{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_375","title":"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/375"],"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\nA MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology...................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 J 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... I i ..3-2 ..3-5 3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results........................................................... Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office........................,..................................... Division of School Services........................................................ Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 1 1 6.6 6.7 1 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7-1 i 8.0 1 9.0 J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction.................................................................. Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan...................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... Infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................. Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support.................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations........................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 .9-14 .9-17 .9-22 9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35J 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I i 1 J 1 J1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Overview f In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. t I I i In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. j Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. J Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working ! MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary } employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. 1 Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n4  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\nI  the current financial position\nf \u0026gt;  the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. i The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study  MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several 1 recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page iiExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 a During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district.  Formal On-Site Review During the week of December 7-11,1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan i } -i Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Ina Page IIIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION i Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. I i j One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. J The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instnjctional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officers position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION '5 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. i The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school district's current financial position? The RFP asked the consultant to 'analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the 1 I adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for Uie future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships.  1 Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary i should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. i The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. i AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ' 9 I J J Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. 1 J Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. I The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. i These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 I AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: 1 .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. I 1 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place  A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instnjctional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary  1 The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. I The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement I  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education 1 i 7 There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. 1 The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viiiExecutive Summary ) t i 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. 1 In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND INSTRUCTIONAL i Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. a 1 i In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 s that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LFISD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. 1 A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the ] lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by i  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to detenriine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy tor providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and J  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page xExecutive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District i There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. I ! The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 1 j Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. ( J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. i i 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page xii1 { i I I 5 i i 1 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE\nACTIVITY October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 I December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings tor technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xillTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 t ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology....................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS .3-1 I 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... 1 t r ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results............................................................ Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems.......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office..........................\n.................................. Division of School Services......................................................... Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 ,4-12 ,4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 ,5-15 .5-30 ,5-35 6-1 I 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS i PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 i 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes.................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR .7-1 1 } X 8.0 1 J 9.0 i J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction................................................................... Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan..................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................ Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support................................................................... Obstacles to implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 ,7-21 .7-25 .8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 .9-17 9-22 .9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35? \u0026gt; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I I 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, wzhere declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District:  the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review t .i During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. I Formal On-Site Review 1 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: J  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 1 s Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page HIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. i Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. i One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Linder the proposed organizational stnjcture, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus tor fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. 1 i T AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION i 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. 1 The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position. The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instnjctional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and n repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. 1 J The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. I Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary 1 should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. * 1 The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. J The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc, Page vl1 Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by SDMntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. j These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES J Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discnminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place ~ A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instnjction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. a In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. a The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V\nFUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. I In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the 1 ! lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n3  annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand I i  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MG T of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary i The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District X There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlExecutive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instmctional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 1 i MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary 1 EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY 1 October 15. 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1, 1999 March 1-24, 1999 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. I 4 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25,1999 Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlll1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 f 7 J J1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1.1, we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. t As stated in the Alliances Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum\nJ  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n1 .1  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. J wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Gamine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. i MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. 1 November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing December 7-11,1998 Conducted formal on-site review. December 1998 Requested additional data from the school district. January 1999 Prepared the draft report. February 12,1999 Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. March 1, 1999 Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. March 1-24, 1999 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2Introduction i 1.1 Study Methodology 1 This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGTs audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1.1.1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include: }  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\nI  University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk-, 4 J  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n1 J I  independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3Introduction  annual budgets: 1  job descriptions\n salary schedules\n personnel handbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1.1.2 Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys 1 4 To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following\n Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology 5  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4? Introduction i f * Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we inten/iewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5Introduction j 1 who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. ... the Little Pock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support. 1 a . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Pock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LPSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Pock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. i  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools. .i  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. J These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instnjctional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGTs charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6Introduction 1 There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District: 4 .f  Objective 1: Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students. 1 t  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: building. Establish Marketing Teams within each school  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: LRSD employees. Establish regular and timely communications with all  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. -j'  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media. ! i  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2'describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees. 1 i  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. 1 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-82.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J I 3 7 1 J 4 12.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 1 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegreciation ! I The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. i For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Courts order of all deliberate speed. The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve racial balance in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration  to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if n the district upholds what is commonly called the Revised Plan. 1 The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\nT i 3  the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comrpittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. i I At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. I The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: ...in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discnmination by LRSD against African- American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-2Background on the Little Rock School District 1 on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LFtSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools (Section 2.1, Revised Plan). 1 t 1 In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified African- Americans:  an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline: J  the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n1  improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n1 ) 1  students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent African- American) as reasonably practicable\nand -I  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employees child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). i As Stated in Section 10 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when: ...the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-4Background on the Little Rock School District 2.1.1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring j 1 J As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements. The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each partys compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua Intervenors are responsible for enforcing the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua Intervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including: i  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures tp be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the districts schools: and  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. 5 J 5 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2.1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1.3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. J .J However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent African- American. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. J In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-6tw.iaiWit L...  i Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES 27.000 26,500 26,000 25,500 25,000 24,500 ____\\k ____ -------\\ / 24,000 \\ 23,500 \\ \u0026gt; \\ ! V 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 / 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website, www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enriment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District i 1 i EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1 RACE African-American adults with some college, a bachelors, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree LITTLEROCK \u0026lt;%) 43.1 63.3 STATE 24.5 35.0 U.S. 35.1 46.9 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997.  ! In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows: 1  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 110 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME J sl:STATE LITTUEROGKSO U.S African-American Families $21,103 $14,785 $22,429 White Families $41,074 $26,939 $37,152 f .1 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-8Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources: 1  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. 1 These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 1 j school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall. 1  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-9Background on the Little Rock School District 3 EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES J 5 SCHOOL \"YEAR 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 (budgeted) BEGINNING FUND\nBALANCE $6,019,557 4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 ENDING FUND BALANCE $4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 942,644 SETTLEMENT FUNDS EXPENDED $8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 LOAN FUNDS EXPENDED $0 3,000,000 0 0 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue ail other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources. 1  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average. J J  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. 7 Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rocks operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendents Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that basically includes no new revenues for the coming year. Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. J MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-10u. 1 J Background on the Little Rock School ct EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%  Federal \u0026amp; Other  Stale  Local 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District 1 EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,401,195,338 468,027,843 13,016,161 73,758,248 $1,955,997,590 MILLAGE RATE 0.0414 0.0419 0.0414 0.0419 TAX CHARGE $58,009,487 19,610,367 538,869 3,090,471 $81,249,193 ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) $74,749,258 Source\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law. Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in fiscal distress under this law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes 7 As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. J Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the districts older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as brokers in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication A Vision tor the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998 is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the districts mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means for assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SCf percentile on standardized tests of who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  IVe will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. i i *  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  IVe will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-13Background on the Little Rock School District  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. 2.2.5 Ongoing Pay and Classification Study The district is currently working with an outside consultant to complete an internal pay and classification study. The parameters of the study include:  reviewing current job descriptions\n evaluating job positions\n developing salary administrative policies and procedures\n completing a comparative study\n planning for transitions (including comparing old to new, creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees, setting a policy for grandfathering, and deciding on a policy for exceptional cases)\nand  establishing a review committee to ensure fairness, equity, and consistency. According to the schedule planned by the district, the study will be completed in May 1999. The study will review all central office and school positions, except teachers, aides, bus drivers, and custodians. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure One major requirement of the management study is for MGT to examine the current management structure and appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions. Therefore, this section reviews the current structure of the central office\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_1696","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time","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":["1999-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time"],"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/1696"],"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":["47 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.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \\ VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL THE DISTRICTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE MAR 3 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORINS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. ADE Not A Party to Settlement. ADE contends that this Court should not compel it to make any payment to the Districts until all remedy issues are resolved or until ADE becomes a party to a settlement. This contention is without merit. With PCS SD dropping its objection, all the parties are in agreement that the Districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504. There is no reason why this amount should not be paid to the Districts as soon as practicable. The Districts need this money to fund obligations tied to the payment, in particular LRSD teachers' salaries. While resolution of the remaining remedy issues may increase the amount ADE owes the Districts, resolution of those issues will not decrease ADE's liability. Moreover, a separate order directing ADE to pay to the Districts the amounts it undisputedly owes them should avoid entangling these payments in an eventual appeal. The Court could then by separate order to resolve the questions of whether the Districts are entitled to receive the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state and whether the Districts should receive prejudgment interest. Regardless of which way the Court rules on these issues, an appeal is likely. \"-, \\ However, no party could appeal an Order directing ADE to pay the Districts the amounts that all parties agree is the least that they are owed. Therefore, given the Districts' immediate need, the Court should order ADE to pay the Districts the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504 as soon as practicable. II. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement should be considered by the Court in determining the Districts' remedy. ADE suggests that the Districts are making this contention for the first time. However, NLRSD raised Section 11.F. during the liability phase, and it was the subject - ofa footnote in the Eighth Circuit's decision in this case. See LRSD v. PCS SD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). While not the basis for liability, the Districts contend that the Court should not adopt a remedy which violates Section 11.F. The remedy proposed by ADE would violate Section 11.F. because it would result in the Districts being paid less for teacher retirement and health insurance than other school districts in the state. III. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts' claim for prejudgment interest does not rest entirely on 28 U.S.C.  1961 as suggested by ADE. The Districts have cited to the Court ample authority for an award of prejudgment interest in this case. Even so, ADE argues that prejudgment interest should be denied because ADE' s liability was not \"reasonably capable of assessment.\" This is not true. Tristan Green testified that the he \"borrowed\" the methodology now proposed by ADE from the methodology used 2 by ADE to determine the amount of Educational Equity Trust Funds received by school districts. See June 6, 1999 Transcript, p. 176 and Court's Exhibit 492. All of the numbers used to calculate the Districts' damages under ADE's methodology have been readily ascertainable. However, ADE '-, refused to pa~ the Districts until ordered to do so by the Eighth Circuit. As the Eighth Circuit stated, \"the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" Id., 148 F.3d at 968. One adverse effect of the funding change has been an almost four year delay in payment, and the Districts should be held harmless for this delay through an award of prejudgment interest. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment - interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1961; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tea,rep-\u003clis.wpd 3 Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Comm'ercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Ca~itol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: F:IHOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSD\\d\u003csterep-dis.wpd 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I cytify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. Mail on this31j,...day of March, 1999. Mr. John W: Walker \\ JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSO\\dcslnrtp-dis.wpd (hand-delivery on 3-4) 5 - -  FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS Oi  vr tlQ WESTERN DMSION MARO 4 1999 DiS\u0026RtG~11ua tiAOt\\10il LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ~~~ES if :J~~;~.~~7~K OEP ClfRK - * Plaintiff, vs. * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * RECEIVE DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * \",.J, . R ~ i999 * * off\\CE Of \\~ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * f\\H\u003et~Rffi~1\\0~ M0~\\'00\\1 .~  * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless again~t any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed posthearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Before the Court is a motion by the three Pulaski County school districts - Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North - Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") - for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. On February 23, 1999, the State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts, on March 3, 1999, filed a reply to ADE's response. Having considered the matter, the Court hereby grants the districts' motion. There is no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties agreeing on the ADE's proposed methodology - and all parties are in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. While it is true, as noted by the ADE, that there remain issues to be 2 resolved, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, the Court agrees with the districts that there is no reason why the undisputed amount shown in Revised Exhibit 504 should not be paid to the districts as soon as possible. As noted by the districts, resolution of the remaining issues may increase the amount the State owes the districts (a question on which the Court expresses no opinion at this time), but resolution of these issues will not decrease the State's liability. Accordingly, the Court grants the districts' motion for an Order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. The Court will resolve the remaining issues. in due course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, the State of Arkansas make payment to the three Pulaski County school districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD, and 10% to NLRSD. d~ Dated this ..:.J_ day of March 1999. UNITED STATF.S DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAEI) ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPw.e-N ~T~ RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~N 3~ ~1 BY_~~~---- 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1813-101) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HEH\"tY KIMBERLY WOOD T\".CKER RAY F. COX, JR. GORDON S. RATHER. JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWHL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS IUFORO, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J , MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER , JR. CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 3769442 WEBSITE : www.wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Di rect Dial No . 501  212  1273 mjonesQwlJ .com March 25, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KR I STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl.  93678-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP t-__ '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 SCHOOLREcev8:n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~M ~- ' ,. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court to examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing, if necessary, on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. Upon the entry of this Court's decree, the PCSSD commits to do those things and to maintain those activities described in Exhibit A to this petition that being the Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments. Exhibit A was distributed to the parties on or about March 5, 1999, and no comments of any kind have been received. In this petition, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set - forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the 91963 I - country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered - the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 91963 2 - transportation, emplo~ment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and an agreed upon desegregation plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status in Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S. Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A]s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S._,_, 111 S. Ct. 630,636, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991 ), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[l]t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 s. Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [1] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. ~. ~. at 439, 88 S. Ct., at 1694. Here, as 91963 3 in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the fonner de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S. Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it affinned the district court's declaration of unitary status in Coaljtion to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al .. 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996): A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the fonner de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown 11 were particularly addressed.\" ~. 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S. Ct. at 1693. However, the ~ Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" J.Q..; see also Swann. 402 U.S. at 18, 91 s. Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with~ factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is - addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wjlmjngton Court also commented upon 91963 4 ,. - federal court supervisien in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins. the WjJmjngton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,'\" Jenkins._ U.S. _115 S. Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 111 S. Ct. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent practicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or r*84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779. Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: 91963 We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District 5 Court, on remaRd, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSS0; and (2) by expanding LRS0 so that the new boundary line between it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held - addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts - that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Litt! Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District. m. 778 F .2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921. F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). 91963 6 To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the ~ factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts were initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in 1985. It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S. Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1976); Milliken 1,418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S. Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-81 . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S. Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449,455 n. 3, 99 S. Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1979): Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD V. pcssp, 778 F.2d at 433. 91963 The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with ear1ier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be pennitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school 7 enrollments niay over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435: Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals:  13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: 91963 8 Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S. Ct., at 1283-84 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S. Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during the 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; ( 4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (06) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 7 4 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. !d..,, at 31 a. 112 S. Ct. at 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Court found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we 91963 9 - will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: 89-90 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Total 21 .607 21 ,597 21 ,062 21 ,633 20.426 20,417 20,534 20,295 % Black 26 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 91963 10 . Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Arnold Drive Elem Baker Elem Bates Elem Bayou Meto Elem Cato Elem Clinton Elem College Station Elem Crystal Hill Elem Dupree Elem Fuller Elem Harris Elem Jacksonville Elem Landmark Elem Lawson Elem Oak Grove Elem Oakbrooke Elem Pine Forrest Elem Pinewood Elem Robinson Elem PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON2 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Total 371 360 352 420 411 397 % Black 40 36 39 36 37 39 Total 387 411 408 390 348 375 % Black 18 16 14 18 23 25 Total 294 291 268 283 294 304 % Black 27 30 25 27 25 24 Total 698 638 737 680 599 550 % Black 47 46 47 45 45 53 Total 602 596 6 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1248","title":"PreK-3 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03/1999-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education, Elementary","Educational planning","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["PreK-3 Literacy Program, 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/1248"],"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":["282 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_922","title":"Report: ''How Can Schools and Communities Work Together to Meet the Challenges of Education?'' Study Circles, North Little Rock, Arkansas","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":["1999-02-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''How Can Schools and Communities Work Together to Meet the Challenges of Education?'' Study Circles, North Little Rock, Arkansas"],"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/922"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1688","title":"Court filings concerning proposed changes to ADE monitoring and reporting responsibilities, districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages, and ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''","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":["1999-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Education, Secondary","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning proposed changes to ADE monitoring and reporting responsibilities, districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages, and ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''"],"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/1688"],"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":["76 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, progress report on proposed changes to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) monitoring and reporting responsibilities; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; 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.   STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFIC.KOF rim ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 February 1, 1999 Re: little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et~ LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVED FEB 2 1999 Oltl~i 0f  lllltGMIOll110~rroruNs Telephone: (501) 682-2007 Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Progress Report on Proposed Changes to ADE Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities. cj enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to T101othy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prica Tower, 323 Center Street  Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 -~--- Internet Website. http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED rtB 2 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS PROGRESS REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ADE MONITORING AND REPORTING RESPONSIBnITIES Pursuant to the Court's December 18, 1998 order, the Arkansas Department of Education submits this report on the progress made in developing proposed . changes to ADE' s monitoring and reporting responsibilities. After the issuance of ODM' s report on ADE' s monitoring, ADE, with the support of the State Board of Education, sought to meet with all parties to this action to discuss possible revisions to ADE' s monitoring and reporting requirements that would, among other things, address some of the concerns and criticisms contained in the ODM report. All the parties, including the Joshua and Knight intervenors, were invited and encouraged to participate in the process. As required by the Court, meetings between representatives of ADE and the parties have been documented and described in ADE' s monthly project management tools. The information contained in the monthly PMTs will not be repeated here. However, if the Court desires more detailed information about I - these meetings or would like to review meeting agendas, lists of participants, or correspondence between the parties related to these discussions, ADE will be happy to submit such information or documents to the Court for its review. To comply with the Court's December 18, 1998 order, ADE has prepared the attached Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report. A draft of this report was shared with representatives of the parties for review and comment in January of 1999. The Report is intended to be a summary of the recommendations and comments made by the parties to date. As the Court will di.seem from reviewing the Report, the parties have focused their discussion on a plan that, among other things, (a) would provide for continued monitoring by ADE in six areas relevant to the Districts' desegregation efforts; (b) would provide for ADE analysis of selected data; and (c) would include ADE assistance to each District in areas such as staff development, curriculum alignment, and recruitment of minority teachers and administrators.  The attached Report is a work in progress. Many details will need to be discussed and refined by the parties before any proposed new monitoring and reporting plan can be submitted to this Court for approval. ADE intends to continue its meetings with the parties to discuss these issues so that a new monitoring and reporting plan can be presented to the Court as soon as practicable. 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Roe~ AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roe~ AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201  3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitoring Prelimbuuy Progress Report-revised llllUUlrY 21, 1999 Arlwua Dq,art,nenl of Edllcation Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report Arkansas Department of Education January 1999 NOTE: The following document summarizes the recommendations, written documents and comments made by district desegregation superintendents, specialized district staff, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, ADE staff and the parties in Pulaski County Desegregation Case. This preliminary progress report is a work in progress. It is intended to be disseminated among interested parties for discussion. comment, review and suggestions during the January 28, 1999 meeting. A revised'aiaft of the progress report shall be forwarded to all parties for review after administrative and Board review. 