.11 20.21 +12.10 18 18 19 3.57 +2.42 8.20 21.33 +13.13 47 40 43 \"'  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 33.50 +15.00 4 4 20.00 44.00 +24.00 2 2 19.00 37.00 +18.00 6 6 15.69 25.53 +9.84 16 17 14.93 28.00 +13.07 15 17 15.32 26.76 +11.44 31 34 C .... 16.25 27.05 +10.80 20 21 ~ 15.53 29.68 +14.15 17 19 15.92 28.30 +12.38 37 40  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Baseline Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 2 White Male Mean 0.50 N 2 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 16 Total Mean 0.26 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.43 N 21 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 18 Total Mean 0.31 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanc:ie Assessment Assessment Chanc:ie 3.00 +2.00 2 3.00 +2.50 3.00 27.00 +24.00 2 4 2 3.00 +2.25 3.00 27.00 +24.00 4 4 2 1.89 +1.53 4.90 18.33 +13.43 19 20 18 1.43 +1 .30 2.91 9.10 +6.18 14 23 21 1.70 +1.44 3.84 13.36 +9.52 33 43 39 4.00 .. 1 4.00 ' 1 2.00 +1.57 4.90 18.33 +13.43 21 ' 20 18 1.63 +1.46 2.96 10.65 +7.69 16 28 23 1.84 +1.53 3.77 14.02 +10.25 37 48 41  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring ~rnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 20.67 31.33 +10,67 3 3 16.00 20.00 +4.00 2 2 18.80 26.80 +8.00 5 5 16.83 24.69 +7.86 12 13 15.77 23.00 +7.23 13 13 16.28 23.85 +7.57 25 26 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 18.88 27.00 +8.13 16 17 15.80 22.60 +6.80 15 15 17.39 24.94 +7.55 31 32  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!:ghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ha by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Booker Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Charn:1e 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 ' +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 502 21.98 +16.96 39 - 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade\n. Fall ***Spring A)'nount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Brady Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 5 White Male Mean 0.67 N 3 Total Mean 0.88 N 8 Female Mean 0.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.53 N 17 Total Mean 0.65 N 26 Female Mean 0.67 N 3 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.67 N 3 Female Mean 0.88 N 17 Total Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.70 N 37  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanC1e Assessment Assessment - Chanae 5.40 +4.40 8.00 14.29 +6.29 5 7 7 4.00 +3.33 8.00 20.00 +12.00 2 3 3 5.00 +4.13 8.00 16.00 +8.00 7 10 10 3.86 +2.97 5.47 12.44 +6.97 7 17 16 3.50 +2.97 5.24 13.00 +7.76 16 21 19 3.61 +2.95 5.34 12.74 +7.40 23 38 35 2.50 +1.83 5.50 13.50 +8.00 2 4 4 6.00 14.33 +8.33 3 3 2.50 +1.83 5.71 13.86 +8.14 2 7 7 4.21 +3.33 6.11 13.07 +6.97 14 28 27 3.56 +3.01 5.63 14.00 +8.37 18 27 25 3.84 +3.14 5.87 13.52 +7.65 32 55 52  Second Grade .,. Fall *\"**Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanC1e 18.00 29.33 +11.33 3 3 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 29.50 +11.50 4 4 19.13 29.29 +10.16 16 14 17.74 26.00 +8.26 23 21 18.31 27.31 +9.01 39 35 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 18.95 29.29 +10.35 19 17 17.68 26.26 +8.58 25 23 18.23 27.55 +9.32 44 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are high(ighled in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Carver Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 8.38 N 13 White Male Mean 8.00 N 18 Total Mean 8.16 N 31 Female Mean 4.05 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.50 N 20 Total Mean 2.74 N 39 Female Mean 2.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 9.25 N 4 Total Mean 7.80 N 5 Female Mean 5.70 N 33 Total Male Mean 5.02 N 42 Total Mean 5.32 N 75  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.46 +3.08 8.57 28.00 +19.43 13 7 7 11.83 +3.83 6.35 26.10 +19.75 18 20 20 11.68 +3.52 6.93 26.59 +19.67 31 27 27 5.95 +1.89 4.87 20.87 +16.00 19 15 15 3.20 +1.70 2.79 16.95 +14.16 20 19 19 4.54 +1.79 3.71 18.68 +14.97 39 34 34 4.00 +2.00 8.00 30.00 +22.00 1 1 1 12.50 +3.25 4.67 31.33 +26.67 4 3 3 10.80 +3.00 5.50 31.00 +25.50 5 4 4 8.06 ' +2.36 6.13 23.43 +17.30 33 23 23 7.79 +2.76 4.62 22.33 +17.71 42 -- 42 42 7.91 +2.59 5.15 22.72 +17.57 75 65 65  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring A(Tlount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 24.83 40.50 +15.67 12 12 26.10 38.63 +12.53 20 19 25.63 39.35 +13.73 32 31 19.29 31 .85 +12.57 28 27 17.44 31.00 +13.56 18 18 18.57 31.51 +12.95 46 45 16.00 32.00 +16.00 2 2 25.50 36.00 +10.50 4 4 22.33 34.67 +12,33 6 6 20.71 34.39 +13.68 42 41 22.33 35.02 +12.69 42 41 21.52 34.71 +13.18 84 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Chicot Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 4.29 N 7 Total Mean 2.73 N 11 Female Mean 0.64 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.41 N 22 Total Mean 0.53 N 47 Female Mean 0.57 N 7 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 7 Total Mean 0.29 N 14 Female Mean 0.56 N 36 Total Male Mean 1.08 N 36 Total Mean 0.82 N 72 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 1.75 +1.75 1.75 16.75 +15.00 4 4 4 4.29 0 1.00 10.17 +9.17 7 5 6 3.36 +0.64 1.33 12.80 +11.47 11 9 10 2.35 +1.71 1.88 14.52 +12.65 26 24 23 1.39 +0.98 1.75 7.91 +6.16 23 20 22 1.90 +1.37 1.82 11 .29 +9.47 49 44 45 1.57 +1.00 2.00 13.11 +11.11 7 3 9 0.86 +0.86 1.00 2.60 +1.60 7 4 5 1.21 +0.93 1.43 9.36 +7.93 14 7 14 2.14 +1.58 1.87 14.42 +12.55 37 31 36 1.84 +0.75 1.52 7.52 +6.00 37 29 33 1.99 +1.17 1.70 11.12 +9.42 74 60 69  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 19.00 37.00 +18.00 2 2 17.00 31.00 +14.00 2 2 18.00 34.00 +16.00 4 4 16.05 26.35 +10.30 21 20 11.57 25.26 +13.70 23 19 13.70 25.82 +12.12 44 39 6.40 5 16.00 17.33 +1.33 2 9 16.00 13.43 -2.57 2 14 16.30 23.44 +7.14 23 27 12.30 23.27 +10.97 27 30 14.14 23.35 +9.21 50 57  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient m second grade. EJfa by school 2000tables  6119/00 Cloverdale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.17 N 23 Total Mean 0.35 N 46 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Mean 0.00 Total N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.15 N 27 Total Mean 0.33 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 1 6.00 +6.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 2 1 1 5.33 +5.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 3 1 1 2.05 +1.53 7.00 13.68 +6.68 21 29 28 1.48 +1.30 4.83 10.10 +5.27 23 29 30 1.75 +1.40 5.91 11.83 +5.91 44 58 58 2.00 +2.00 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 1 1.00 +1.00 6.50 20.25 +13.75 2 4 4 1.33 5.80 17.40 . +1.33 +11.60 3 5 5 2.13 +1.61 6.87 13.41 +6.55 23 30 29 1.78 +1.63 5.00 11.20 +6.20 27 34 35 1.94 +1.61 5.88 12.20 +6.33 50 64 64  Second Grade ' ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 20.00 -9.00 2 1 3.00 4.00 +1.00 1 1 20.33 12.00 -8.33 3 2 27.52 31 .30 +3.79 27 23 26.75 25.68 -1.07 24 19 27.16 28.76 +1.61 51 42 - 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 27.62 30.83 +3.21 29 24 26.50 25.52 -0.98 26 21 27.09 28.36 +1.26 55 45  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tab/es   5119100 Little Rock School District Dodd Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.64 N 11 White Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 0.58 N 19 Female Mean 1.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.25 N 8 Total Mean 0.65 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.38 N 16 Total Mean 0.61 N 36 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.80 +6.16 1.33 16.67 +15.33 10 3 3 4.89 +4.39 11.00 23.00 +12.00 9 4 4 5.89 +5.32 6.86 20.29 +13.43 19 7 7 10.67 +9.67 2.14 19.29 +17.14 9 7 7 2.75 +2.50 3.00 19.43 +16.43 8 7 7 6.94 +6.29 2.57 19.36 +16.79 17 14 14 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 8.63 +7.83 3.36 19.55 +16.18 19 11 11 3.88 +3.51 5.91 20.73 +14.82 17 11 11 6.39 +5.78 4.64 20.14 +15.50 36 22 22  Second Grade Fall ***Spring AfllOUnt of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 15.25 28.50 +13.25 4 4 21 .10 20.33 -0.77 10 12 14.00 1 14.00 1 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 12.50 26.67 +14.17 10 .9 17.19 21 .76 +4.58 . 16 17 An average level of 2 or more 1s considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ighted in bold. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Etta by school 2000tables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Fair Park Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 5.02 21.98 +16.96 39 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold . .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Forest Park Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 4.55 N 11 White Male Mean 3.08 N 12 Total Mean 3.78 N 23 Female Mean 1.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 13 Total Mean 0.77 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 3.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 1.48 N 25 Total Mean 2.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 8.82 +4.27 8.75 27.70 +18.95 11 20 20 7.25 +4.17 13.80 31.13 +17.33 12 15 15 8.00 +4.22 10.91 29.17 +18.26 23 35 35 3.22 +1.33 6.00 21.60 +15.60 9 5 5 0.50 +0.50 4.20 15.60 +11.40 12 10 10 1.67 +0.89 4.80 17.60 +12.80 21 15 15 6.30 +2.95 8.20 26.48 +18.28 20 25 25 3.88 +2.40 9.96 24.92 +14.96 24 25 25 4.98 +2.67 9.08 25.70 +16.62 44 50 50  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring ~mount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.55 39.09 +20.55 11 11 18.29 36.29 +18.00 14 14 18.40 37.52 +19.12 25 25 18.40 34.80 +16.40 5 5 11.83 25.33 +13.50 12 12 13.76 28.12 +14.35 17 17 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 18.67 38.22 +19.56 18 18 15.31 31.23 +15.92 26 26 16.68 34.09 +17.41 44 44  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables  6119/00 Franklin Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.43 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.15 N 41 Total Mean 0.25 N 64 Female Mean 1.50 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 1.50 N 2 Female Mean 0.48 N 27 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 42 Total Mean 0.29 N 69  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 2.00 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 2 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 2.33 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 3 1 1 2.65 +2.22 6.23 24.38 +18.14 23 30 32 2.05 +1.90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 41 26 28 2.27 +2.02 6.11 21.78 +15.68 64 56 60 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 2.67 +2.19 6.38 25.00 +18.63 27 32 34 2.07 +1 .90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 42 26 28 2.30 +2.01 6.19 22.21 +16.02 69 58 62  Second Grade . Fall ... Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Change 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Fulbright Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.33 N 12 White Male Mean 2.70 N 23 Total Mean 3.60 N 35 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Black Male Mean 5.31 N 13 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 3.00 N 1 Total Mean 3.00 N 1 Female Mean 4.56 N 16 Total Male Mean 3.62 N 37 Total Mean 3.91 N 53 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.67 +13.33 9.86 25.43 +15.57 12 14 14 6.91 +4.21 2.12 25.27 +23.15 22 17 15 11 .06 +7.46 5.61 25.34 +19.73 34 31 29 5.40 +3.15 2.27 15.40 +13.13 5 11 10 7.62 ' +2.31 3.18 17.64 +14.45 13 11 11 7.00 +2.41 2.73 16.57 +13.84 18 22 21 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 14.76 +10.20 6.52 21.25 +14.73 17 25 24 7.31 +3.68 2.62 22.63 +20.01 36 29 27 9.70 +5.79 4.43 21.98 +17.55 53 54 51  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of ,\u0026lt; Assessment Assessment Change 34.93 40.40 +5.47 15 15 36.00 43.33 +7.33 12 12 35.41 41.70 +6.30 27 27 25.91 33.60 +7.69 11 10 34.00 36.83 +2.83 11 12 29.95 35.36 +5.41 22 22 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 3 3 32.04 38.15 +6.11 28 27 35.42 40.24 +4.82 24 25 33.60 39.15 +5.56 52 52  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. - An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000ta\"'8s  6119/00 Garland Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean N White Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Black Male Mean 2.29 N 28 Total Mean 1.70 N 44 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Total Male Mean 2.24 N 29 Total Mean 1.69 N 45  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae ~ 1.47 +0.78 2.53 11.47 +8.94 17 17 17 1.41 -0.87 2.27 9.92 +7.64 29 11 12 1.43 -0.27 2.43 10.83 +8.40. 46 28 29 3.00 12.00 +9.00 1 1 0.00 -1.00 2.33 10.00 +7.67 1 3 3 0.00 .. 2.50 10.50 1 -1.00 4 4 +8.00 1.47 +0.78 2.56 11.50 +8.94 17 18 18 1.37 -0.87 2.29 9.93 +7.65 30 14 15 1.40 -0.28 2.44 10.79 +8.35 47 32 33  Second Grade . Fall ***Spring .Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 2.00 1 2.00 1 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 20.37 +7.67 20 19 12.95 18.90 +5.95 42 41 ,, 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 19.45 +6.75 20 20 12.95 18.50 +5.55 42 42  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables   6/19100 Little Rock School District Geyer Springs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 1 White Male Mean 5.00 N 2 Total Mean 4.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Mean 0.85 N 40 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.95 N 22 Total Male Mean 1.13 N 23 Total Mean 1.04 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.00 +3.00 5.80 30.40 +24.60 1 5 5 15.00 +10.00 0.75 17.00 -f-16.25 2 4 4 12.00 +7.67 3.56 24.44 +20.89 3 9 9 2.35 +1.45 2.60 20.15 +17.55 20 20 20 2.70 +1.90 2.36 14.08 +11.72 20 14 13 2.53 +1.68 2.50 17.76 +15.26 40 34 33 2.00 +2.00 1 1.00 +1.00 1.25 11.75 +10.50 1 4 4 1.50 +1.50 1.25 11 .75 +10.50 2 4 4 2.50 +1.55 3.24 22.20 +18.96 22 25 25 3.70 +2.57 1.86 14.19 +12.33 23 22 21 3.11 +2.07 2.60 18.54 +15.95 45 47 46  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chan!'.le 20.00 37.33 +17.33 3 3 19.33 30.67 +11.33 3 3 19.67 34.00 +14.33 6 6 19.17 33.50 +14.33 12 12 14.50 25.80 +11.30 20 20 16.25 28.69 +12.44 32 32 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 19.33 34.27 +14.93 15 15 15.33 2T.00 +11.67 24 24 16.87 29.79 +12.92 39 39  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000lables  6/19100 Gibbs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 6 Total Mean 0.00 N 10 Female Mean 0.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.00 N 10 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 19  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chance Assessment Assessment Chance 6.33 +6.33 11.25 27.57 +16.32 6 4 7 10.00 +10.00 6.89 28.10 +21.21 6 9 10 8.17 +8.17 8.23 27.88 +19.65 12 13 17 5.88 +5.88 3.50 17.56 +14.06 8 6 9 4.58 +4.58 2.75 14.43 +11.68 12 8 14 5.10 +5.10 3.07 15.65 +12.58 20 14 23 8.67 +8.67 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 2 24.00 1 8.67 +8.67 4.00 20.00 +16.00 3 1 3 6.53 +6.53 6.36 21.50 +15.14 17 11 18 6.39 +6.39 4.94 20.28 +15.34 18 17 25 6.46 +6.46 5.50 20.79 +15.29 35 28 43  Second Grade\nFall ***Spring\nynount of Assessment Assessment Chance 22.60 32.89 +10.29 10 9 20.89 37.56 +16.67 9 9 21.79 35.22 +13.43 19 18 13.40 28.40 +15.00 10 10 13.45 25.45 +12.00 11 11 13.43 26.86 +13.43 21 21 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.53 +12.53 20 19 16.86 30.86 +14.00 21 21 17.41 30.70 +13.29 41 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Jefferson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.45 N 20 White Male Mean 4.07 N 14 Total Mean 4.88 N 34 Female Mean 2.00 N 12 Black Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 1.95 N 20 Female Mean 8.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 8.00 N 2 Female Mean 4.38 N 34 Total Male Mean 3.27 N 22 Total Mean 3.95 N 56  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 12.70 +7.25 6.82 36.36 +29.55 20 11 11 11.93 +7.86 5.81 28.00 +22.19 14 21 21 12.38 +7.50 6.16 30.88 +24.72 34 32 32 4.92 +2.92 5.62 21.38 +15.77 12 13 13 3.25 +1.38 1.57 11.57 +10.00 8 7 7 4.25 +2.30 4.20 17.95 +13.75 20 20 20 24.00 +16.00 2 24.00 +16.00 2 10.62 +6.24 6.17 28.25 +22.08 34 24 24 8.77 +5.50 4.75 23.89 +19.14 22 28 28 9.89 +5.95 5.40 25.90 +20.50 56 52 52  Second Grade\n.. Fall ***Spring A)nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 32.67 38.32 +5.65 24 19 30.38 35.90 +5.52 21 20 31.60 37.08 +5.48 45 39 22.57 25.64 +3.07 14 14 22.50 29.64 +7.14 12 11 22.54 27.40 +4.86 26 25 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 28.95 32.94 +3.99 38 33 27.49 33.25 +5.76 35 32 28.25 33.09 +4.85 73 65  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the populalion not testing at a proficienl level are high.li ghted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more ,s considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 King Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.71 N 17 White Male Mean 0.36 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 31 Female Mean 0.76 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.67 N 45 Female Mean 1.50 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.86 N 7 Female Mean 1.17 N 46 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 37 Total Mean 0.84 N 83  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall -spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.71 +4.00 7.24 23.28 +16.04 17 25 25 3.38 +3.03 6.67 25.31 +18.64 13 12 13 4.70 +3.60 7.05 23.97 +16.92 30 37 38 4.19 +3.43 5.00 23.21 +18.21 26 24 24 2.29 +1.74 3.09 13.14 +10.06 21 35 35 3.34 +2.67 3.86 17.24 +13.37 47 59 59 3.67 +2.17 10.67 17.00 +6.33 6 3 4 5.00 +5.00 9.33 42.67 +33.33 3 3 3 4.11 +3.25 10.00 28.00 +18.00 9 6 7 4.65 +3.48 6.40 22.77 +16.37 49 52 53 2.89 +2.46 4.32 17.98 +13.66 37 50 51 3.90 +3.05 5.38 20.42 +15.04 86 102 104  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment chanae 21.18 40.09 +18.91 22 22 20.50 39.53 +19.03 16 17 20.89 39.85 +18.95 38 39 16.85 33.04 +16.19 26 27 13.46 33.69 +20.23 28 26 15.09 33.36 +18.27 54 53 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 18.86 36.73 +17.87 49 51 16.02 36.00 +19.98 44 43 17.52 36.39 +18.88 93 94  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Mabelvale Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.50 N 8 White Male Mean 2.29 N 7 Total Mean 1.87 N 15 Female Mean 0.82 N 17 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 20 Total Mean 0.65 N 37 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.00 N 26 Total Male Mean 0.96 N 27 Total Mean 0.98 N 53  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.13 +4.63 3.00 41 .00 +38.00 8 2 2 4.14 +1.86 1.17 16.17 +15.00 7 6 6 5.20 +3.33 1.63 22.38 +20.75 15 8 8 2.47 +1.65 3.45 21 .04 +17.59 17 22 24 2.05 +1.55 1.77 18.65 +16.88 20 22 23 2.24 +1 .59 2.61 19.87 +17.26 37 44 47 3.00 +3.00 1 3.00 +3.00 1 3.62 +2.62 3.42 22.58 +19.16 26 24 26 2.59 +1 .63 1.64 18.14 +16.50 27 28 29 3.09 +2.11 2.46 20.24 +17.77 53 52 55  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJ11ount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 11 .14 24.86 +13.71 7 7 11.00 39.00 +28.00 5 7 11 .08 31 .93 +20.85 12 14 8.23 22.15 +13.92 13 13 8.30 19.60 +11 .30 20 20 8.27 20.61 +12.33 33 33 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 9.77 24.73 +14.95 22 22 8.84 24.63 +15.79 25 27 9.28 24.67 +15.40 47 49  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high.l.ig hted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 McDermott Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.07 N 14 White Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.85 N 27 Female Mean 0.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 18 Female Mean 0.50 N 6 Other Male Mean 1.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.70 N 10 Female Mean 0.62 N 29 Total Male Mean 0.46 N 26 Total Mean 0.55 N 55  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chance 9.29 +8.21 3.45 21.36 +17.91 14 11 11 4.15 +3.54 8.67 31.78 +23.11 13 9 9 6.81 +5.96 5.80 26.05 +20.25 27 20 20 4.67 +4.67 2.53 23.65 +21.12 9 17 17 2.56 +2.56 2.55 21 .20 +18.65 9 11 10 3.61 +3.61 2.54 22.74 +20.21 18 28 27 5.17 +4.67 4.75 18.75 +14.00 6 4 4 10.50 +9.50 3.00 26.00 +23.00 4 2 2 7.30 ' +6.60 4.17 21.17 +17.00 10 I 6 6 7.00 +6.38 3.13 22.25 +19.13 29 32 32 4.58 +4.12 5.09 26.19 +21 .10 26 22 21 5.85 +5.31 3.93 23.81 +19.89 55 54 53  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring PiiJlount of Assessment Assessment Chance 27.00 37.20 +10.20 10 10 26.00 40.94 +14.94 17 17 26.37 39.56 +13.19 27 27 18.94 30.87 +11.93 32 31 16.06 25.62 +9.56 17 21 17.94 28.75 +10.81 49 52 12.00 30.00 +18.00 2 2 3.33 18.00 +14.67 3 3 6.80 22.80 +16.00 5 5 20.45 32.30 +11.85 44 43 19.59 31.41 +11 .82 37 41 20.06 31.87 +11.81 81 84  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highl..i ghted in bold .  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOtables   6119100 Little Rock School District Meadowcliff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 3 White Male Mean 0.00 N 5 Total Mean 0.38 N 8 Female Mean 2.23 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.11 N 9 Totnl Mean 1.36 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 2.00 N 16 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 30 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 3.50 31.60 +28.10 3 4 5 1.75 +1.75 1.33 14.33 +13.00 4 3 3 2.71 +2.34 2.57 25.13 +22.55 7 7 8 6.57 +4.34 2.31 20.50 +18.19 14 16 16 2.22 +2.11 2.25 16.93 +14.68 9 12 14 4.87 +3.51 2.29 18.83 +16.55 23 28 30 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 6.12 +4.12 2.52 22.82 +20.29 17 21 22 2.08 +2.01 2.07 16.47 +14.40 13 15 17 4.37 +3.27 2.33 20.05 +17.72 30 36 39  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 16.67 24.67 +8.00 3 3 15.33 22.00 +6.67 3 3 16.00 23.33 +7.33 6 6 17.54 25.93 +8.39 13 14 13.77 22.33 +8.56 13 15 15.65 24.07 +8.42 26 29 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 17.38 25.71 +8.33 16 17 13.35 21.63 +8.28 17 19 15.30 23.56 +8.25 33 36  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hightghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Mitchell Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.21 N 29 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 1.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.20 N 30  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Cham:1e Assessment Assessment ChanQe 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.53 +2.16 3.67 12.36 +8.69 19 15 14 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.34 +2.14 5.28 12.80 +7.52 29 I 32 30 ' 3.50 +2.15 3.44 11.60 +8.16 20 16 15 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.33 +2.13 5.12 12.42 +7.30 30 33 31  Second Grade , Fall spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 19.60 23.14 +3.54 15 14 19.82 24.82 +5.00 17 17 19.72 24.06 +4.35 32 31 40.00 44.00 +4.00 1 1 22.00 25.00 +3.00 2 2 28.00 31.33 +3.33 3 3 20.88 24.53 +3.66 16 15 20.05 24.84 +4.79 19 19 20.43 24.71 +4.28 35 34  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high/ighted in bold. 0  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6119100 Otter Creek Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.52 N 21 White Male Mean 2.27 N 11 Total Mean 1.78 N 32 Female Mean 1.53 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.00 N 15 Total Mean 1.29 N 34 Female Mean 1.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 1.25 N 4 Total Mean 1.20 N 5 Female Mean 1.51 N 41 Total Male Mean 1.50 N 30 Total Mean 1.51 N 71  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.00 +4.48 5.12 28.56 +23.44 21 17 18 5.18 +2.91 4.54 21.50 +16.96 11 13 14 5.72 +3.94 4.87 25.47 +20.60 32 30 32 5.16 +3.63 3.21 17.80 +14.59 19 14 15 3.13 +2.13 1.55 15.18 +13.64 15 11 11 4.26 +2.97 2.48 16.69 +14.21 34 25 26 4.00 +3.00 1 1.75 +0.50 6.50 44.00 +37.50 4 2 2 2.20 +1.00 6.50 44.00 +37.50 5 2 2 5.56 +4.05 4.26 23.67 +19.41 41 31 33 3.70 +2.20 3.42 20.59 +17.17 30 26 27 4.77 +3.27 3.88 22.28 +18.41 71 57 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJllount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 26.36 31.82 +5.45 11 11 32.00 42.00 +10.00 5 7 28.13 35.78 +7.65 16 18 26.00 35.43 +9.43 6 7 11.88 25.56 +13.68 8 9 17.93 29.88 +11.95 14 16 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 26.24 33.22 +6.99 17 18 18.43 32.47 +14.04 14 17 22.71 32.86 +10.15 31 35  An average level of 2 or more ,s considered proficient in kindergarten.  An everage level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by schOol 2000tables  6/19/00 Pulaski Hgts Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.00 N 12 White Male Mean 3.60 N 5 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean 0.67 N 15 Black Male Mean 2.71 N 7 Total Mean 1.32 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.59 N 27 Total Male Mean 2.92 N 13 Total Mean 2.70 N 40  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.75 +6.75 15.13 26.00 +10.88 12 8 8 6.20 +2.60 8.56 19.50 +10.94 5 16 16 10.12 +5.53 10.75 21.67 +10.92 17 24 24 2.29 +1.62 3.00 14.70 +11.70 14 10 10 6.14 +3.43 1.58 9.67 +8.08 7 12 12 3.57 +2.25 2.23 11.95 +9.73 21 22 22 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 3.00 +2.00 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 1 6.65 +4.06 8.26 19.74 +11.47 26 19 19 5.92 +3.00 5.57 15.29 +9.71 13 28 28 6.41 +3.71 6.66 17.09 +10.43 39 47 47  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Afnount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.73 27.40 +8.67 11 10 26.86 36.00 +9.14 7 7 21.89 30.94 +9.05 18 17 14.25 24.29 +10.04 8 7 14.00 19.00 +5.00 7 8 14.13 21.47 +7.33 15 15 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 16.84 26.12 +9.28 19 17 20.27 27.75 +7.48 15 16 18.35 26.91 +8.56 34 33  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ' ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Rightsell Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 2.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.62 N 21 Black Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.53 N 36 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Mean Total N Female Mean 2.59 N 22 Total Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.51 N 37 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment Change 10.00 +8.00 1 10.00 +8.00 1 5.05 +2.43 7.35 14.70 +7.35 21 23 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.78 +2.25 6.72 14.00 +7.28 36 39 38 6.00 2 6.00 2 5.27 +2.68 7.24 14.70 +7.46 22 25 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.92 +2.41 6.68 14.00 +7.32 37 41 38  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chance 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37 . .. 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average /eve/ of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 Rockefeller Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.50 N 8 White Male Mean 1.83 N 6 Total Mean 2.79 N 14 Female Mean 1.00 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.40 N 20 Total Mean 0.72 N 43 Female Mean 4.75 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.33 N 3 Total Mean 4.14 N 7 Female Mean 2.00 N 35 Total Male Mean 1.00 N 29 Total Mean 1.55 N 64  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.50 +7.00 5.63 26.50 +20.88 8 16 16 3.67 +1.83 4.83 27.14 +22.31 6 6 7 7.57 +4.79 5.41 26.70 +21.29 14 22 23 3.30 +2.30 6.05 20.30 +14.25 23 21 20 1.90 +1.50 3.50 17.29 +13.79 20 14 14 2.65 +1.93 5.03 19.06 +14.03 43 35 34 7.25 +2.50 4.00 18.00 +14.00 4 1 1 8.67 +5.33 3 7.86 +3.71 4.00 18.00 +14.00 7 1 1 5.40 +3.40 5.82 22.92 +17.10 35 38 37 2.97 +1.97 3.90 20.57 +16.67 29 20 21 4.30 +2.75 5.16 22.07 +16.91 64 58 58  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Alnountof Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 6 6 26.75 31.75 +5.00 8 8 34.14 37.00 +2.86 14 14 18.55 24.15 +5.60 20 20 18.06 26.56 +8.50 18 18 18.32 25.29 +6.97 38 38 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 24.42 28.73 +4.31 26 26 22.04 29.29 +7.25 28 28 23.19 29.02 +5.83 54 54  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high._ lighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ioootabJes   5119100 Little Rock School District Romine Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.17 N 6 Female Mean 1.00 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 18 Total Mean 0.42 N 31 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.00 N 8 Female Mean 0.74 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 26 Total Mean 0.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.50 +5.00 2 1.40 +1.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 5 4 4 2.57 +2.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 7 4 4 3.44 +2.44 11.43 19.74 +8.30 16 23 23 3.09 +3.09 7.36 14.09 +6.73 22 11 11 3.24 +2.82 10.12 17.91 +7.79 38 34 34 1.50 +1.50 5.25 9.50 +4.25 4 4 4 1.75 +1.75 6.67 27.00 +20.33 4 3 2 1.63 +1.63 5.86 15.33 +9.48 8 7 6 3.27 +2.54 10.52 18.22 +7.70 22 27 27 2.65 +2.65 8.11 17.24 +9.12 31 18 17 2.91 +2.59 9.56 17.84 +8.29 53 ' 45 44  Second Grade a Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 37.33 44.00 +6.67 3 2 40.00 44.00 +4.00 5 4 31.20 37.88 +6.68 15 16 23.75 30.78 +7.03 24 23 26.62 33.69 +7.08 39 39 23.71 31.71 +8.00 7 7 27.09 36.00 +8.91 11 10 25.78 34.24 +8.46 18 17 30.08 36.64 +6.56 24 25 25.79 33.03 +7.24 38 35 27.45 34.53 +7.08 62 60  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Terry Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 25 White Male Mean 4.50 N 18 Total Mean 4.14 N 43 Female Mean 2.24 N 17 Black Male Mean 1.39 N 23 Total Mean 1.75 N 40 Female Mean 1.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 6.50 N 4 Total Mean 3.89 N 9 Female Mean 3.06 N 47 Total Male Mean 3.09 N 45 Total Mean 3.08 N 92 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham1e Assessment Assessment Chanqe 7,80 +3.92 5.07 26,86 +21.79 25 14 14 10.67 +6.17 3.92 22.94 +19.01 18 13 16 9.00 +4.86 4.52 24.77 +20.25 43 27 30 6.35 +4.12 3.10 15.30 +12.20 17 20 20 4.91 +3.52 0.95 7.76 +6,81 23 20 21 5.53 +3.78 2.03 11.44 +9.41 40 40 41 5.00 +3.20 0.00 4.00 +4.00 5 1 1 19.00 +12.50 11.33 36,00 +24.67 4 3 3 11.22 +7,33 8.50 28.00 +19.50 9 4 4 6.98 +3.91 3.80 19.60 +15.80 47 35 35 8.47 +5.38 2.89 15.95 +13.06 45 36 40 7.71 +4,63 3.34 17,65 +14.32 92 71 75  Second Grade - Fall ***Spring A,mountof Assessment Assessment Chanqe 20.63 37,64 +17.01 8 11 20.81 30.82 +10.01 16 17 20,75 33,50 +12.75 24 28 24.15 37.20 +13.05 13 20 16.12 28.45 +12.34 17 22 19.60 32,62 +13.02 30 42 15.50 38.40 +22.90 4 5 22.50 29.43 +6,93 4 7 19.00 33,17 +14.17 8 12 21.64 37.50 +15.86 25 36 18.84 29.48 +10.64 37 46 19.97 33.00 +13,03 62 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by Schoof 2000tables  6119/00 Wakefield Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Mean Female N White Mean 0.00 Male N 2 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.33 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.09 N 22 Total Mean 0.21 N 43 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.28 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 27 Total Mean 0.17 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae . 0.00 10.00 1 1 +10.00 0.00 . 1.00 2.00 0 +1.00 2 1 1 0.00 0 0.50 6.00 +5.50 2 2 2 1.86 +1 .52 1.59 12.91 +11 .32 21 17 34 0.95 +0.86 1.29 9.74 +8.45 22 17 23 1.40 +1.19 1.44 11.63 +10.19 43 34 57 1.00 +1 .00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 4 4 6 1.00 +1 .00 3 1.00 +1.00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 7 4 6 1.72 +1.44 1.36 12.54 +11 .17 25 22 41 0.89 +0.81 1.28 9.42 +8.14 27 18 24 1.29 +1.12 1.33 11 .38 +10.06 52 40 65  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.27 20.52 +10.25 22 21 9.95 19.68 +9.73 20 19 10.12 20.13 +10.01 42 40 1.00 7.00 +6.00 2 2 7.00 28.00 +21 .00 4 4 5.00 21 .00 +16.00 6 6 9.50 19.35 +9.85 24 23 9.46 21 .13 +11 .67 24 23 9.48 20.24 +10.76 48 46  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables  6119/00 Washington Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.14 N 7 White Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 2.47 N 15 Female Mean 1.11 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.92 N 25 Total Mean 1.00 N 44 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.00 N 5 Total Mean 2.67 N 9 Female Mean 1.73 N 30 Total Male Mean 1.39 N 38 Total Mean 1.54 N 68  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment '\" Chanae 11.75 +8.61 6.67 21.33 +14.67 4 3 3 7.38 +5.50 5.33 26.00 +20.67 8 6 6 8.83 +6.37 5.78 24.44 +18.67 12 9 9 5.05 +3.95 5.11 14.89 +9.78 19 18 18 3.64 +2.72 2.21 10.61 +8.40 25 19 18 4.25 +3.25 3.62 12.75 +9.13 44 37 36 8.25 +6.00 8.38 23.75 +15.38 4 8 8 8.00 +5.00 4.14 22.29 +18.14 5 7 7 8.11 +5.44 6.40 23.07 +16.67 9 15 15 6.52 +4.79 6.17 18.00 +11.83 27 29 29 5.00 +3.61 3.22 16.23 +13.01 38 32 31 5.63 +4.09 4.62 17.08 +12.46 65 T 61 60  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 30.33 40.67 +10.33 6 6 21.17 38.00 +16.83 6 6 25.75 39.33 +13.58 12 12 20.85 28.55 +7.70 20 20 13.70 22.11 +8.41 27 27 16.74 24.85 +8.11 47 47 12.40 21.60 +9.20 5 5 23.11 29.33 +6.22 9 9 19.29 26.57 +7.29 14 14 21 .32 29.77 +8.45 31 31 16.79 25.93 +9.14 42 42 18.71 27.56 +8.85 73 73  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Watson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.41 N 37 Black Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.74 N 72 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.39 N 38 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.73 N 73  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 0.00 0 1 5.00 1 0.00 0 5.00 1 1 2.37 +1 .96 5.88 17.03 +11.16 38 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.20 8.67 +5.47 38 35 36 2.33 +1.59 4.29 12.40 +8.11 76 59 65 2.31 +1.91 5.88 17.03 +11 .16 39 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.25 8.67 +5.42 38 36 36 2.30 +1 .57 4.30 12.40 +8.10 77 60 65  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.47 27.76 +9.29 32 33 14.12 22.60 +8.48 26 25 16.52 25.53 +9.02 58 58 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 18.82 28.12 +9.30 33 34 14.70 24.17 +9.47 30 29 16.86 26.30 +9.44 63 63  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not tesung al a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Western Hills Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.40 N 5 Total Mean 0.43 N 7 Female Mean 0.67 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.64 N 22 Female Mean 4.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 2.