1 Arkansas Department of Education Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report: Preliminazy Drqft-Revised Section I Goal The goal of the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance is to ensure educational excellence and equity in the Pulaski County School Districts by monitoring, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), the implementation of educational programs, aimed at satisfactorily remediating racial, academic, and achievement disparities. The proposed Monitoring Plan will revise the 1989 Monitoring Plan and formatting directives by eliminating unnecessary, or redundant provisions, reducing the data collection and submission burden on districts, and ensuring that districts remain accountable for commitments made to quality desegregated education. To ensure the integrity of the monitoring reports, the ADE will continue to use the Standards of Educational Evaluation. The Standards for Educational Evaluation define four attributes of sound evaluation: A B. C. D. Section Il The utility of the evaluation to the audience to be served in relation to the problems they face; The feasibility of the evaluation in terms of its efficient use of practical procedures; Propriety, which calls for fair treatment of participants in the evaluation and ethical use of evaluation procedures and findings; Accuracy, which calls for obtaining valid, reliable and objective findings and reporting justified conclusions and recommendations. Purpose Monitoring by the ADE will be closely related to the identified needs and priorities of the school districts so that monitoring becomes an integral part of the accountability function of quality schools and districts. In particular, monitoring will focus on efforts to raise the standard for student achievement and reduce achievement disparities. The monitoring indicators are divided into six sections that are important for a high-quality desegregated educational system: (1) achievement, (2) discipline, (J) staff development and technical assistance, (4) minority teacher recruitment and staffing, (5) financial resources/budget, and (6) racial balance in enr'ollments. The purpose of the monitoring is to provide the means for determining whether the process is meeting its goals: that is to determine how \"on target\" schools are by comparing achieved outcomes with intended ones. Section m Achievement All students will perf onn at grade level by the end of the fourth grade as measured by the State-mandated criterion referenced and nonn-ref erenced assessments. The ADE will analyze achievement on the basic battery of the norm-referenced test, annually and longitudinally. Trends in educational performance will also be provided. The ADE will analyze achievement on the criterion-referenced test annually and longitudinally to help schools determine the most critical areas of need. 2 The ADE will also analyze test scores to determine if racial academic disparities are being reduced. Results of the analysis shall be used by the ADE and schools to:  Increase student performance  Communicate current levels of student performance to school customers  Assist in the orchestration of School Improvement Plans  Focus on reducing achievement gaps between black and white students  Identify group strengths and weaknesses in content areas  Ensure that prescriptive instructional assistance matches student needs  Determine the number of students who reach the proficient level in Math and Reading  Guide decision making about ways to improve student performance. After testing each year, monitors will determine the following: 1. Are plans in place to address areas of academic deficiency? 2. Has the standard of adequate yearly progress been met? 3. Is there significant disparity in the scores of black and white students? 4. Are there more than 50% of the students achieving below grade level in mathematics and reading? 5. How does the school's achievement compare to the state average and to schools with similar demographics? 6. Is student achievement progressively improving? - - Note: Analysis q,fachievement data wi /I be conducted by the ADE and consultants hired by the ADE, -i Section IV Discipline/Disciplinary Disparity Schools shall be organized and operated in a manner that creates safe, secure schools which are most conducive to student learning. The ADE will: 1. 2. 3. 4. Section V Monitor the Annual Discipline Report Summary from each school district to determine if consequences, for the same offenses are consistently applied to black and white students Review the suspension and expulsion rates Examine each school's implementation of their Disciplinary Management Plans to ascertain whether goals and objectives are being met Make recommendations as needed based on educational research, theory and best practice. Staff Development/l'echnical Assistance (Ways the ADE might assist Districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement) The State is committed to assisting with staff development, preparation, and support of educators whose primary focus is on student learning and who possess the knowledge, skills and the commitment to teach to high academic standards. The State will, through the Smart Start and School Improvement Programs assist in the collaborative development of staff development programs that ensure that instructional delivery models are aligned to student needs, state standards, and assessments. The state will also provide staff development based on needs identified as a result of the monitoring process. The ADE will: 1. Monitor the district's evaluation component of staff development 2. Collaborate with the Office of Pupil Personnel in each district in sponsoring professional development aimed at reducing the disparity in minority suspensions and expulsions 3. Assist schools with analysis of assessment results and strategies for improved student perfonnance 4. Provide staff development on ways to recruit, retain and support teacher recruitment of minority teachers . - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Section VI Provide staff development to schools through the Smart Start Initiative Assist schools in the alignment of the curriculum with State standards and mandated assessments Provide staff development on researched-based and proven model in reducing achievement and disciplinary disparities with demographics similar to schools in Pulaski County Provide assistance in curriculum and assessment in the identified targeted areas Ensure that the monitoring reports are useful, succinct, readable and understandable, by assisting districts in the use of five essential steps: (1) disaggregation, (2) analyzation, (3) interpretation, (4) communication and (5) utilization of report findings. Recruitment of Minority Teachers 4 The quality of teachers is central to plans dedicated to improving student performance. The three districts in Pulaski County will need to recruit additional teachers, especially minority teachers due to retirement, and attrition. The ADE will remain committed to teacher recruitment through financial assistance for Minority Teacher Candidates, relevant job market information, and through the improvement of standards for teacher certification. The ADE will: 1. Maintain a current list of minority teachers and administrators who are seeking employment. This list should include certification areas, permanent addresses and phone numbers, and dates of availability 2. Review the number of minority teachers hired each year 3. Monitor the number of jobs offered to minority teachers 4. Examine recruitment plans and efforts such as the job fair participation 5. Assess racial balance in staffing by school and content/speciality areas 6. Disaggregate the percent of classes taught by teacher on a deficiency removal plan. - s Section VII Racial Balance in Enrollments The ADE will monitor to ensure that all students have access to a demanding curriculum, high quality instruction, and nourishing classrooms. The ADE will: 1. Monitor school enrollment for racial balance in accordance with court-approved desegregation plans outlined for each district. 2. Review the enrollment of minority students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) and special education programs 3. Evaluate the impact of interdistrict and intradistrict transfers on racial balance 4. Review the enrollment or participation of minority students in special clubs, teams, and activities 5. Analyze average daily attendance 6. Review the completion rate. Note: The ADE recognizes that the Revised Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock Pubic Schools (LRSD), does not require that every LRSD school be racially balance. Additionally, nothing in LRSD 's Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. Section VIII Budget The monitoring of finances in the three school districts of Pulaski County will be the same as for all other school districts in the .state except for areas of the budget in which the districts receive financial support unique to the desegregation case. Also, monitoring done by the State in the financial area will be done from the standpoint of what the districts have agreed to do in their respective desegregation plans. Section IX Monitoring Process A The monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as responses from school personilel, patrons and students. B C. D. 6 Monitoring teams shall be selected by the Director of the ADE. The team shall include ADE personnel and may include Intervenors, and other educational consultants as designated by the Director. Each district shall include in their school improvement plans appropriate objectives to achieve compliance with each court order related to the Agreement and recommendations made by the ADE. The ADE shall monitor annual school improvement plans to determine progress toward achieving educational goals. District plans should provide evidence of compliance with court orders and a process to ascertain progress. Continuous, independent, systematic monitoring and evaluation are processes necessary for assuring and demonstrating the quality of desegregated education. However, each school and district will be encouraged to conduct internal evaluations prior to monitoring by the ADE. No zysteni can achieve its potential and maintain a high level of service ifit does not constantly assess its performance, and modi fr its practices accordingly to ensure internal accountability. Section X Data Collection The ADE will: I . Collect, interpret, evaluate, and report the monitored data in a lucid, understandable manner so that the parties, the Court, the public, and ADE itself will have meaningful information that indicates the progress of desegregation, uncovers new or continuing problems, and points to needed changes 2. Collect, analyze, and interpret selected data annually for every school in Pulaski County 3. The ADE will produce two semiannual reports which are complementary to each other. The primary focus of each report will be achievement and selected monitoring indicators that impact student achievement 4. Examine the internal data collection and dissemination procedures annually with a view toward eliminating the duplicate collection of data throughout the monitoring process ,.~~ 5. Use the desegregation monitoring process to help the Pulaski County schools meet their desegregation commitments and improve student achievement . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED FEB 9 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATIOM MOll1JIIIII MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES LRSD, NLRSD and PCS SD (the \"Districts\") for their Motion state: 1. The Districts have reached a compromise and settlement whereby PCS SD agrees to and does hereby withdraw opposition to the State's methodology for calculating the Districts' damages for teacher retirement and health insurance as set forth on the State's Revised Exhibit 504 filed January 19, 1999, subject to the modification set forth proposed in Districts' Briefin Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3 18 7. The Districts' agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. As a result of the Districts' compromise and settlement, there is no dispute that the Districts' are entitled to the damages as set forth in Revised Exhibit 504. Accordingly, the Districts' seek an immediate order directing the State to pay to the Districts the amounts shown on Revised - Exhibit 504. The State should be directed to make payment within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days. 1 3. The only remaining issue for the Court to resolve is whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See - LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). 4. In addition to their damages as provided for on Revised Exhibit 504, the Districts should be awarded prejudgment interest. 5. The Districts' memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to 1The Districts believe that Exhibit 504 should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The Districts have presented this information to the State for consideration. The Districts reserve the right to present this issue to the Court if no agreement is reached with the State. However, this should not delay the Court's ruling on this Motion. The revised numbers now being proposed by the Districts would increase the Districts damages, and therefore, the State could be ordered to pay any additional damages at a later date. 2 show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S . C.  1961 ; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B NOR TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tea-mot-dis.wpd 3 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by hand-delivery on thi~day ofFebruary, 1999.  Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tu-mot-dis.wpd Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 8th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same EXHIBIT \"A\" monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount  of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows : 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall 9e regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 - - - ----- - - 10. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. Cnristopher Heller Attorney for LRSD Ste Jone~ Att( 'e : NL~f c{ /'. --r-+-'1.-_ v_L_-_--J _Y_ J;v ? .......,.= 1 J lvv. Walker \\ / ttorney for Joshua Intervenors 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight + IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEi\\fED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL FEB 9 1999 OFFICE 0~ DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. Section H.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Districts' agreement leaves this Court to decide whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8111 Cir. 1998). Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement provides: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. (emphasis supplied). In affirming this Court's decision in this case, the Eighth Circuit noted, \"This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections ILE. and ILL., which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties arguments.\" Id. While the Eighth Circuit discussed Section II.F. in the liability context, this Court should consider Section II.F. in determining the appropriate remedy. The State's current method for funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs results in the average school district in the state receiving approximately 106% of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Even so, the State proposes to pay the Districts only 100% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. To pay the districts less than the average amounts to discrimination in violation of Section II.F. Therefore, the Districts' damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. II. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts are further entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the Districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As the Eighth Circuit stated in affirming the grant of summary judgment on these issues, \"the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" Id., 148 F.3d at 968 . The adverse effect on the Districts has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of 2 funds - to which they have been entitled since 1996. The Districts seek prejudgment interest as a matter of law and equity. The award of \"damages\" here is ancillary to the prospective relief of continued compliance by the State with its teacher retirement/medical insurance obligations under the Settlement Agreement. As such, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of prejudgment interest. Cf. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 437 U.S . 678 (1978)(The Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of attorney's fees ancillary to a grant of prospective relief). 1 Courts have awarded prejudgment interest in similar situations. For example, the Eighth Circuit has held that courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants under Title VII, notwithstanding that Title VII does not expressly authorize such awards. Winbush V. Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471, 1482-83 (8th Cir. 1995). Cf Reoppell V. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12 (1 st Cir.), cert. denied 502 U.S. 1004 (1991)(Eleventh Amendment does not bar award of prejudgment interest against state in action under Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act if, under normal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, the district court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on underlying recovery; it was not necessary that the Act expressly sanction prejudgment interest). The equitable award of prejudgment interest is akin to the enhancement of attorneys' fees to compensate for delay in payment. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit in Winbush relied upon the attorneys' fee holding and rationale in Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S . 274 (1989), in determining that prejudgment interest was proper in Title VII cases. The Jenkins holding and rationale also support 1 The \"no interest\" rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 4 78 U.S. 310 (1986) is strictly limited to the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989). 3 the request for prejudgment interest by the Districts in the present case. Indeed, in light of the Supreme Court's decision that adjustment of a fee award to account for delay in awarding fees is appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, \"ot "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1191","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1999-01-14/1999-12-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1191"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 14, 1999 FEB 3 1999 OffLOr OESEGREGA11 MONITORJK6 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, January 14, 1999, immediately following the regular agenda meeting, in the Board Room at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Larry Berkley, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Baker Kurrus Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent Beverly J. Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes Anton Bland, Student Ex-officio, McClellan High School Cheryl Crutcher, Teacher Ex-officio, Jefferson Elementary I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 7: 15p.m., immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. All members of the Board were present. The ex-officio representatives to the Board for January were present\nAnton Bland, student from McClellan High School and Cheryl Crutcher, teacher from Jefferson Elementary. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 14, 1999 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting included the following items: I. Laidlaw Negotiations II. First Reading: Board Policy Review Section B: School Board Governance and Operations Section C: General School Administration ACTION AGENDA: I. II. Laidlaw Negotiations The Board was asked to approve a one-year contract for Laidlaw Transportation to continue to provide student transportation services to the District. Dr. Anderson presented information to the Board summarizing the details of the contract, which results in an increase of $124,458 or a total budget of $8,014,732 for the 1999-2000 school year. Vernon Gross and Ed Streeter, representatives from Laidlaw Transportation Services, were also present. The contact was approved unanimously on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Ms. Magness. First Reading: Board Policy Review - - Sections B \u0026amp; C The Board was asked to approve Sections Band C of the Board Policy manual on first reading so that it may be approved on second reading at the regular meeting in January. This information had been presented for the Board's review in the process of completely updating the policy manual. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the policy manual updates for Sections B and C on first reading, and Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Ms. Magness. APPROVED: I ~Ji J~~ , President ~~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary  ECEIVED MAR 3 o i999 Off\\CEOF ~ l\\ONMONITORlNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, January 28, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6: 10 p.m. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Cheryl Crutcher, teacher from Jefferson Elementary School, and student, Anton Bland from McClellan High School, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of December 17, 1998 and from a special meeting held on January 14, 1999 were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved unanimously on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Kumpuris. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENTS CITATIONS Dr. Carnine expressed appreciation to District employees and others in the community who had aided in disaster relief efforts over the past week. Tornado damage in the southern and eastern parts of Little Rock affected the lives of many families and students in the District. Several school buildings and the Instructional Resource Center were also damaged in the storm. A superintendent's citation was presented to Kay Coleman, counselor at Henderson Jr. High School. The Central Region of the Arkansas School Counselor's Association recently selected Ms. Coleman as Counselor of the Year. Representatives of the McClellan Magnet High School Business Department were recognized for their recent selection as the top high school business program in the nation by the American Vocational Association. Rebecca Ruth Stanley, fourth grade student at Carver Magnet Elementary School, was awarded a superintendent's citation for her recent selection as the Fourth Grade National Winner in the Invent America competition. The United States Patent Model Foundation sponsors the annual competition where students are provided an opportunity to submit their original inventions. Rebecca's project was a hand-held product reader that scans bar codes for visually impaired individuals and provides information about the product. She received a U.S. Savings Bond and a certificate recognizing her achievement. Coach Glenn Eskola and members of the JA Fair football team were recognized for  winning the 1998 SA-football championship. Representatives from Blue Cross/Blue Shield were recognized for their recent donation of time in providing quality training for over 100 school district staff members. Robert Shoptaw, Cal Kellogg, Mal Lehman, and Judy Lohmar provided eight days of training that will aid in the District's efforts to provide quality services to our students and families. The ex-officio representatives to the Board, Cheryl Crutcher, teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, and Anton Bland, student at McClellan High School, were presented with citations in recognition of their service during the month of January. A plaque was presented to the Board of Directors for their recent selection as an Honor Board by the Arkansas School Boards Association. This award is given when a majority of the Board members complete at least 15 hours of inservice training and continuing education. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page 3 B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam was present to award certificates to businesses and individuals who had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Prior to recognizing the partnerships, Ms. Milam introduced Frances Ross from Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. Ms. Ross, along with Dean Henry Hudson, announced the presentation of a Baldwin-Hamilton Studio Piano to the McClellan Community High School music and choral program. Greg Oden, McClellan's Choir Director, was present to accept their generous donation. Newly established partnerships included: KABF Radio Station, represented by Madaline Scalett \u0026amp; Valerie Coffin, in partnership with the Alternative Learning Center, represented by Lloyd Sain Apartment Hunters, represented by Lance \u0026amp; Suzanne Waters, in partnership with Dodd Elementary School, represented by Faith Donovan and Martha Low Center for Effective Parenting, represented by Ida Collier, in partnership with Forest Heights Jr. High School, represented by Gail Pitts and Pulaski Heights Jr. High, represented by Nancy Rousseau ESI Group, Inc., represented by Mara Hartline, in partnership with Central High School, represented by Rudolph Howard Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the partnerships presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell expressed appreciation to Senator John Riggs for his recent donation of excess campaign funds to the schools in his District. Dr. Daugherty thanked Dr. Carnine and other District staff members who contributed their time and energy to disaster relief after the recent tornado. Mr. Kurrus thanked the City of Little Rock Board of Directors for their recent decision to deny issuance of city-backed bonds to finance private school construction. He also expressed appreciation to Judge Buddy Villines for his efforts to prevent public support for private school bonding issues. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page4 Mr. Kurrus displayed a map detailing areas within the city of Little Rock that are outside the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. He suggested that there might be some interest in studying the impact of making the District's boundaries and the city's boundaries one and the same. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS VI. Bob Powers, a parent of students at Fulbright Elementary School, stated concerns regarding the inoperable and irreparable computer laboratory at Fulbright. He stated that the PTA was prepared to contribute up to $4,000 toward installation of new computer equipment. Clementine Kelley, Vice President of the Classroom Teachers Association, asked the Board to honor their obligations under the teacher contract by paying the employees' insurance reimbursements and top-out stipends. ACTION AGENDA A. Second Reading: Board Policy Manual - Sections B \u0026amp; C The Board was asked to approve second reading of policy manual sections B \u0026amp; C, which have been reviewed as part of a complete policy manual revision. These sections were approved on first reading at a special meeting on January 14, 1999. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the policies as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Strategic Plan Update Linda Young introduced Paula Patterson and Diane Vibhaker who were members of the district's strategic planning team. Ms. Patterson and Ms. Vibhaker summarized the revisions to the original strategic plan which was approved by the Board in 1996. The updated plan will guide the District into the 2003 school year. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the strategic plan. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page 5 C. Proposed Guidelines for Staffing Administration, 1999-2000 School Year The Board was provided a summary and review of the present school administrative staffing assignments in all secondary schools. A proposal for assigning principals and assistant principals in the middle schools and high schools for the 1999-2000 school year was also presented. Marian Lacey responded to questions from the Board regarding this proposal and after several Board members expressed concern about approval of staffing decisions at this time, the Board voted unanimously to table this item until after receipt of the MOT Management Study. Dr. Mitchell made the motion to table, seconded by Ms. Magness. D. Proposal for Change of Current Policy for Eighth Grade Promotion A regulation for implementation for the remainder of the 1998-99 school year was presented for the Board's review. No formal vote was required since the accompanying policy had been previously 1 proved. These regulations will allow students who fail English and math at the 8 grade level to make up the credits by attending summer school and an extended day summer program in order to gain the credits required to pass to the 9th grade. This modification is required as the transition process from middle school (6-8) and high school (9-12) grade level reorganization takes place for the 1999-2000 school year. E. Regulations: Promotion and Retention, K-12 The Board was provided with a copy of policy IKE: Promotion and Retention, which was effective July 1996. New administrative regulations to implement this policy were presented to the Board for information only. No formal vote was necessary. F. Communities in Schools The Family/Community Partnerships Committee requested approval for continuation of collaborative efforts with the Communities in Schools initiative in Little Rock. Liz Lucker, who serves on the middle school planning committee, responded to questions from the Board and introduced Dr. Gary Eagleton, who is with the National office of Communities in Schools in Houston, Texas. CIS will provide teachers, staff and administrators an opportunity to focus community resources on student needs in order to ensure success. A resolution of support was presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Magness moved to approve the resolution. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page 6 G. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to graciously accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Otter Creek Elementary Compaq Desk PRO Computer Rebsamen Insurance Company Romine Elementary Clavinova Keyboard Romine PTA Geyer Springs Elementary $100 cash for purchase of books Kiwanis Club of West LR Garland Academy $600 cash for RIF Program Kiwanis Club of Pulaski Heights $200 cash for RIF Program Unitarian Universalist Church Dunbar Magnet Jr. High $1 ,000 cash for landscaping Wal-Mart Foundation $100 cash for teacher incentives Paine Webber $150 cash for security cameras Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Sheffield Nelson $300 cash for security cameras Win Rockefeller $500 cash for boys basketball Dover \u0026amp; Dixon, P.A. program Terry Elementary $1,170 cash for purchase of a Arkansas Federal Credit Unon scanner and camcorder Mann Magnet Jr. High 15 Geteway 2000 Computers Mann Magnet PTSA Bale Elementary Three Symphonic VCR's Bale Elementary PT A Watson Elementary $200 cash to provide apples \u0026amp; Mrs. Katherine Blackmon-Solis oranges to students for Christmas McClellan Community High School Baldwin-Hamilton Studio Piano Trinity Episcopal Cathedral REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page7 H. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell questioned the reason for eliminating the grants writer position and suggested this position was necessary for securing outside funding sources. Dr. Carnine stated that existing staff would be responsible for seeking and securing grants that had been the responsibility of the district grantswriter. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve all personnel recommendations. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. In addition to the formal motion, Ms. Magness requested a monthly grants report so that the Board could remain informed of grants written and secured. I. Financial Reports The monthly financial reports were printed in the agenda and Mark Milhollan was present to respond to questions from the Board. Dr. Daugherty questioned the issue of top out stipends and insurance reimbursements as presented by the CT A representative earlier in this meeting. Mr. Milhollen responded that the payment and reimbursement of these funds was directly tied to the negotiation of the contract agreement and was dependent on the funds that are due the District from the State of Arkansas. Ms. Magness moved to approve the financial reports presented. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs presented a brief review of current activities in the student registration, office. Enrollment/registration is occurring at this time in the local schools and assignment letters are due to be mailed in early March. In addition, Mr. Babbs presented for discussion a revision of the District's policy on acceptance of foreign exchange students. The revised policy will be presented for formal approval at a later date. B. Budget Update The budget update was presented as part of the financial report section of the agenda. No additional information was requested. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page 8 C. Residential Elementary School Contract agreements for the establishment of a residential elementary charter school were provided for the Board's review. Sanford Tollette is to serve as the lead consultant and ECS Planning and Management, Inc. will provide evaluation services. The fees for both of these services are to be paid from the residential planning grant that was received previously by the District. D. Consultant Contract Dr. Carnine discussed provisions of a contract for consultant services, which was entered on December 15, 1998. Educational Performance Evaluation and Management Systems is to review the District's administrative and clerical salary schedules and provide recommendations for restructuring those schedules. The consultants are being paid $6,000 for the study and $750 per day plus expenses. E. SA T-9 Report A report on the Districtwide SAT-9 test scores was to be presented by Dr. Kathy Lease. Due to the recent tornado damage at the Instructional Resource Center, the report will be presented next month. F. Getty Grant: Central High School A brief report regarding receipt of grant funding in the amount of $25,000 from the Getty Foundation was included in the Board's agenda. Mr. Doug Eaton was present to respond to questions regarding a study that was conducted as part of the plan to restore Central High School. Additional information and the completed report will be provided to the Board in late January. In addition, Mr. Eaton responded to questions and provided a brief review of the damage to District property as a result of the recent tornado. It is estimated that there was in excess of $1.3 million in damages to District property. Some of the students enrolled in Metropolitan vocational training programs have been relocated to other sites and the Early Childhood program was relocated to Rockefeller Elementary School. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 28, 1999 Page 9 VIII. DISCIPLINARY Ms. Magness moved to convene an executive session for the purpose of hearing a student reinstatement petition. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Linda Watson presented information regarding Jeremy Shavis who was charged with possession of a weapon (handgun) on February 19, 1998. Jeremy was expelled, and subsequently enrolled in the Juvenile Justice Center's Step-One program. Jeremy is petitioning for reinstatement to a District school. The JJC reported that Jeremy had good record of attendance and behavior, therefore, Dr. Watson recommended reinstatement on strict probation. The Board returned from executive session and reported that no formal action had been taken. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the reinstatement recommendation of Dr. Watson. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. (Dr. Daugherty left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and was not present for the student hearing portion of the agenda.) VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~  J.5\" -1 ~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary Resolution of Endorsement Be it resolved that the Little Rock School District Board of Education endorses the community's initiative in planning for the implementation of communities In Schools throughout the District in order to provide coordinated services to students and their families at the school site. Be it further resolved that the Superintendent and designated staff of the District are authorized to participate with community representatives in the planning efforts for Communities in Schools. The Board expects to be kept informed of progress and the expectations for the district's role and commitment levels will be submitted to the Board in a timely manner for approval. Date er j$ )qqq Katherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 2, 1999 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVE FEB 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESE\u0026amp;REGATION MONITORING I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on December 17, 1998 and January 14, 1999. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Agenda FEB 2 LJ 19J9 OFFICE Cf DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting Freceick D:l.tjass 1817-1895 February 1999 Memo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE To: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent LRSD Board otPirectors From: Junious Bab~ssociate Superintendent Date: 02/23/99 Re: 1-21-99- Tornado/ Storm- Students Effected Attachment 2 In response to information requested at the 2/11 /99 Board Agenda Meeting, building principals were asked to coordinate efforts with respective staff persons in their building to gather information on students effected by the storm. The following information is provided.  Number of your students effected by the storm - High School 44 4t Junior High 58 Elementary 156 258 TOTAL  Number of your students required to relocate (change address) because of the storm - 98 TOTAL High School 13 Junior High 25 Elementary 60  Required to relocate but remained in the same school - 95 TOTAL High School 13 Junior High 24 Elementary 58  Required to withdraw, transferring to another LRSD School- 3 TOTAL High School Q Junior High 1 Elementary ~  Withdrew, transferred to another district -0TOTAL High School Q Junior High Q Elementary Q  Required to have an altered bus stop-18 TOTAL I 1i-Feb-ttl HIGH SCHOOLS I B I CENTRAL 1018 FAIR 603 HALL 532 MCCLELLAN 709 PARKVIEW 471 ALE SR. HIGH 15 ALT. AGENCY 32 ACC SR. HIGH 66 SUB TOTAL 3446 JUNIOR HIGHS CLOVERDALE 554 DUNBAR 433 FOREST HEIGHTS 493 HENDERSON 537 MABELVALE 394 MANN 428 PULASKI HEIGHTS, 464 SOUTHWEST I 358 ALE JR. HIGH 70 SUB TOTAL 3731 I ELEMENTARY BADGETT 197 BALE 268 BASELINE 292 BOOKER 298 BRADY 254 CARVER 302 CHICOT 379 CLOVERDALE 480 DODD 163 FAIR PARK 172 FOREST PARK 188 FRANKLIN 492 FULBRIGHT 291 GARLAND 259 GEYER SPRINGS 264 GIBBS 156 JEFFERSON 230 KING 3o1 MABELVALE 310 MCDERMOTT 280 MEADOWCLIFF 46 MITCHELL 241 OTTERCREEK 169 PULASKI HEIGHTS 242 RIGHTSELL 264 ROCKEFELLER 256 ROMINE 210 TERRY I 265 WAKEFIELD I 325 WASHINGTON I 322 WATSON 450 WESTERN HILLS 1 238 WILLIAMS 240 WILSON I 315 WOODRUFF 214 I SUB TOTAL I 9629 I GRAND TOTAL 16806 I I LRSD ENROLLMENT M -10- 00 / 1n n\u0026lt; _0A I I w I 0 I TOTAL I% BLK I 725 45 1788 57% 111 14 728 83% 168 70 770 69% 92 26 827 86% 404 41 916 51% 2 0 17 88% 63 0 95 33% 15 1 82 80% 1580 197 5223 65% 24 41 619 89% 251 52 736 59% 233 28 754 65% 50 24 611 88% 108 10 512 77% 366 33 827 52% 275 13 752 62% 43 14 415 86% 11 0 81 86% 1361 215 5307 70% 12 0 209 94% 71 29 368 73% 36 17 345 85% 272 33 603 49% 79 '51 390 65% 265 28 595 51% 109 72 560 68% 19 15 514 93% 84 8 255 64% 55 7 234 73% 216 5 409 46% 17 19 528 93% 216 13 520 56% 1 19 279 93% 53 16 333 79% 138 13 307 51% 262 6 498 46% 282 35 674 53%1 126 11 447 69% 156 27 463 61% 52 9 307 ' 80% 6 5 252 96% 193 7 369 46% 180 15 437 55% 7 4 275 96% 182 22 460 56% 66 52 328 64% 224 36 525/ 50% 27 34 386 84% 204 106 6321 51% 19 6 475 95%1 73 3 314 76% 208 141 4621 52% 45 9 369 85%1 49 13 276 77% ' I 4004 765 14398 66% ' 6945 1177 24928 67% Attachment 1 1-0ct-98I I I I B I w I 0 I TOTAL I 'I, BLK 1097 745 30 1872 59% 593 114 13 720 82% 548 176 61 785 70% 750 107 14 871 86% 476 425 25 926 51% 58 9 3 70 83% 6 9 0 15 40% 23 0 0 23 100% 3551 1585 146 5282 67% 547 25 31 603 90% 453 241 61 755 60% 502 247 30 779 64% 531 47 25 603 88% 381 105 14 500 76% 443 365 32 840 53% 477 281 12 770 62% 382 39 10 431 88% 3716 1350 215 5281 70% I 200 16 0 216 93% 261 72 24 3o1 73% 289 32 18 339 85% 303 270 33 606 50% 2'51 85 54 396 65% 304 260 28 592 51% 394 104 '51 555 70% 472 17 15 504 94% 162 80 9 251 65% 165 56 7 228 72% 191 216 8 415 46% 494 15 15 524 94% 289 209 8 506 56% 248 1 19 268 93% 262 53 17 332 79% 1'51 139 16 312 50% 229 267 6 502 46% 366 295 37 698 52% 293 108 9 410 71% 283 165 24 472 60% 260 58 5 323 80% 2261 9 3 238 95% 165 191 7 363 45% 226 203 15 444 50% 260 9 4 273 95% 237 161 23 421 56% 215 71 59 345 62% 268 224 29 5211 51% 341 23 26 390 87% 335 185 102\n6221 54% 470 23 11 494 95% 230 78 51 3131 73% 252 2121 111 4751 53% 329 451 8 382 86% 215 51 13 279 77% I I 9648 4003 7151 14366 67% I I I I 16877 6901 1120 24898 67% Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting February 25, 1999 STUDENT ENROLLMENT Attachment 1 compares the official October 1, 1998 enrollment submitted to the State Department of Education with the enrollment on the AS400 as of February 19, 1999. TORNADO I STORM - STUDENT EFFECTED Attachment 2 is a summary of information collected from school principals on the number of students effected by the 1/21/99 tornado. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS I ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS A report is being compiled that will be provided to neighborhood association presidents and building principals. This document will help initiate and/or maintain ongoing communications as we enter the '99-2000 school year, neighborhood schools and our Revised Desegregation Education Plan. LlffLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Memo To: Board of Directors From: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Through: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Date: February 25, 1999 Re: Desegregation Update The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of February.  Page 1 IV D - MAR 3 0 1999 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR! G MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, February 25, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Mike Kurnpuris Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Janice Moore, teacher at Mabelvale Elementary School, and Amanda Abrams, student at Parkview Magnet High School, were also present. Prior to further action, Mr. Berkley asked the audience to observe a moment of silence in honor of Devin Cuningkin, a McClellan High School student who passed away on Wednesday, February 24, 1999. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of January 28, 1999 were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Kurnpuris, seconded by Ms. Strickland. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENTS CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Elizabeth McLeod, student at Parkview Arts Magnet School. Elizabeth designed the District's 1998 Christmas card, which was mailed to local businesses and legislators. The artwork was framed for display in the administration building. Marion Woods introduced a group of individuals who recently completed the Mahlon Martin Professional Development program for the University of Arkansas. Those employees are: Carolyn Adkins, Marcia Bailey (deceased), Reva Blacknall, Pat Boykin, Ryan Burgess, Ora Crenshaw, Shannon Dorris, Stephanie Fields, Kim Grinage, Cassandra Harding, Betty Harrison, Piccola Hill, Linda Kinard, Pam Persons, Thomas Reinhart, Myrtis Saunders, Darian Smith, De/win Smith, Cleon Staggers, and Daisy Tims. Dr. Carnine read a proclamation honoring individuals in the District who volunteered in the clean-up and relief efforts following the January tornadoes. A copy of the proclamation naming all employees honored is attached to these minutes. The ex-officio representatives to the Board, Janice Moore, teacher at Mabelvale Elementary School, and Amanda Abrams, student at Parkview Magnet High School, were presented with citations in recognition of their service during the month of February. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and other individuals who had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Newly established partnerships included: UALR, Department of Physics and Astronomy, represented by Charles Hemann, in partnership with Washington Math/Science Magnet School, represented by Gwen Ziegler Tony Roma's Restaurant, represented by Jeff Patterson, in partnership with Terry Elementary School, represented by Janis Walker Arkansas Federal Credit Union, represented by Michelle Mosley, in partnership with Terry Elementary School, represented by Janis Walker REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 3 New Partnerships (continued) East-Harding Construction Company, represented by Bob East, in partnership with Pulaski Heights Jr. High School, represented by Nancy Rousseau Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the partnerships presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell complimented the students and staff at Washington Science Magnet School for their recent science fair. She served as a judge for this year's fair and remarked that the students did an outstanding job in their presentations. Mr. Kumpuris noted the recent newspaper article giving the District credit for making important progress during the current year. He thanked those who participated in the writing of the article. Mr. Kurrus reported his excitement in encouraging people to visit the District's schools. He reported that he is proud to endorse the quality education programs that are being implemented in our schools. Mr. Berkley stated that he had judged science fairs at Central and at Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Schools, noting that the projects prepared by the students were very impressive. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Clinton Kreie, ninth grade student at Mabelvale Jr. High School, asked the Board to provide more computers for the classrooms at his school. He noted that there was no internet access in the classrooms, and the only access available to students was on four computers in the library, where there was usually a waiting list for use. Eleanor Coleman, representing the Classroom Teachers' Association, expressed concern regarding the recent decision of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for construction of a private school in west Little Rock. She asked the Board to take a formal position of opposition to this action. She also noted continuing concerns regarding the distribution of teachers' pay increases and reimbursements for insurance premium payments. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page4 In addition, Ms. Coleman asked the board to adopt a resolution in support of Read Across America, which takes place on Dr. Seuss' birthday, the first week of March. She invited Board members and District administrators to read to students at Forest Park on March 2, 1999. Report: Middle School Implementation Ms. Magness made a motion to reorder the agenda to allow the Middle School Report to commence prior to the action section of the meeting. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion to reorder the agenda, and it carried unanimously. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, reported that Bonnie Lesley had met with all secondary principals regarding the curriculum revisions that will be in place for the 1999-2000 school year. She also reported that: 1) Dick Hurley completed the staffing of positions for sixth and ninth grade teachers who will transition to new schools\n2) Linda Young was continuing to hold regular meetings of the Middle School Steering Committee\n3) Ray Gillespie, Brady Gadberry and Victor Anderson were developing the extracurricular budgets\nand 4) a two-day retreat would be held before spring break to develop the timelines for insuring a smooth middle school transition. In addition, representatives from each of the current junior high schools reported briefly on their individual school efforts to ensure that students would have positive end-of-year experiences and a successful beginning for the 1999-2000 school year. Among the many activities noted were dances for current year 8th and 9th graders, field days, picnics, spring music festivals, 8th and 9th grade commencement or \"rite of passage\" ceremonies. There will be school tours for 6th grade students entering new junior high schools and field trips for students who will be 9th graders in high schools next year. New faculty members have been invited to attend staff meetings at the buildings where they will be assigned next year and staff development activities will continue to take place between now and the end of the school year. Ms. Lacey responded to questions from the Board regarding placement of special education students, block scheduling, the implementation of \"teaming\" at the middle schools, and provisions for the appropriate funding for implementation. Ms. Magness asked Dr. Carnine to insure that the transition to middle schools remains a priority over other initiatives currently being implemented. The Board recessed briefly prior to the action portion of the agenda and returned at 7:30 p.m. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 5 VI. ACTION AGENDA A. Property Acquisition for Stephens School Doug Eaton was present to discuss the process for securing three parcels of land that will be used for parking at the new Stephens Elementary School. The property belongs to the State of Arkansas due to non-payment of property taxes for a period in excess of ten years\nthe State has agreed to donate the properties to the school district through the issuance of a donation deed. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the necessary actions to secure these properties. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. National Parks Service, Central High School Grant A proposal has been submitted to the National Parks Service for maintenance and repair work to the main entrance of Central High School. If the $10,000 grant is approved, the District will be required to match the grant in the amount of approximately $11,500. The Board was asked to approve this submission for funding. Mr. Kumpuris moved to approve the request for funding. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Property Donation: Wilson Elementary School (Asher Avenue) The City of Little Rock requested the LRSD to sell to the city the property immediately adjacent to the south side of Wilson Elementary School to allow widening of Asher A venue and Colonel Glenn Road. The Arkansas Highway Department will pay $1,365 for the property and an additional $1,385 for a temporary construction easement. Since this road improvement project will benefit Wilson Elementary School by providing better traffic control and sidewalk  access on the south side of the school, the administration recommended the Board's approval. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the donation of property and Ms. Strickland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Arkansas Scholars Debbie Milam presented a proposal from the Arkansas Business and Education Alliance and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce to offer the Arkansas Scholars program to students. This program encourages academic achievement of high school students and provides support for academic excellence. Participating employers agree to recognize the Arkansas Scholars designation on students' transcripts and to consider it as a factor when making post-high school employment decisions. Ms. Strickland moved to approve participation in the program. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 6 E. Board Policy Review - First Reading, Sections B \u0026amp; H The Board reviewed Sections B and H of the District's policy manual and unanimously approved those policies on first reading on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Ms. Strickland. Section B, School Board Governance and Operations, is completed with the approval of these additional policies. Additional policies for Section H, Negotiations, will be presented at a later date. F. Resolution in Support of the City of Little Rock The City of Little Rock Board of Directors recently adopted a formal resolution in support of the Little Rock School District. Board members proposed a reciprocal resolution in support of the City of Little Rock. A motion to table adoption of this resolution to the end of the meeting was unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Kurrus and seconded by Ms. Magness. This was to allow Dr. Mitchell to incorporate alternative wording of the resolution. A copy of the revised resolution is attached to these minutes. It was approved unanimously on a motion by Ms. Strickland, seconded by Mr. Kumpuris. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Mr. Berkley asked for a motion to suspend the rules to allow action on items not previously discussed as part of the action agenda. Dr. Mitchell made the motion, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The vote was unanimous. The following three action items were added by this suspension of the rules. G. Arkansas Better Chance Grant Proposal The Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, offers funding to assist in identification and educational service to children ages birth to five years. This funding is available through Arkansas Act 212 of 1991 and, if approved, would provide $233,992 in continuous funding to the District. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the application for these funds. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Resolution: Statement of Opposition to Arkansas Development Finance Authority's Decision to Issue Tax-Free Bonds for Private School Construction The Arkansas Development Finance Authority recently voted to approve the issuance of tax-free bonds to finance construction of a private school in west Little Rock. Since this action is expected to adversely impact the overall revenue REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 7 available for public education in the city, the Board requested a resolution in opposition to the ADF A's decision. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to adopt the resolution read by Mr. Berkley. Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes. I. Read Across America Eleanor Coleman, teacher at Forest Park Elementary School, presented a resolution for the Board's approval proclaiming March 2, 1999 as Read Across America Day. This event is held in conjunction with the celebration of Dr. Seuss' birthday. Ms. Magness made the motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. J. Revised Salary Schedules Mr. Milhollen prepared revised salary schedules in response to a request from the Board. This revision is based on the renegotiated salary adjustment in the amount of 4.25%, rather than the previously agreed amount of 4.5% increases for all staff members. The Board had several questions regarding the schedules, and expressed several concerns regarding cabinet level positions and the salary increases proposed for the individuals on the administrative schedule. Mr. Kurrus expressed a desire to wait until the salary study is completed before approving the increases not required by the District's settlement agreement with teachers. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the salary schedules presented for all employees, except those administrators who are at the cabinet level (ranges 7 and 8 on the 12 month certified administrators schedule). After additional discussion, Ms. Magness made a motion to table action on this item\nMs. Strickland seconded the motion. The motion to table failed by a vote of2-5. Dr. Mitchell requested that the administration develop standardized criteria for cabinet level employees' salaries. The results of the salary study are expected in mid-April or May, and should be used to develop this criteria. The original motion was repeated for clarification, and was seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion to approve the salary schedules excluding the cabinet level steps, carried 6-1, with Mr. Kurrus casting the 'no' vote. K. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Ms. Magness made a motion to graciously accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 8 DONATIONS SCHOOUDEP ARTMENT ITEM LRSD 17 SIG-E Lan Network Cards HP Jet Direct Card V1TEQ Benchmark Model 15A UPS IBM 486/66 Computer Pulaski Heights Jr. High Two Dell 486 Computers and Monitors McClellan Community High School $250 Cash for purchase of a statistic computer for Lady Lions basketball team Dodd Elementary $300 cash for beautification of campus $250 cash Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Snacks for use as student incentives Pulaski Heights Elementary $8,000 cash to purchase computers Franklin Incentive School One Sears brand VCR One Penney's brand VCR Western Hills Elementary Double Faced Pylon Sign Piano Fair Park Elementary Laminating Machine Forest Park Elementary $3,798 cash to purchase computers Four IBM 86 computers with monitors McClellan Community School $200 cash for Teachers of Tomorrow activities $ I 00 cash for Teachers of Tomorrow activities DONOR US Department of Agriculture Mr. Henry Lee, owner of Vino's US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Edward Sherrill, DDS Sam's Club Suzanne and Lance Waters, Apartment Hunters, Inc. Sam's Club #8104 Pulaski Heights Elementary PTA Carolyn Gray Ann Firestone Western Hills PTA Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Richard Strasburg Fair Park PT A Forest Park PT A Mr. Hardy A. Th.rower Regions Financial Corp. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page9 SCHOOLJDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary School $758 cash Senator John Riggs (surplus campaign funds) Geyer Springs Elementary Ten reams of assorted colored BFI duplicating paper Wakefield Elementary Five AT\u0026amp;T Computers with Lucent Technologies monitors and keyboards K. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. There were no questions and Mr. Kurnpuris moved to accept the personnel changes. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. L. Financial Reports Mark Milhollan provided a revised budget report for the Board's review and approval. On September 10, 1998, the Board approved the 1998-99 budget, which included $2,066.261 in deferred items. Approval of this revision would allow the schools to spend up to 90% of their budget for operations. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the revised budget. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The monthly financial reports were printed in the agenda, and Mr. Milhollen responded to additional questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the reports as printed in the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs provided a brief overview of the reports printed in the agenda for the Board's review. He also reported that the District's biracial committee would hold a retreat on Saturday, March 13, 1999 to help define their role in the upcoming school year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 25, 1999 Page 10 B. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen reported that the budget process for the 1999-2000 school year had begun\nbudget managers have received their packets of materials to complete the budget projection process. He also reported that a budget work session for Board members would be scheduled as soon as additional information on the state's settlement payment to the District is received. C. SAT-9 Results Report Kathy Lease and Ed Williams from the Planning, Research and Evaluation office provided a brief overview of the District's overall SAT-9 test results. The 'mobility factor' was discussed in detail as one of the reasons for individual students' scores to be lower overall than students who are enrolled in a school over a period of years. PRE specialists will be meeting with principals, brokers, curriculum specialists and the campus leadership teams to determine how to best improve student achievement scores at the local school level. D. Procurement Report Darrell Paradis and Gail Hester from the District's procurement department provided a brief review of the District's guidelines for purchasing technological equipment, including computers, printers, file servers and networking equipment. John Ruffins, Lucy Lyon and Dr. Victor Anderson participated in the technology committee meetings where the District's procedures for establishing the requirements or standards for purchasing this equipment were developed. It was reported that approximately $2 million was spent in fiscal 1997-98 on computers and equipment. Mr. Ruffins reported that $368,000 was to be distributed to Arkansas school districts through Southwestern Bell as a result of the \"e-rate\" agreement. VIl. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved to adjourn at 10: 15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried unanimously. ~\\)\\~ APPROVED:J-.\n).$ -14 L~~J ~id~~ I Mi ~tary RESOLUTION Whereas, the future success of our community depends, in large part, on the willingness and ability of the city's community, government and business leaders to work together toward common goals\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District has maintained a positive and mutually beneficial relationship with the City of Little Rock\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District recognizes the support that the members of the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has provided to public education and, specifically, to the Little Rock School District\nand Whereas, the elected members of the Little Rock School District Board of Education wish to acknowledge and reciprocate the Little Rock Board of Directors support\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District Board of Education expresses its intent to collaborate with the City of Little Rock Board of Directors in positive future endeavors for the benefit of the citizens of Little Rock. :M~~,Q 5:arry Berkley President \\~~~~ Katherine Mitchell Secretary RESOLUTION Whereas, the Little Rock School District is a party to the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement\" in which the three Pulaski County School Districts, representatives of the teachers in the three districts, representatives of the African-American students in the three districts, and the State of Arkansas agreed to promote desegregation of the public schools in Pulaski County, Arkansas, and Whereas, the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock Chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance, the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Governor of Arkansas supported the Settlement Agreement, and Whereas, the Little Rock School District is committed to providing a high quality education to its students in a desegregated public school system\nand Whereas, the State of Arkansas expressed in the Settlement Agreement its commitment to the principle that the Arkansas Department of Education and the Pulaski County School Districts \"should work cooperatively to promote the desegregation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State,\" and Whereas, the State of Arkansas agreed in the Settlement Agreement that it would \"enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate,\" and Whereas, the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education, agreed in the Settlement Agreement not to \"knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation\" and to submit to the Arkansas General Assembly legislation to repeal any laws which impede desegregation, and Whereas, a primary purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to require all of the parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case to work toward the desegregation of the public schools in Pulaski County, Arkansas and toward the transition of the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District from dual school systems to unitary school systems\nand Whereas, the Arkansas General Assembly created the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to perform \"essential public functions\" and, Whereas, the Arkansas Development Finance Authority has voted conditionally to issue bonds on behalf of Pulaski Academy, a private educational institution, and Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors believes that State involvement in the financing of private schools violates the language and the intent of the Settlement Agreement and will have an adverse effect upon the Little Rock School District's desegregation efforts, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors opposes the issuance of bonds by the Arkansas by the Arkansas Development Finance Authority on behalf of Pulaski Academy. Dated this 25th day of February, 1999. Larry B\nkie\nPresidynt ~, /?