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.92 N 12 Total Male Mean 0.53 N 19 Total Mean 0.68 N 31  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.00 +2.50 6.50 28.86 +22.36 2 6 7 2.40 +2.00 2.67 16.67 +14.00 5 3 3 2.57 +2.14 5.22 25.20 +19.98 7 9 10 4.11 +3.44 4.29 22.24 +17.94 9 17 17 2.15 +1.54 3.60 20.47 +16.87 13 15 15 2.95 +2.32 3.97 21.41 +17.44 22 32 32 28.00 +24.00 1 3.00 +3.00 14.00 28.00 +14.00 1 1 1 15.50 +13.50 14.00 28.00 +14.00 2 1 1 5.92 +5.00 4.87 24.17 +19.30 12 23 24 2.26 +1.74 4.00 20.26 +16.26 19 19 19 3.68 +3.00 4.48 22.44 +17.97 31 42 43  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 23.00 44.00 +21.00 4 4 20.00 42.50 +22.50 4 4 21.50 43.25 +21.75 8 8 20.55 39.40 +18.85 11 10 18.13 36.25 +18.13 16 16 19.11 37.46 +18.35 27 26 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 21.13 40.93 +19.81 16 15 18.50 37.50 +19.00 20 20 19.67 38.97 +19.30 36 35  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Efla by school 2000tables  6119100 Williams Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 8 White Male Mean 1.50 N 12 Total Mean 2.45 N 20 Female Mean 1.56 N 18 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 1.23 N 26 Female Mean 5.83 N 6 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 5.83 N 6 Female Mean 2.94 N 32 Total Male Mean 1.10 N 20 Total Mean 2.23 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.13 +4.25 14.53 29.88 +15.35 8 17 17 5.00 +3.50 14.30 34.80 +20.50 12 10 10 6.25 +3.80 14.44 31.70 +17.26 20 27 27 5.11 +3.56 7.00 28.83 +21.83 18 12 12 3.00 +2.50 9.65 27.21 +17.56 8 20 19 4.46 +3.23 8.66 27.84 +19.18 26 32 31 11.50 +5.67 44.00 44.00 0 6 1 1 34.00 44.00 +10.00 1 1 11.50 +5.67 39.00 44.00 +5.00 6 2 2 7.06 +4.13 12.50 29.93 +17.43 32 30 30 4.20 +3.10 11.94 30.30 +18.36 20 31 30 5.96 +3.73 12.21 30.12 +17.90 52 61 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Cham1e 28.40 37.33 +8.93 15 15 31.80 40.42 +8.62 20 19 30.34 39.06 +8.72 35 34 27.82 37.41 +9.59 17 17 23.29 36.62 +13.33 14 13 25.77 37.07 +11.29 31 30 28.09 37.38 +9.28 32 32 28.29 38.88 +10.58 34 32 28.20 38.13 +9.93 66 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Wilson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.50 N 4 Female Mean 0.75 N 16 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 29 Total Mean 0.96 N 45 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.63 N 19 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 32 Total Mean 0.92 N 51  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 2.00 23.33 +21.33 2 3 3 0.00 -1.00 1 0.67 +0.17 2.00 23.33 +21.33 3 3 3 4.35 +3.60 2.21 20.00 +17.79 17 14 14 2.67 +1.60 2.78 23.11 +20.33 30 18 18 3.28 +2.32 2.53 21.75 +19.22 47 32 32 0.00 0 1 3.00 +1.00 1 1.50 .. 2 +0.50 3.80 +3.17 2.18 20.59 +18.41 20 17 17 2.59 I 2.78 23.11 +1.50 +20.33 32 ' 18 18 3.06 ' 2.49 21.89 +2.14 +19.40 52 35 35  Second Grade ., Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 17.13 26.56 +9.42 15 18 15.17 25.21 +10.04 24 24 15.92 25.79 +9.86 39 42 4.00 1 32.00 39.00 +7.00 2 2 32.00 27.33 2 3 -4.67 18.06 26.95 +8.89 17 21 16.46 26.27 +9.81 26 26 17.09 26.57 +9.48 43 47  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 20001ab/es   6119/00 Little Rock School District Woodruff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean 1.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 15 Total Mean 0.97 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.86 N 21 Total Male Mean 1.06 N 18 Total Mean 0.95 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 19.00 34.00 +15.00 1 4 3 3.00 +2.00 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 1 2.50 +1 .75 16.00 30.00 +14.00 4 5 4 2.05 +1 .15 8.14 22.86 +14.73 20 22 22 2.07 +1 .00 7.10 23.40 +16.30 15 10 10 2.06 +1 .09 7.81 23.03 +15.22 35 32 32 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 2.00 +1.14 9.81 24.20 +14.39 21 26 25 2.22 +1 .17 7.75 23.83 +16.08 18 12 12 2. 10 +1 .15 9. 16 24.08 +14.92 39 38 37  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 31.50 +2.50 4 4 27.00 36.00 +9.00 4 4 28.00 33.75 +5.75 8 8 28.48 37.10 +8.62 21 20 20.50 27.43 +6.93 14 14 25.29 33.12 +7.83 35 34 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 27.58 34.96 +7.38 26 25 21.94 29.33 +7.39 18 18 25.27 32.60 +7.33 44 43  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ena by school 2000tables SAT-9    BADGETT Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Precentile Percentile 1996- 1991- 1998- 1~~~- 1996- 1991- 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 ' 3 Total Reading 14 30 16 17 -13 27 86 59 15 -71 Total Math 9 20 11 16 -4 32 45 13 1 -44 Total Language 15 20 5 18 -2 31 61 30 6 -55 Complete Battery 14 26 12 18 -8 29 64 35 12 -52 5 Total Reading 7 13 6 18 11 7 64 29 -35 41 5 71 21 14 17 14 Total Math 6 13 7 13 7 6 51 40 ,11 40 5 35 23 14 18 15 Total Language 12 14 2 20 11 9 41 53 12 32 3 29 23 16 17 , 13 Complete Battery 10 18 8 21 13 8 47 44 -3 37 6 31 21 20 16  12 BALE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1~~6- 1~~,- 1~~0- 1~~~- 19~6- 1~~,- ~~o- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Piff, 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 35 27 -8 28 1 57 16 -41 46 30 Total Math 27 17 -10 20 3 43 29 -14 40 11 Total Language 27 21 -6 26 5 43 23 -20 36 13 Complete Battery 33 24 -9 26 2 53 25 -28 43 18 5 Total Reading 21 29 8 22 19 3 25 47 22 29 76 47 37 35 35 23 Total Math 15 27 12 42 14 28 23 43 20 45 24 21 37 31 35 16 Total Language 23 34 11 31 19 12 39 53 14 30 76 46 37 41 35 24 Complete Battery 27 33 6 32 18 14 41 53 12 39 53 14 37 40 35 21 BASELINE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 18 24 6 26 2 32 45 13 59 14 Total Math 19 15 -4 29 14 28 20 -8 35 15 Total Language 13 20 7 31 11 28 41 13 61 20 Complete Battery 20 22 2 29 7 32 43 11 46 3 5 Total Reading 27 14 -13 22 16 6 95 31 -64 31 35 -4 25 15 16 31 Total Math 20 16 -4 14 13 1 83 16 -67 22 23 -1 25 16 19 31 Total Language 37 18 -19 26 21 5 76 14 -62 28 57 -29 25 18 19 31 Complete Battery 27 16 -11 26 18 8 84 26 -58 34 39 -5 25 18 16 31    BOOKER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 3 Total Reading 26 26 0 35 50 58 8 43 Total Math 23 19 -4 28 41 44 3 44 Total Language 34 24 -10 32 52 57 5 36 Complete Battery 30 27 -3 34 49 57 8 43 5 Total Reading 33 21 -12 39 28 1t 65 60 -5 55 63 -8 91 40 87 78 Total Math 32 17 -15 25 21 4 53 35 -18 33 45 -12 91 26 90 78 Total language 44 31 -13 44 41 3 67 60 -7 55 70 -15 91 45 90 t 77 Complete Battery 38 26 -12 38 32 6 62 53 -9 51 60 -9 91 39 87 \\ 77 BRADY Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- .Diff. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996-1997 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 27 26 -1 30 60 35 -25 56 Total Math 34 25 -9 20 65 51 -14 47 Total Language 32 28 -4 26 65 41 -24 48 Complete Battery 32 27 -5 30 63 45 -18 55 5 Total Reading 27 20 -7 23 19 -4 76 33 -43 41 42 1 24 25 41 37 Total Math 18 13 -5 17 14 -3 50 24 -26 15 14 -1 24 16 40 39 Total Language 43 19 -24 21 21 0 64 31 -33 41 37 -4 24 24 40 39 Complete Battery 31 20 -11 23 20 -3 63 36 -27 39 28 -11 24 25 40 37 CARVER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 1996- 1\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_358","title":"Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001","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":["2000-07-30"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001"],"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/358"],"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\nreceiveD From the desk of. . ,  Leslie V. Carnine AUG 1 4 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: July 13. 2000 To: Re: Members of the School Board Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 The following information is the first draft of the recommendations for the Critical Performance Priorities for 2000-2001. We have shared this with principals and other staff. The cabinet has discussed this several times over the last six weeks, and we will in all probability have edits over the next couple of weeks. You may also want to refine as you review the draft document. Please review the attachment for specific outline. We mentioned the fact that the cabinet had spent considerable time discussing the work plan for the next school year. We all have a concern that, based on past experience, considerable hours will need to be expended on the compliance document and federal court hearing preparation. As best as we could estimate, it would mean a minimum of 10% to 20 % of the Associates time after the first of the year. The estimate is extra time, not necessarily replacement time, for the normal operationally activities. We definitely think we can be more efficient, but a couple of wild cards cannot be totally predicted. The first is the replacement of Vic Anderson and the effect that will have on the effectiveness of operations. We are now receiving inquiries. What we cannot estimate is how quickly we can be up to speed once a recommendation is made to the Board. The second issue is the state accountability system. We have mentioned to you in the past that several of the district schools will have accountability issues. We have been told that among the 100 lowest performing schools in the state, there are 34 in Pulaski County. Based on previous analysis, we suspect that 26-28 will achieve that infamous distinction here in Little /Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 2 Rock School District. We have made a concerted effort to improve instruction this past year, and we are doing so. But, it will be my contention that we must double our efforts in that arena. The amount of time diverted to this issue is just now being considered. And finally, I know when things appear to be fairly normal it is a temptation to start new things or add substantial initiatives. I think we must be very guarded on how much we can ask of the staff next year. We are finishing one of the most successful years in the history of this school district and I hope that next year can be equally as brilliant. However, I am convinced that to have a repeat of such a year we must hold back our enthusiasm for adding new things. I say this regardless of how good things may sound...and the inducements they may offer. We need to finish what we started. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the District to submit an evaluation of the Plan and the Districts compliance in March 2001. Based on past experience, this will consume a number of hours from a host of people. We do have a great start and without an Associate being plagued by sickness or accident we should be in great shape. We will need to pick up the loose ends. II. Technology The preliminary plan is for the consultant to work with the work group to update the master plan. We hope the master plan can be completed fairly quickly and then to assist the schools in rewriting and updating their campus technology plans. We see the District starting slowly and then moving very quickly by mid year to have an outstanding plan and program being implemented. III. Campus Leadership We see academic achievement becoming an increasing issue with the publication of the Campus Report Card. Based on what we previously mentioned about the low performing campuses, we see the plan as in place. Now we must execute! We have made very impressive progress AFTCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 3 and we should be able to enjoy positive support within the community based on the plan and noted improvements. The strategy for moving the campuses to continuous improvement and maintaining the focus will be a primary mission for the school year. Participatory decision making is the way we must learn to work, but what we cant fall prey to is failure to achieve the academic focus needed to be successful. IV. Instruction We are achieving academic focus that has and will continue to achieve results. We must continue to fine-tune the organization through staff development. We already have on the drawing board enough basic implementation issues to keep the staff busy for several years. Instruction has some loose ends that must dealt with, but everything appears to be in good order for the district to achieve a continuous improvement mind set. We also must become serious about program evaluation...and Im not sure where we will find the time or people power, but we must pull together that aspect of building the program. V. Operations The approximately $150 million bond issue is a big job, regardless of the many other areas which must be considered. We mention the $150 million because when you consider the dedicated millage and the interest, you will be responsible for the expenditure of that amount in capital funds over a five-year period. There are two or three other very important issues for which we must develop plans. First, is to have the state accounting conversion accomplished without too many difficulties. The second is the need to have the district on a three to five year budgeting cycle along with easy to understand reports for your review. And finally, we need to maximize the federal dollars wherever possible. We presently estimate we are significantly short on numbers, which is costing us dollars. Respectfully submitted, Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools T LII. III. Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: A. B. C. D. Prepare and submit compliance documentation to the Federal Court Prepare final revisions of School Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Review school zones in preparation for new western elementary school Review ALC / alternative programs Technology: Update District Technology Plan A. B. C. D. E. Review process and software for data collection (Data Warehouse) Develop District Help Desk and plan for additional network support Refine training component Plan for AS400 \u0026amp; District Software Internet Connectivity Campus Leadership \u0026amp; Accountability A. Coordinate Arkansas and LRSD Accountability B. Develop customer survey instruments C. Refine Quality program and training for acquiring third level status D. Assist in the development of the Carnegie Grant Plan E. Assist in the development of the DeWitt Wallace Leadership training GrantCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 2 IV. Instruction A. Continue the development of Core Academic Standards B. Continue the development of targeted grants and review of continuing grants c. Implementation of new parent / community component D. Continuation of ESL development E. Program Evaluation  F. Continuation of Staff Development Initiatives G. Implementation of Assessment program V. Operations A. Dedicated Millage Plan B. Review process for Work Orders C. Develop master plan for Grounds maintenance D. Review Building Security Plansalarms and surveillance E. Develop master plan for energy utilization F. Develop a plan for capital projects review VI. Finance A. 2000 Bond Issue 1. Sales 2. Project Coordination 3. Project Reporting B. ADE Accounting Conversion C. MGT RecommendationsCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 3 D. Budgeting and Reporting Procedures E. Revenue enhancement 1. Free and reduced lunch numbers 2. Medicaid reimbursement F. Staff Travel Procedures\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_1401","title":"Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2000-07-12"],"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--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1401"],"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":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1724","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-07"],"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--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective 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/1724"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, first supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED JUL 7 2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL n 6 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK.,C LERK By .. WESTERN DIVISION  DEP CCERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. OPPOSITION TO PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONTO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN DEFENDANTS The Joshua Intervenors oppose the PCSSD's Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan. The basis for the Joshua Motion is as follows: 1. The proposed Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan was not presented to the Joshua Intervenors and the other parties until it was filed with the Court. This is a deviation from the desegregation plan requirement. It is important to note that the Office of Desegregation of the Pulaski County District has had no contact directly or indirectly with counsel regarding this matter and counsel is therefore left in the position of being uninvolved in the evolution of the modification. The Intervenors are also unaware that the district has shared its proposed modification proposal with the educational advisors to the district particularly, Dr. Steven Ross, which brings the Joshua Intervenors to point No. 2. 2. The proposal does not indicate how the modifications will strength the delivery of education to the affected children and how it will contribute to the remediation of preexisting and well-entrenched patterns of educational disparities between majority and minority students. In fact, the proposal is silent on tile educational benefits to the students. 3. The district indicates that it proposes to save money by making the modification to the student assignment plan. The purported business case does not delineate the amount of money ti-mt is involved in its proposal nor the amount of saving which would be effectuated. It suggests that by reduction of busing, it would reduce cost. But there is no demonstration that busing will actually be reduced. The map presented as Exhibit 1 to the motion is very general and does not set forth the geographical areas of any of the schools. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately ascertain the transportation impact upon students which brings us to the next point. 4. The text of the PCSSD brief shows (at 3) that the district proposes to implement option 3 set forth on Exhibit B. The Landmark school would be 75% white and the new Bates 70% black. Prior to the new construction, the three schools (Landmark, Old Bates, and Fuller) ranged from 42- 5 7% black. The district proposes a range of 25-70% black. Thus, new construction would promote segregation. That brings us to the next point. 5. The district argues in page 3 of its brief that these racial imbalances can be improved but its presents no plan for that improvement nor any date nor responsible authority for insuring that these schools will not become racially identifiable. 6. The proposal is patently racial because it proposes to shift white students from the majority African American school to the predominately white Landmark school and it proposes to shift African American students from predominately white Landmark school to the predominantly African American Bates school. The district simply cannot justify this racial assignment by noting that it will shift some programs from Landmark to Bates. Those shifts have not been documented nor discussed with Joshua nor have they been approved by the Court. Furthermore, shifting programs from one school to another cannot meet or satisfy the district's obligation to desegregate  in full. The Joshua Intervenors again observe that there has been no educational program presented to the Court which would insure that the educational advantages available to children in the southeast quadrant of the school district will be equal to those in the north west quadrant. The schot\u003el district has not developed under the new administration any vision regarding improvement of educational opportunity for students in the southeast quadrant any of its schools. 7. The district makes reference to other matters under consideration such as moving schools in the southeast quadrant to the middle school concept. But those proposals have not been developed and are therefore are not being responded to by Joshua at this time. To respond to speculation would be an exercise in futility. WHEREFORE, the Joshualntervenors respectfully oppose the proposal of the school district to substantially change the racial identification of the Landmark and Bates schools. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a hearing on the subject, after reasonable opportunity to engage in discovery, and after such hearing, they respectfully request that the proposed modification be rejected. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foreging has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this day of July, 2000. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY To,vers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RACES F I INTHE !L,E~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EAsr~~N~1~1t'Mc~ A~R~~sAs July 12, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Norman W. Marshall Associate Monitor JUL 1 2 2000 ~~{AES W. McCORMACK. CL!::~K Dt:P C.::.~ Polly Ramer Office Manager I  1 1 I  I I I I I I I   I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD defendants, for their motion state: R ,HJl 3 1 2000 OrFICE Gr DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A are multiple FOIA requests received by the PCSSD and certain of its personnel during the past two weeks. Attached as serial Exhibit B are FOIA requests received from Joshua by the PCSSD generally dating from the Fall of 1999. 2. The PCSSD respectfully submits that Joshua is improperly utilizing the Arkansas FOIA as a substitute for the discovery specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Certain of the information sought pursuant to Joshua's FOi requests is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation. 4. The current requests are often oppressive, burdensome and annoying. 193297-v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~UL 31 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOfJITORING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that: Upon motion by a party ... accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters; Attached to the PCSSD motion, as serial Exhibit A, are copies of many of the FOi requests that have been served by Joshua since this Court entered its order scheduling 193040-v1 - this matter for hearing on August 9, 2000. Any perusal of the FOi requests makes it apparent that Joshua is seeking to utilize the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in lieu of the discovery rules specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is codified beginning at ACA 25-19- 101. 25-19-105 provides in pertinent part that: (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by this section or by laws specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansas during the regular business hours of the custodian of the records. (b) It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter: (8) Documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court. While the PCSSD is not seeking to protect certain records from disclosure, it is - seeking an order of this Court which harmonizes the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Arkansas FOIA for purposes of this litigation. While the public policy considerations underpinning the Arkansas FOi are sound and are not challenged by this motion, what is questioned is the propriety of substituting the FOi for traditional discovery. The public's right to know is one matter; however, the attempted conversion of a sunshine law into a truncated and oppressive discovery weapon is quite another. For the reasons that follow, this Court should enter an order consistent with the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 2 Certain of the information sought is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for. hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other Issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation The August 9 issues The issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, are the PCSSD proposal to reorganize the assistant superintendentships for personnel and desegregation and a PCSSD proposal to modify some student assignments to the new Bates Elementary School. Although it will be obvious to the Court from examination of the FOi requests that Joshua has plans to bring Plan 2000 compliance issues to the Court's ultimate attention, those are not currently the subject of the August 9 hearing. Indeed, as the Court can see from examining Joshua's letter of July 19, 2000, Joshua has necessarily - elected to invoke the 30-day \"complaint\" procedure specified in Plan 2000. The PCSSD will respond to the complaint letter in the time allocated under Plan 2000. Thereafter, assuming that Joshua remains dissatisfied with the PCSSD response, Joshua will have the option to invoke the dispute resolution process specified with the Department of Justice. If, in fact, this dispute resolution process proves unsuccessful, then, but only then, may Joshua seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The foregoing is offered to illustrate the fact that even if Joshua is serious about ultimately raising compliance issues before this Court, the interim process will necessarily take some time and it is respectfully submitted that no hearing could be reasonably scheduled for such issues until some time this fall. Accordingly, the PCSSD believes it is reasonable to propose that Joshua's current FOi requests be reasonably limited to the discreet issues currently set for hearing, and that in respect of all other 193040-v1 3 - issues, that Joshua be ordered to utilize the traditional discovery techniques as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The current requests are oppressive, burdensome and annoying Any fair reading of the current FOi requests demonstrate that the requests are not all bottomed upon \"the public's right to know\" as envisioned by the Arkansas FOi. Neither can Joshua point to anything within the Arkansas FOIA which authorizes its use as a litigation tactic calculated to disrupt school district operations, seek information, such as thank you notes, get well cards, and anything \"in writing\" or \"all writings\" whatever they may be. Rather, the breadth and unbridled scope of the requests strongly suggests an ulterior motive; i.e. to keep administrators and staff from their regular jobs and to watch them jump through the hoops created by Joshua's requests. The Federal rules contain reasonable deadlines for discovery compliance which permit documents to be produced in a manner that is not disruptive to normal business and educational activities and responsibilities. The Arkansas FOIA, on the other hand, requires an almost instantaneous response which, when coupled with the volume of materials requested by Joshua, threatens chaos and disruption. The PCSSD suggests that this is an unwarranted perversion of the Arkansas FOi not calculated or contemplated by the Arkansas Legislature. Many of the FOi requests duplicate matters previously furnished to Joshua pursuant to FOi requests and duplicate requests for information routinely furnished to Joshua as part of PCSSD's desegregation philosophy Included as serial Exhibit B are FOi requests dated generally from 1999, to which the PCSSD then responded. At a minimum, the PCSSD should not be 193040-v1 4 put to the trouble of regurgitating again that which it has previously furnished Joshua within the last twelve months. Further, many of the requests implicate reports to the Board and the ODM which have been routinely generated during the last ten years and just as routinely, furnished to Joshua including, for instance, the annual PCSSD affirmative action reports, discipline reports, special education reports and other similar reports well know to the ODM and to this Court. It seems no great request that Joshua be ordered to discipline itself to the extent that it first ascertain whether or not it already has the information requested before blindly seeking it again and again from the PCSSD. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD requests an order of this Court granting the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By \\..- ;T-- ~ . ;-1--n- _,,, ' .._ . ( .______ M. Sa_!J)tlel ones Ill _(760,60) . . Attorneys f Pulaski C~ Special spt,ool Di ict '-_/ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July2:\u0026ooo, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower  425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193040-v1 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD, for its first supplement to motion states: RECEIVED AUG 1 2000 i.HH10F OESE~OO-,mJ MmJITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit A-1 are FOi requests, received by Dr. Smith, all dated July 28, 2000. These requests were actually received on July 31, 2000. 2. These two requests supplement Exhibit A to the District's motion for protective order filed July 28, 2000. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew the relief sought in theirmotion for protective order dated July 28, 2000, and for all proper relief. 193567-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July :3(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193567-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193567-v1 3 i I i I I I i  I  ! JUL-31 -00 MON 07:36 AM FAX NO. t' , Uc'./Uli 5013744187 WALKER ~AW FIRM 909 P02 JU.. 28 100 17 : 15 JOHN W, WALXZll RALPH WASHINGTON MAllX BUllN!TTI SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. W~R, P.A. ATrOa.-.lY kr LAw 1723 BIOADWAY J.rrrLI R0CK, AilnNSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (i,01) s7,-S7118 FAX (~01) ~14-4187 Via Fac,imile - 490-0483 July 28, 2000 Pulaski County Special Sehool Dinrict 92S Dbcon :Read Little Rocle, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom 0lnfotmation Act. Would you please providl;l i!ll writings (lneoming and outaoins) thai ha-ve talcen pl~ between you, Dr. James Fox, ~ -Billy Bowles, Dr. Ruth Herta, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collin11 Dr. Jerry Welch, Mr. Jim Johnson, Dr. Don Henderson. Ml. Beverly Williams, Ms. Manha Asti, M$. MttciJ Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, Ms. Theresa Wallent and anyone else with desegregation responsibility since July 1, 1999, It also includes writing, (incoming and outgoins) of any kind whether they arc rcgardinn peraonnel, student assignment, educational initiative\u0026, tranaporta~on. pay, proposals to the Coun. as well a.e any other mauers. ThiJ req1,mt also includH cmalla and ecmputer files. I would abo like to have access to the notet (incoming and outgoing) of yourself and those of Dr. Fox, Mr. Bowlea, Mt. Collins, Mr. Miller, Dr. Herts, Dr. Weloh, Dr. Henderson, Ms. Williams, Ms. Ast~ Ma, Chapman, Mr. Hendrix, Mr. Johnson and Ms. WaJJent, a.s they relate to the proposals that ha.ve been considered for presentation to the Court or to the school board in reference to the school desesreaation plan. I would ippreciato this infonnation not later than Wednesday, August 2, 2000. Would you also please provide the following: (l) list of applicants for the Director of Secondary Education position; (2) a. copy of the Elomentary/Seconduy School Civil Rights . Compliance Report/Individual School keport: I\u003e 102 from the U.S. Department of :Education/Civil Rights; (3) Minutes of the Steering Committee meetings relli.tive to education plans of Dr. Steven Ross; (4) all numbered memorandums ofth.: above referenced lndividua1s from July J, 1999 to present; (5) e-mail addresses ofalt the abov~ referenced individuals; (6) responses from principal\u0026 to Eddie Collini regardina ms letter ofAl-lS\\'st 2, t 999 regarding Disclplittary Management Plan; (7) Annual Disciplinary Summaey for all schools; (8) Incoming and outgoing type-written and hand-written writing\u0026 of all secret.uies of the above ~fcrenccd indrviduGJ1; (9) resportaes from all parties referenced to in your March 13, ZOOO letter relating to plan ZOOO; ( 1 O) copies of rriemo books from all lndlviduaJ.1 referenced to above; ( 11) a I.QPY of the written report of all annual reviews regarding speci\u0026l ed~tion to Martha Asti; (12) copies of revised elementary and secondary student handbooks; and (12) list ofrecipi,nta (race and EXHIBIT I fi-1 ~ - - - ---- -- ---- --  JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM FAX NO. 5013?44187 ~LKER LAW FIRM 909 P03 t', U3/U4 Jl..1... 28 '00 17:1~ sender) who were honored durlOi the SAT lncentivc Award program duritli 1999-2000 school year. Caro CACI JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM rAX NU. 501374418? W~R LAW FIRM JOHN W, WALKER, P.~. '311 P02 r', U4/ U'i J\\.L 29 '00 17:43 AT'l'ORNIY AT LAW 1,2s BitOADWAY R Ee E 1v ED L1TJ1,! RoCIC, AluwlsAS 72206 TELEPHONE (601) 874-3758 JOHN W, WALKiR JW..PH WABHlNOTON MARK BURNE'l'Tt SHAWN CHILDS FAX (501) 974-4187 JUL 3 1 2000 Via Facsimile - 490-0433 Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools Pulaski County Special Sr.boo[ District 91.5 Dixon Road Little Rock. AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: July 28. 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and oopyine the following: 1) a copy of the ADI! TAG Monitoring Repon dated February, 2000; 2) a copy otthe 2000-2001 Student Handbook approved by the Board of Education; 3) all writing, (incomina and outsoine) regar~ing pupil personnel (discipline and student assignments and enrollment) including notes, e-mails, computer files, numbered memorandums, ete. between yourself, Dr. Jam.es Fox, Mr. Bi~y Bowles, Dr, Ruth Herts, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collins, Dr. Jerry Welch, Ms. Beverly Williams, Ms. Martha Ast~ Ms. Marcia Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, ~. Theresa Wallent, Mr, Doug Lin.gton, Ms. Georgia Norris, Ms. Ann ____ (Bddie Collins Secretary) or any other person in Pupil Personnel with the responsibility of receiving and/or inputtina pupil persoMel data. Please make this information available by Thursday, Auewt 3, 2000. Sincerely, CACI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (;OURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED AUG I 2000 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attom neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY . I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This 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. "}],"pages":{"current_page":45,"next_page":46,"prev_page":44,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":528,"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}}]}}