~\u0026amp;ILL Katherine Mitchell, Secretary Resolution WHEREAS, the Little Rock School Board stands firmly committed to promoting reading as the catalyst for our students' future academic success, their preparation for America's jobs of the future, and their ability to compete in a global economy\nand WHEREAS, the Arkansas Education Association has provided significant leadership in the area of community involvement in the education of our youth, grounded in the principle that educational investment is key to the community's well being and long-term quality of life\nand WHEREAS, \"Read Across America,\" a national celebration of Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2nd, promotes reading and adult involvement in the education of our community's students\nTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Little Rock School Board calls on the patrons of the Little Rock School District to assure that every child is in a safe place reading together with a caring adult on the evening of March 2nd, 1999\nAND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this body enthusiastically endorses\" Read Across America\" and recommits our school district to engage in programs and activities to make America's children the best readers in the world. Date Larry dent Little Rock Schoo ard MAR 3 0 1999 rm:EOf -anw,nt11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 11, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, March 11, 1999, immediately following the regular agenda meeting, in the Board Room at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Katherine Mitchell, Secretary of the Board, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Baker Kurrus Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent Beverly J. Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m., immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. Five members of the Board were present\nMr. Berkley and Ms. Strickland were absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called to take action on an adjustment to the student calendar for the current school year. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 11, 1999 Page2 ACTION AGENDA: I. Calendar Adjustment The Board was asked to approve a revision to the current school year student calendar. School was cancelled on January 8, 1999 due to inclement weather. Under the teachers' contract, normally this day would be made up at the end of the school year. Doing so would require students to attend school on Tuesday, June 1, the day after the Memorial Day holiday. An agreement with the CT A was made to hold the make up day on Friday, March 26, 1999, which had previously been a non-attendance day for students and a record keeping day for teachers. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve March 26 as the make-up day. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. APPROVED: 3JS-7J ~ Berkie~, President \u0026lt;t:1m~ ~atherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD l\\1EETING March 25, 1999 RECEIVE MAY 11 1999\" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, March 25, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. l\\1EMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus l\\1EMBERS ABSENT: Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6:08 and Mr. Kumpuris arrived at 6: 17 p.m. Ms. Magness was absent. Ex-officio teacher representative to the Board, Geraldine McCarther from McDermott Elementary School, was also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of February 25, and from a special meeting on March 11, were presented for Board approval. Mr. Kurrus requested one change to the minutes of the February 25th meeting. Noting that correction, the minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Strickland, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page2 m. PRESENTATIONS: A. STUDENT PERFORMANCE Students from McDermott Elementary School demonstrated a sign language interpretation to recorded music. Rachel Morse, a McDermott parent and volunteer, teaches the students signing skills as a second language. Principal Virginia Ashley, PT A President Susie James, and several McDermott parents were also present. B. SUPERINTENDENTS CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Rudolph l{oward, Central High School principal, and asked him to introduce representatives of this year's Tiger basketball team. The Central High Tigers won the 1998-99 state basketball championship. Mr. Howard introduced Reginald Talley and Marcus Bland, members of the team, who were also applauded for their academic achievements. Faith Donovan, principal at Dodd Elementary School, was introduced and congratulated for her school's recent receipt of a $50,000 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program grant. These funds will allow continuation of the reading and writing program at Dodd and will provide additional technology for student use. Mike Kumpuris and Sue Strickland were presented with certificates from the Arkansas School Boards Association for their completion of mandatory inservice trairung. Mr. Kumpuris completed six hours, and Ms. Strickland completed 15 hours of school board member training. Geraldine McCarther, ex-officio teacher representative from McDermott Elementary School, was presented with a citation in recognition of her service to the Board for the month of March. C. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and other individuals who had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Newly established partnerships included: Otter Creek Elementary School, represented by Janis Tucker and Caroline Bryant, in partnership with The Armstrong Team, Realtors, represented by Terry Hill and Teresa Hicks and with Truman Ball \u0026amp; Associates, Realtors, which did not have a representative present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page 3 IV. V. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the partnerships presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. Debbie Milam introduced members of the VIPS Board, who announced the April 20, 1999 Evening for the Stars and presented Board members with invitations to the celebration. Ms. Milam also announced recruitment of new businesses for participation in this year's summer Vital Link program. C. BOARD ME1\\1BERS Mr. Kumpuris reported on his attendance at the Western Hills spaghetti supper prior to the Board meeting. The food was provided by Macaroni Grill, Western Hills' partner in education. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Vic Anderson introduced Odies Wilson, president of the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, and Linda Recio, representative of MGT of America. Dr. Recio provided a copy of the executive summary of the MGT Study to Board members and presented a brief overview of the report. Board members were asked to review the report and Dr. Recio offered to return to the Board for further discussion at a later date. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Milton Washington addressed the issue of substitute teacher pay and asked the Board to consider increasing the daily rate of pay for substitute teachers. He stated that it had been nine years since substitute teachers had received a pay increase. VI. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review - Sections B \u0026amp; H Sections B and H of the Board policy manual were presented for approval on second reading. These sections had been approved on first reading at the February Board meeting. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve section B, School Board Governance and Operations, on second reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ~.. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to table action on Section H, Negotiations, for additional discussion and clarification. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page4 B. Board Policy Review - Section G Section G, Personnel, of the policy manual was presented for approval on first reading. Board members voiced several concerns with individual policies included in this section, therefore, Mr. Kurrus moved to table. Mr. Kurnpuris seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. Board Policy Review - Desegregation Compliance Policies related to compliance with the desegregation and education plan revisions were presented for review and approval on first reading. Policies JMA, (Scholarships) and ACEE (Equitable Maintenance and Repair of Facilities) were approved unanimously on first reading on a motion by Mr. Kurnpuris, seconded by Ms. Strickland. D. Board Policy Review - Equitable Student Assignment Policy ACBB, Equitable Student Assignment, was presented for approval on first reading. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the policy. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. Central High School Energy Grant A grant proposal in the amount of $315,650 was submitted by the Facility Services Department to the Arkansas Economic Development Commission for energy conservation improvements at Central High School. If approved, the grant will allow development of a contract to retrofit the classroom and hallway lighting at Central High School. Mr. Kurnpuris moved to approve the submission. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Residential Elementary Charter School The residential elementary alternative charter school committee asked for the Board to consider a proposal for further development of the establishment of this facility. Site selection for the school and development of a job description for the director of the program are the next steps in timely implementation of the committee's recommended timeline. The school would openin October 2000 in a school that is currently serving District students, but that is under-enrolled. Third, fourth and fifth grade students would-comprise the initial student body, with approximately 40 students per grade level. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to authorize the committee to move forward in selecting a site and advertising for a director. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley requested a periodic update on the progress of implementation of the program. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page 5 G. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to graciously accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Kurnpuris. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Pulaski Heights Jr. High 14 personal computers U.S. Department of w/monito:5, 3 laptop computers, Transportation, Federal l fax machine, 5 printers, l Highway Administration Visioneer Paperport, l Logitech Scanner Rockefeller Elementary School $1,000 cash for purchase of Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. George Bartzokis Accelerated Reader M. L. King Magnet School $5,000 in gift certificates Office Depot Jefferson Elementary $100 cash for purchase of KA TV-Channel 7 Accelerated Reader Program Geyer Springs Elementary $20 cash per month to Early Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. William Rose- Childhood program for classroom Heim supplies . Dodd Elementary Sofa for Teachers' Lounge Mrs. LouNet Richett Three park benches Dodd PTA Mann Magnet Jr. High $1,200 cash for drill team fund Scott \u0026amp; Kathy Anderson/ Anderson Engineering Consultants, Inc. Metropolitan/ Accelerated Learning One MR-333 C Multimedia PC Crews \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Center One HP 720 Color Printer for job coordinator Alternative Learning Center - One metal fold-out table Dr. Taib_i Kahler/Kahler Apperson Communications K. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the listed personnel changes. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page 6 L. Financial Reports The monthly financial reports were printed in the agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present to respond to questions from the Board. He reported that a revised annual budget would be published in late April for the Board's review and approval. D.r Mitchell made a motion to approve the financial reports. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was pr:inted in the agenda and the Board requested no additional information. B. Budget Update As reported previously, the annual budget revision will be provided for review in April. C. SAT-9 Results Report Bonnie Lesley provided a written report of proposed new regulations on credit-byexamination, which would allow alternative methods of earning credits for promotion at the middle school and high school levels. Dr. Mitchell expressed concern regarding the limited number of students who would benefit from the implementation. Dr. Lesley agreed to re-word sections of the regulations that were easily misunderstood. D. Stephens Timeline Sadie Mitchell presented the proposed timeline for opening the new Stephens School in August 2000. Advertising and hiring a building principal and naming the members of the Campus Leadership Team should be completed during March 1999. Detailed steps in the process were printed in the Board's agenda. E. Title IX Compliance Report Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics, provided a written report on the District's Title IX compliance. He provided the results of a recent survey of District athletic participation and stated that we are in compliance with the federal guidelines. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 25, 1999 Page? VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board convened an executive session on a motion by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. The session was for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. They returned from executive session at 9:05 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Strickland moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~-\n)_J -C!Cf ~J-e,1,,,d!~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary \"fl Certificate Completion ' . ,. ,,,pur1s t\"tf~I::   ''.J~ m.,~ 11 i\nrr ~~. \". ' In accordance with Act 767 of 1987\nhas completed six hours of in-servic~ itudy, sp.\nri.sored by the Arkansas Sch'ooLBoards 'Association,  , i -~ .~Y \": in the school laws of Arkansas and the'duties and responsibilites of Arkansas school board members . . By: Z,1,, 70#fU# '1f!. \"t'Ut,,U!t4,, ASBA Executive Director* Date Feb. 1999 ARKANSAS ScuooL BoARDS Assoc1ATION h. ereby acknowledges . Sue Strickland of the Little Rock School Board as an Honor Board Member and certifies the completion of 15 hours ' l\\ . of mandatory and voluntary school board training. Z,,i., 7~ ~- 1/ut,UIU March 15, 1999 ASBA Executive Director Date LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 6, 1999 ECEIV ,D MA y 11 19C1 g_ OFFICE OF \u0026amp;GREGATl81 MONITOR The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the agenda meeting on Tuesday, April 6, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nDr. Daugherty was absent. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board convened an executive session on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. The session was for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. They returned from executive session at 10:25 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 6, 1999 Page2 ACTION: Dr. Carnine asked the Board to approve salary increases for cabinet level employees at the rate of3% for the 1997-98 school year, and 4.25% for the current year, with the exception of Dick Hurley, Suellen Vann, Kathy Lease, and Bonnie Lesley. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the increases. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Strickland moved to adjourn at 10:27 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and carried unanimously. APPROVED: '-) -~\n)_  q~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 10, 1999 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: MAY 1 I 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORi~\n,. I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on March 25 and April 6, 1999. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, b-- Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, May 27, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Baker Kurrus Judy Magness RECEIVED MEMBERS ABSENT: ll! I! 1 3 1999 OfflCEOF OE~EGREGATION MONITORING Mike Kumpuris ALSO PRESENT: I. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Kumpuris was absent. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Alicia Whitlow, teacher at Mitchell Elementary School, and Diwanna Baskins, student at Hall High School, were also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of April 22, and from a special meeting on May 13, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Ms. Strickland. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Newly established partnerships include: Accelerated Learning Center - represented by Dr. J J Lacey, Jr. and Alicia Finch, in partnership with Crews and Associates, represented by Rush Harding Dodd Elementary, represented by Martha Lowe, in partnership with Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association, represented by Charles Tanner and Lona Wright Pulaski Heights Junior High School, represented by Renee Dickins, in partnership with Domino's Pizza, represented by Kahrston Barkley Western Hills Elementary School, represented by Scott Morgan, in partnership with Westwood Neighborhood Association Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the new partnerships. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. SUPERINTENDENTS CITATIONS Dr. Carnine recognized twelve students who were recognized by the Duke Talent Search Program. The students are: Anna Miller, Sunny Patel, Joel Simon, Abigail Wheeler, and Ke Xu, all from Dunbar Magnet\nWilliam Barlow and Braden Cato from Forest Heights\nMelissa Allen from Mabelvale Jr. High\nand Tyler Simpson, Emily Soderberg, Raksha Soora, and John Spivey, all from Mann Magnet. Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics, presented athletic jackets to the Superintendent, Associate Superintendents and Board members. These jackets were donated anonymously by a supporter of the District's athletic program. Elizabeth Dale and Mary Given, employees of the District's special needs transportation department, were presented with certificates of appreciation for their prompt action in evacuating students from a bus which caught fire shortly after the students were removed. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page3 One student from each of the five high schools was selected to display a painting in the administration building. These students were awarded checks in the amount of $200.00 for their artwork: Felix Rettberg, Hall High exchange student\nCorinne Lantier, Parkview\nJeremy Gaston, McClellan\nElizabeth Holland, Central\nand Deon Robinson, Fair. Brandon Smith, fifth grade student from Otter Creek Elementary School, was recognized for placing second in the countywide spelling bee. He has placed first or second each year for the past four years in this competition. Dr. Carnine recognized Ross Glotzbach and Maribeth Mock who were selected as 1999 Presidential Scholars. This award is granted annually to one male and one female student in each state. It is especially noteworthy that this year's winners from Arkansas were both from Central High School. District teachers and administrators who participated in the Arkansas Quality Award Training program were recognized for their efforts to implement new programs and improve student achievement. They were: Linda Brown, Parkview\nDonna Hall, Geyer Springs\nFrances Cawthon, School Services\nMabel Donaldson, Gifted Programs\nCarol Green, ACC\nDennis Glasgow, Math \u0026amp; Science\nPatty Kohler, Exceptional Children\nMarian Lacey, School Services\nKathy Lease, PRE\nLiz Lucker, New Futures\nand Marie McNeal, Social Studies. Six teachers and four students from the Little Rock School District were selected this year as Stephens Award winners. These individuals receive cash awards which are to be spent on future educational expenses. The students were: Thomas Deere and Ross Glotzbach, Central\nBrandy Gray, McClellan\nand Paul Mendoza, Parkview. The teachers were: Mary Becker and Nancy Wilson, Central\nRobert Palmer, Fair\nChristine Green, Hall\nPatricia Bilbrey, McClellan\nand Debbie Howell, Parkview. Tiffany Gunn, sophomore student from McClellan High School, was recently featured by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for her successes in track and field competition. She was recognized as the Gatorade Athlete of the Year in 1998, Arkansas Girls Track and Field Athlete of the Year, was featured in Sports Illustrated and plans to participate in the 100 Olympics. In addition to her athletic abilities, Tiffany maintains a 4.0 grade point average. Rene Carson recently received the 1998 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching in Secondary Education, which provides a $7,500 National Science Foundation grant. Neka Mabry, junior from Central High School, recently won the Speedo Southeast Junior Swimming Championship Award at a competition in St. Louis. She has also qualified for the 1999 National Championships to be held in Long Island. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page4 Pat Kirwin, teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High School, developed a theme unit called Prepare. As part of this unit, students developed brochures about emergency preparedness. The local chapter of the American Red Cross will use these publications for public distribution. Betty Tinkle, Community Service Liaison for the Baseline Road Wal-Mart store, was present to recognize the Wal-Mart Teachers of the Year from the LRSD, Leeta Robertson from Pulaski Heights Elementary, and Sandra Mims from Chicot Elementary. Six students from Central High won first place awards at the Arkansas Speech and Communication Association state tournament. The students were: Clarke Tucker, Chris Wheat, Sarah Tucker, Candice Smith, Josh Ratliff, and David Martinous. Parkview journalism students recently received recognition at the Arkansas Scholastic Press Association conference for the 1998 Pegasus Magazine. Pam Hobbs, journalism advisor at Parkview, was present and received a citation on behalf of the students who participated in the project. Carver fifth grade students created a web site titled The Marvels and Mistakes of Medicine Through the Ages as part of the national Thinkquest competition, which promotes the development of web pages by and for children. The finalists in the 1999 competition are: Brittany Bailey, Amanda Compadre, Sarasijhaa Desikan, Matthew Guiterrez, Hannah Hooker, and Darrell Scott. Suellen DiMassimo and Letitia White, Carver teachers, were the Thinkquest sponsors. There were a number of presentations and recognitions for the career-technical program at Metropolitan. First place and gold medal winners from the statewide VICA competition will travel to the national competition in Kansas City in June. The students and their instructors are noted below: AREA INSTRUCTOR AWARD/STUDENT Diesel Tech Steve Averitt Gold Medal - Jared Averitt Silver Medal - Darren Smith TV Production Bruce Miles Gold Medal - John Sanchez Culinary Arts Robin Barnum 1st Place - Don Strickland l '1 Place - Kit Williams 2nd Place - Lindsey Byrd Commercial Art Darrell Berry 1st Place - Phuong Nguyen Cosmetology Linda Soderling 2nd place - Tabitha Pickett 3rd place - Dianna Donahue Auto Body J. C. Skipper 1st place - Sean Hill 2nd place - Jeremie Givan 1 '1 place - John Williams 3rd place - LaDell Lauson REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page 5 AREA CAD Medical Professions Cosmetology INSTRUCTOR Carl Grummer Laurie Prather Scottie Burchett AW ARD/STUDENT I st place - Dwayne Williams B. J. McKenzie HeruyWakwe 2nd place - Jayson Medlin 3rd place - Michael Smith Gold Medal - Maquinta Davis, Susan Gibson, JaDonna Gooding, Tyrnberly Garrett, and Charisa Mason Silver Medal- Kristina Ard, Jennifer Dobbs, Traquilla Thomas and Jennifer Majors Bronze - Kristina Ard 2nd place - Janeele Davis 2nd place - Tabitha Pickett I st place - Sherry Flemmons 3rd place - Dianna Donahue In addition, Statesman's Awards went to students as follows: Cosmetology I Cosmetology II Auto Body Medical Professions Tamara Chunn, India Ledbetter, Sheena Phillips, Cheree Carter, Candace Williams, Janeele Davis and LaVonne Alexander Dianna Donahue, Eleana Earnest, Tabitha Pickett, Shana Brady, and Katarra Giles LaDell Lauson and Jerry Kramer Jennifer Dobbs and Kristina Ard Metro students who serve as VICA statewide officers are: Jennifer Dobbs, Vice President of Health Occupations\nTamara Chunn, State Parliamentarian\nLaDawn Murphy, State Reporter. The ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of May, Alicia Whitlow, teacher from Mitchell Elementary School, and Diwanna Baskins, student from Hall High School, were presented certificates of appreciation for their service on the Board. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell congratulated the J. A. Fair track team for winning the state championship this year. She also thanked the District's teachers and other staff for making this a very good school year. Ms. Magness also thanked employees for a great year. She recognized staff members for going the extra mile to make significant progress to benefit our students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page6 V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Richard Davis, counselor from Dunbar Magnet Junior High School, announced that he was retiring after serving 25 years with the District. He asked the Board to review the personnel system to develop ways to reward employees who have good attendance. He noted that usage of substitute teachers has increased steadily over the years and that in some instances up to 25% of the faculty are absent each day. He noted that he was retiring with 175 sick days to his credit and that employees with good attendance should be recognized. Shelly Wilkins Robinson, a Central High School parent, addressed the Board regarding the recent cheerleader tryouts. She felt that the method for judging and calculating the scores for the cheerleaders selected was not carried out in a fair and impartial manner. Cornelius Roberts, a teacher from Forest Heights Junior High School, expressed concerns about standards of expectations for students. He feels that students are not being motivated to achieve and succeed. VI. ACTION AGENDA Ms. Strickland made a motion to suspend the rules to reorder the agenda to allow Personnel as the first action item of the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. In addition, the administration presented recommendations for three principal reassignments. Those employees and the recommended assignments are: Sharon Brooks, currently principal at Rightsell Academy, recommended for reassignment to principal of the new Stephens School Cassandra Norman, currently principal at Cloverdale Jr. High, recommended for reassignment to principal of J. A. Fair High School Vernon Smith, currently principal at Forest Heights Jr. High, recommended for reassignment to principal of Hall High School REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page7 On the question of the principal's assignments, Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the recommendations. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. On the remainder of the Personnel issues as printed in the monthly agenda, Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the noted changes. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. B. Board Policy Review - Section E, Policy FF School Operations- Section E of the Board policy manual, and Policy FF - Naming Facilities, were presented for review and approval on second reading. These policies were approved on first reading at the April meeting of the Board. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve these policies on second reading, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. C. Board Policy Review - Policy JRAA The District's policy related to maintenance of student discipline records was presented for the Board's first reading. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the policy as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Textbook Adoption: K-12 Mathematics, Physics and Science Dennis Glasgow presented recommendations for the adoption of textbooks for K- 12 mathematics, physics, geology and space science textbooks. He presented information regarding the changes in texts as required by the National Science Foundation CPMSA grant. Individuals who served on the committee for selection of the textbooks were present at the meeting and were recognized for their service. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the selected textbooks, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. Textbook Adoption: Career and Technical Education Carol Green presented a listing of textbooks selected by a committee of District teachers and administrators for the Career and Technical Education program. Individuals who served on the committee were thanked for their assistance in the selection process. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the committee's recommendations. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page 8 F. School Name Change The Campus Leadership Team at Williams Magnet School requested Board approval to change the name of their school to Williams Traditional Magnet School. Their request included supporting opinion that the name change would more accurately reflect the theme and mission of the school. This change would become effective with the 1999-2000 school year. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the request for a name change. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. G. Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook Revisions The Board was provided with information that included the recommended changes to the current elementary and secondary student rights and responsibilities handbooks. In addition, a separate handbook was developed for the middle schools which incorporates appropriate information from each of the other handbooks. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the revisions to the handbooks. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Proposed Sale: Eastside Junior High School Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules to consider this item since it had not previously been submitted for the Board's review. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Bell-Corley Investments, Inc., made an offer to purchase the Eastside Junior High School building for $230,000 with a 120-day closing stipulation. They will attempt to secure funding and complete an evaluation of the property during this time. The Board was asked to approve the offer and authorize the administration to accept the terms of the sale. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the proposal for sale of this property. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. I. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried unanimously. The list of donated items was read by Ms. Magness and Mr. Kurrus and are noted in the following chart. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page9 DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM Dodd Elementary Ryobi Weedeater Sofa, rocking chair, rugs, coffee table, end table, lamps, and miscellaneous items for a parent waiting area 20 dry eraser boards, two microphones, graduation caps for 4-year old program grads, PE equipment and bulletin board materials Baseline Elementary Trophy case for lobby area Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Sweatshirts for the soccer team Mulch for school grounds $50 for Dunbar landscape fund Hall High $2,700 to Hall Athletic Department for weight training equipment Otter Creek Pentium PC, monitor and keyboard for the school library VIPS Vital Link Program $ 898.68 cash $7,250 cash Williams Magnet School $6,904.23 cash for purchasing classroom and special project materials $1,432.68 for purchasing a riding lawnmower DONOR Dodd PTA Baseline PTA Dr. Jimmy Tucker, Ark. Sports Medicine David Lands, West Tree Service William J. Rhodes, WJR Service Company Elbert Crawford, Ace Sports Management, LLC IFS Mayor Jim Dailey ( excess campaign funds) City of Little Rock, Mayor's Christmas Tree Fund Williams Magnet PTA REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page 10 J. Financial Reports The Board was asked to approve the financial reports as printed in the monthly agenda. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the financial reports as submitted, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Junious Babbs provided a brief update on the compliance reports that have been developed as a result of the revised desegregation and education plan. He reported that Terrence Roberts and Stephen Ross, desegregation consultants, will be meeting with District staff members as inservice training on the compliance issues. Dr. Mitchell requested a report, by school, of the number of students who are assigned from the attendance zones, how many have requested to be grandfathered to their current school, and how many attendance zone students are on the waiting lists. Mr. Babbs agreed to provide this information for the Board's review. Also, Dr. Mitchell questioned whether or not additional pre-kindergarten classes might be available in the elementary schools once the sixth grade students are moved to the middle Gunior high) schools. B. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen was present but no additional budget information was requested from the Board. C. National Science Foundation Update Vanessa Cleaver, Project Director for the National Science Foundation Grant, presented a copy of the project's annual report. She briefly updated the Board on the goals, objectives and accomplishments of the mathematics and science initiative. Board members were asked to review the written report and to contact Ms. Cleaver or Dennis Glasgow if there are additional questions. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 27, 1999 Page 11 VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None VIIl. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 8:48 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kurrus and carried unanimously. APPROVED: lo d4:-q1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED JUN 1 0 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING June 9, 1999 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on May 13 and April 22, 1999. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, ? Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 RECEI ED JUN 1 0 1999 OfflCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORIMQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, April 22, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell arrived at 8:25 p.m. Ex-officio teacher representative to the Board, Carletta Burchett from Meadowcliff Elementary School, was also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of March 25, and from a special meeting on April 6, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Strickland, seconded by Mr. Kumpuris. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page2 ID. PRESENTATIONS: A. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and other individuals who had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Newly established partnerships included: Cloverdale Junior High, represented by Cassandra Norman and Liz Lucker, in partnership with St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, represented by Melonese C.la rke and Scott Mosley McClellan High School, represented by Jodie Carter, Marian Baldwin and Donna Larkin, in partnership with StaftMark, represented by Sandy Ashabranner Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the new partnerships. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. SUPERINTENDENTS CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Lenora Murry, teacher at Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School, who coached the MathCounts team. She introduced Toby Huang, Daniel Liu, Ke Xu, and Ben Wells who all participated on the team that was first in the state. They will travel to Washington D.C. on May 14 to compete in the national competition. The College Board recently named Phyllis Caruth, teacher at Central High School, as an outstanding educator in the nation. Ms. Caruth was one of 14 teachers to receive this recognition from our region. She was chosen for her design of a statistics class at Central and for the success of her students on the AP exams. Kyle Phillips, eighth grade student from Henderson Magnet Jr. High School, recently received the 1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Award. This award honors young people across America who participate in community service activities. Dr. Carnine introduced Brandy Romandia, ninth grade student at Southwest Junior High School. Brandy holds the Women's Wheelchair Division title in basketball for the State of Arkansas. She is a member of the Junior Rolling Razorback Basketball Team, which won the national title in February. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page3 Superintendent Carnine introduced members of the Mock Trial Team from Central High School. Students present at the meeting included Ann Glotzback, William Hahn, Ben Lincoln, Sara Luppen, Chaney McBryde, Ross Noland, and Joanna Young. Also a member of the team, but not present, was Andrew Yancey. They were coached by Melissa Colburn and Sam Stueart and won the state championship earlier this month. They will compete in the national competition in St. Louis in early May. Denna Lambert, a senior at Hall High School, is the 1999 recipient of the Ron Brown Scholarship and the Clementine Mathis Rouse scholarship. Denna will travel to Sicily in June to participate in a Sister Cities' conference as part of her involvement in the Mayor's Youth Council. Andrew Herden, a senior at Parkview Magnet High School, recently received the Congress-Bundestag Award. Receipt of this award will entitle Andrew to attend receptions and meetings with government officials in Germany and in the U.S. Andrew will travel to Berlin, will live with a German family, and will attend school in Germany. Representatives of the Jefferson Elementary School PTA were recognized for their receipt of the Outstanding PTA Unit for the State of Arkansas at the recent statewide PTA convention in Bentonville. Jefferson PTA members went door-to-door in their attendance zone distributing materials in an effort to recruit more students to Jefferson. , Mark Cain, Executive Director of Southwest Hospital, was present to receive recognition for his cooperation in allowing Metropolitan Career and Technical Education Students in the Medical Professions classes to continue their training at the hospital after the school was damaged in the January tornado. This experience gave the students an opportunity to receive hands-on training in an actual clinical setting. Seven groups of District employees (126 individuals) volunteered in this years' \"Paint Your Heart Out\" campaign. They painted seven houses in the eastern and southern areas of Little Rock. Team leaders were recognized for their efforts in coordinating the effort: Kay Gunter, Liz Lucker, Carol Green, Suellen Vann, Ann Blaylock, Carolyn Grey, and Fran Moseley. Dan Farley, Executive Director of the Arkansas School Boards Association, was in attendance to present an award to Judy Magness, Region Eight Director of the ASBA. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page4 IV. The ex-officio representative to the Board for the month of April, Carletta Burchett from Meadowcliff Elementary School, was presented a certificate of appreciation for her service on the Board. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty commented briefly regarding the recent vote of \"no confidence\" taken by LR police officers against Chief Louis Caudell. He stated that children should be taught that it is safe to go to police officers for help when they feel threatened or unsafe. Ms. Magness remarked that 6 of7 Board Members had attended the recent National School Boards Association meeting in San Francisco. The sessions were said to be very informational and she said they brought back information that would make them better board members. Mr. Berkley expressed appreciation to Debbie Milam and the VIPS office staff for the Evening for the Stars recognition ceremony that was held last night. CITIZENS COMMITTEES State Senator John A. Riggs, IV reported to the Board on education-related issues from the 1999 legislative session. He provided a written summary and briefly reviewed the topics of importance to the LRSD. In addition, Hugh Earnest and Mizhan Rahman, members of the city planning commission, made a brief presentation on the City's Smart Growth initiative. Copies of the recommendations that were made as a part of this study were presented to the Board for review. Several of the recommendations will impact the future of the LRSD and the children who live in our city. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Delores Armstrong, a counselor at Fair High School, addressed the Board regarding the recent reassignment of the Fair principal to an administrative position within the District. She stated several times that the principal had been \"excommunicated\" because of a letter-writing campaign of the Building Coordinating Committee (BCC). She asked the Board to direct the administration to reconsider the decision. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page 5 VI. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review-Section H: Negotiations Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to table action on this section of the policy manual. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Mr. Gadberry submitted a memorandum to the Board prior to the meeting explaining that the negotiations policy would be revised and reviewed with individual Board members prior to being placed back on the agenda for action. B. Board Policy Review - ACBB: Equitable Student Assignment Policy ACBB, Equitable Student Assignment, was submitted to the Board for approval on second reading. The policy was reviewed and approved on first reading at the March meeting of the Board. Ms. Magness moved to approve the policy on second reading. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Board Policy Review - Desegregation Compliance Policies JAM - Scholarships, and ACBE - Equitable Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, were presented for approval on second reading. First reading approval was granted at the March 1999 meeting of the Board. Ms. Strickland made a  motion to approve these policies on second reading. Ms. Magness seconded the\nmotion and it carried unanimously. D. Board Policy Review - Section E School Operations - Section E of the Board policy manual was presented for review and approval on first reading. Ms. Strickland moved to approve Section E on first reading, Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. Dr. Daugherty left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and returned at 8: 10 p.m .. E. Board Policy Review - Section G Personnel Policies - Section G was presented for review and approval on first reading. Several of the Board members expressed reservations regarding approval of the policies as a group\nDr. Hurley and Mr. Gadberry responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to table this section until such time as this group of policies can be reviewed and rewritten with an emphasis on making the policies more effective. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page 6 F. Middle School Handbook, 1999-2000 The revisions to the secondary student rights and responsibilities handbook that will make it appropriate for the new Middle School reorganization were presented to the Board. Dr. Watson was not available to report on the handbook revisions, therefore Mr. Kurrus made a motion to table action for the May meeting. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Eastside Lease: Quapaw Historical Society The Quapaw Historical Society requested a temporary lease arrangement with the District for space on the lower level (basement) of the vacant Eastside School building. This space will be used -to store historical construction materials as related to tornado damaged homes in the Quapaw area. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the temporary lease. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. H. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Dodd Elementary $150 cash for 4 lh grade RIF West L.R. Kiwanis Club program Jefferson Elementary HP Deskjet 500 printer Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. David Duke McDermott Elementary $2,841.22 cash for purchase of McDermott PTA two Dell network computers Rockefeller Elementary $1,000 cash for purchase of Sue Vinson Accelerated Reading Program Terry Elementary GE refrigerator/freezer for use in Terry PTA faculty lounge Central High Basketball uniforms \u0026amp; supplies Don Crenshaw/Nike Grassroots REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page 7 K. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. Mr. Kumpuris moved to approve the listed personnel changes. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. L. Financial Reports The monthly financial reports were printed in the agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present to respond to questions from the Board. In addition, Don Smith, representative of the Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas accounting firm, was present to present the annual audit report. Mr. Milhollen reported that the revised annual budget would be presented to the Board f~r approval in early May. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to accept the annual financial report from Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the monthly financial reports as printed in the agenda. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Magness left the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. Dr. Mitchell arrived at 8:25 p.m. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Mr. Berkley asked for the Board to move for a suspension of the rules to consider a , personnel item not included on the agenda. Ms. Strickland so moved, Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion and it carried 5 -1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the no vote. Ms. Strickland made a motion to extend the superintendent's contract for one additional year. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the no vote. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to provide a salary increase for the superintendent in the amount of 10%, with 5% to the salary and 5% into his pension fund. Dr. Daugherty questioned the amount of the increase compared to the salary of other employees, and Mr. Kurrus asked for clarification on the effective date of the new salary. Mr. Kumpuris amended his motion to include September 1, 1998 as the effective date of the new salary. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the no vote. Dr. Daugherty left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page 8 VI. REPORT AGENDA Special Report - Crisis Management Plan Dr. Carnine asked Dr. Anderson to provide a briefreview of the District's emergency procedures manual in response to the recent acts of school violence across the country. Our district annually reviews the procedures to be followed in the event of natural disaster or other emergency conditions. In the event that a crisis occurs at an individual school, the district's crisis response team consisting of nurses and counselors can be mobilized within minutes. Secondary schools have teams of students (SAP teams) who are trained to respond to other students' emotional needs . in cases of death or injury to their peers. Dr. Anderson recommended a method of improving our response teams would be to dedicate one counselor at each secondary school to the organization and operation of the SAP program. A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs provided a briefreview of the information printed in the agenda. In addition, he reported that his staff is continuing to provide student registration information to the public through neighborhood organizations and through other activities across the city. He reported that he is continuing to work on the development of compliance policies under the desegregation and education plan with the assistance of consultants Stephen Ross and Terrence Roberts. B. Budget Update Dr. Anderson reported that he and Mr. Milhollen are meeting with individual building principals to develop their budget proposals for the 1999-2000 school year. The Superintendent's Cabinet is reviewing the recommendations and establishing the priorities for spending decisions relating to the transitional costs of moving to the Middle School reorganization. Some of the expenditures for funding include instructional costs related to the K-3 initiative, alternative learning program costs, athletics, procurement department costs for moving and staffing, security considerations, and facilities modifications to accommodate student needs in instructional programs such as science laboratories. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 22, 1999 Page9 VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kumpuris moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kurrus and carried unanimously. APPROVED: 5--d7 -15 Katherine Mitchell, Secretary RECEl\\fED JUN J O 1999 Oiflf..f~ amJRDII LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 13, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the agenda meeting on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Mike Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Five members of the Board were present\nMr, Kumpuris and Ms. Magness were absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the meeting contained the following: A. Approval of Revised Budget B. School Bus Purchases C. Summer School Principal Assignments SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 13, 1999 Page2 ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Approval of Revised Budget Mark Milhollen presented a brief review of the revised 1998-99 annual budget. Changes in the amount of revenue received from the Arkansas Department of Education were a part of this version of the budget. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the budget presented. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. School Bus Purchases Dr. Anderson provided a review of a proposal to purchase eight additional buses for the Districts special needs transportation fleet. Some of the older buses have been in use for up to nine years. He reported that Mr. Milhollen had worked out a lease/ purchase financing plan that would spread the payments over a seven year period. The total cost is approximately $450,000, or $74,000 annually. The board was not required to take a vote on this issue as it is a part of the overall operations budget. C. Summer School Principal Assignments The Superintendent recommended the following individuals for summer school principal assignments: SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT Ada Keown, Principal Brady Elementary Leslie Taylor, Assistant Baseline Elementary Eleanor Cox, Principal Geyer Springs Elementary Donna Hall, Principal Mary Lawson, Principal Rightsell Elementary Joyce Willingham, Assistant ' Washington Elementary Faye Reynolds, Principal Tom Voegele, Principal Southwest Junior High Phyllis Anderson, Assistant Hall High School Ken Moore, Principal Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the summer school assignments, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 13, 1999 Page 3 VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved to adjourn at 6:35 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Strickland and carried unanimously. APPROVED: $ -\n).. 7 -C,\u0026lt;J Katherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 10, 1999 ECEIVED JUL 13 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately preceding the agenda meeting on Thursday, June 10, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Larry Berkley, called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Five members of the Board were present at 5:00\n Dr. Daugherty arrived at 5:15 p.m.\nMs. Magness was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a special presentation on the Communities in Schools initiative. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 10, 1999 Page2 III. ACTION AGENDA A. Communities in Schools Former Board member, Senator John Riggs, IV, is serving as the chairman of the CIS initiative and provided an overview of the mission and objectives of the program. The CIS Board asked for the District's commitment of support for implementation in five District schools in the 1999-2000 school year\nForest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Cloverdale Middle Schools, the Alternative Learning Center, and Hall High School. The Board had previously adopted a resolution in support of this project and was asked to state, once again, a formal motion in favor of the CIS initiative. Ann Camps, Director of the CIS Arkansas Program, asked the Board to allow them the opportunity to prove that this program can and will have a tremendous impact on the well-being of our students. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to support the implementation of the Communities in Schools project for the 1999- 2000 school year. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved to adjourn at 5:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Strickland and carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~ . J\u0026lt;./,-CfC/ RECEI ED AU 1999 lllflCEOF NMO ITORI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, June 24, 1999, in the Boardroom of the Administration pBrueisliddiendg., 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Sue Strickland MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Sue Strickland, Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell arrived at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Berkley was absent. Ex-officio representative to the Board, Rebecca Kessinger, teacher at Otter Creek Elementary School, was also present. Prior to the order of business, Ms. Strickland asked the Board to observe a moment of silence in honor of Frank Martin, who recently suffered a heart attack at the LRSD offices. He is recuperating in the hospital and is in serious condition. REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of May 27, and from a special meeting on June 10, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Kumpuris, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. ill. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine recognized students who recently participated in the Odyssey of the Mind competition. Students from Dunbar Magnet placed first in division II competition in the statewide contest. Those students are: Melissa Clark, Kate Donahue, Kristine Phillips, Lex Sullivan, Whitney Tidwell, Ben Wells and Blake Wicker. Students from Mann Magnet tied with Springdale for first place in division III at the statewide competitions. Those students are: Melissa Bandy, Ted Fleming, Sarah Hundley, Molly McGowan, Frederick McKindra, Rachel Seidenschnur, and Sara Beth Wyatt. Coach Kimmie Cleveland and the J. A. Fair High School track team were recognized for their efforts in winning the state track championships for the 1998-99 school year. The Superintendent presented a certificate from the Arkansas Schools Boards Association to Mike Kumpuris. Mr. Kumpuris has completed 15 hours of school board member training and, therefore, earned Honor Board Member status. A certificate of appreciation was presented to Rebecca Kessinger, teacher ex officio representative to the Board, from Otter Creek Elementary School. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that had recently established working partnerships with District schools. Newly established partnerships include: Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center - represented by Michael Peterson, Carol Green and Laurie Prather, in partnership with Southwest Regional Medical Center, represented by Diane Ficker REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page3 V. VI. LRSD Lyceum Scholar's High School, represented by Marian Lacey (for Walter Marsha/eek), in partnership with Pulaski Bank, represented by Vicki Smith and Kevin Scribner Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the new partnerships. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty recognized Mary Smith who is retiring from the LRSD after serving for over thirty years. He stated his appreciation for her and other retiring employees who served our students for so many years. Mr. Kurrus expressed appreciation to students, parents, teachers and staff members who contributed to the success of the 1998-99 school year. Ms. Magness thanked Ms. Strickland for hosting a brunch for the Board members. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Gwen Porter-Cole addressed the Board regarding the cost of summer school and the fact that no transportation is provided for summer school students. She also stated objection to the monetary fines that are assessed for students being absent or late to class. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review - JRAA Policy JRAA, Student Discipline Records, was approved on first reading at the May 27, 1999, meeting of the Board. The superintendent presented the policy for approval on second reading. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the policy. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Board Policy Review - ACG Policy ACG was presented for approval on first reading. The policy will ensure compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan as well as the Civil Rights Law of 1964, as amended. The Regulations were presented with the policy as additional information, but required no approving action on the part of the Board. Ms. Magness moved to approve the policy on first reading, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page4 C. Board Policy Review - Section I Section I - Instruction was presented for review and approval on first reading. Dr. Bonnie Lesley responded to questions from the Board regarding the implementation of these policies. Policy IGC was discussed and it was suggested that one amendment be made to that policy prior to second reading for final approval. Mr. Kurnpuris moved to approve Section I policies with the correction to IGC noted. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Scholarship Regulations and Funding The Board approved the Scholarship policy (JAM) in April 1999. Although the Board is not required to approve the regulations which accompany this policy, the administration requested approval of a budget resolution to fund the Scholarship program beginning with a $125,000 contribution for the 1998-99 school year and at least $100,000 contributed to the fund annually through the year 2013. These scholarship funds will be distributed annually to students who attended racially identifiable elementary schools. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the resolution in support of the Scholarship program budget. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. E. Proposal for the Improvement of Grounds Maintenance Dr. Victor Anderson presented a proposal for the improvement of grounds maintenance and for the enhancement of the appearance of school buildings. The request calls for the addition of five three-man teams to share responsibility for grounds maintenance with existing custodial personnel at the school buildings. The request requires an additional $175,000 annually for the Facilities Services budget, but a one-time expenditure of $72,500 for equipment. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the request for additional funds. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The Board recessed briefly and returned at 7:35 p.m. F. Board Meeting Dates, 1999-2000 School Year The proposed schedule ofregular meeting dates for the 1999-2000 school year was presented for the Board's approval. The second and fourth Thursday of each month are designated by Board policy as regular meeting dates with the only exceptions occurring in November and December in order to avoid conflict with the holidays. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the schedule as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Class Size Reduction Allocation REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page 5 A motion to suspend the rules was made by Ms. Magness, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and unanimously approved. The suspension was required in order to take action on a proposal to approve the District's application for class-size reduction funds available through the Arkansas Department of Education. Dr. Bonnie Lesley responded to questions from the Board, and noted that the District's total allocation is $664,833. These funds will allow a reduction in class size at grades K-3 in schools serving high-needs students. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the application for submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried unanimously. The list of donations was read by Dr. Mitchell and items are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Jefferson Elementary CD Player Jefferson PT A Geyer Springs Elementary $ I 50 cash to purchase end-of-year Geyer Springs PT A materials and supplies for s\"' \u0026amp; 6th grade classes $ I 00 cash for end-of-year awards and West Little Rock Kiwanis Club certificates for 5th \u0026amp; 6,. grade classes Dodd Elementary Packard Bell 586 Pentium PC and HP Charles W. Burks Deskjet 820 Printer Fulbright Elementary Five Dynex computers to be used for Hollis and Ann Carter record keeping and word processing Henderson Magnet Junior High GBC Larninator Henderson PT A Mabelvale Elementary Popcorn Popper and accessories Mabelvale PTA VIPS (for Teacher of the Year Banquet) $300 cash Entergy $1,000 cash Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark $1 ,000 cash Southwestern Bell Raz.orback Weekend- four tickets to Nations Bank Fayetteville basketball game, 2 rooms at Clarion Hotel and an autographed basketball $75 gift certificate to St Paschual's Moses, Nosari and Tucker Real Estate, Kitchen Inc. $100 cash ReliantArkla $250 gift certificate from Southwest Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods Ad Airlines Agency REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page6 I. Personnel The Board was asked to approve the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. In addition, a suspension of the rules was requested in order to approve administrative assignments at four District schools. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the items as printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell moved to suspend the rules in order to consider additional personnel assignments. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent recommended reassignment of current District principals to new buildings for the 1999-2000 school year. They are: Elouise Hudson, currently assistant principal at J. A. Fair High School, recommended for reassignment to principal of Forest Heights Junior High School David Patterson, currently assistant principal at Cloverdale Jr. High School, recommended for reassignment to principal of Cloverdale Jr. High School Lillie Scull, currently principal at Mitchell Elementary School, recommended for reassignment to principal of Romine Elementary School In addition, Dr. Carnine asked the Board to approve a stipend for Sharon Brooks, currently principal at Rightsell Academy, who will assume the position of principal at Stephens Elementary School when it opens in the fall of 2000. Ms. Brooks will be required to assume transitional activities for the opening of Stephens while performing her normal duties at Rightsell. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the new principal assignments and the payment of a stipend to Ms. Brooks. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. J. Financial Reports The Board was asked to approve the financial reports as printed in the monthly agenda. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the financial reports as submitted, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page? Suspension of the Rules Ms. Magness moved to suspend the rules for consideration of an item not listed in the agenda. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to authorize the President of the Board to appoint a Board member to monitor the negotiations sessions between the District's team and the LR Classroom Teachers Association. It was noted that this monitor would serve as an observer, not as an active participant in the negotiations sessions. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Twenty-first Century Community Learning Center Grant Update Marian Baldwin, Director of the Community School Program at McClellan High School, was present to provide a brief overview of the 21st Century Learning Center. She introduced Lee Marks, a student at McClellan, who prepared a PowerPoint slide show which enhanced her report, and Mark Perry, from New Futures, who helped to compile the Community School annual report. Ms. Baldwin reported that the program served 587 students and 815 adults during the current school term through community education classes, medical clinics and access to mental health services. B. Desegregation Update Brady Gadberry provided the monthly Desegregation Update. He noted that enrollment estimates are up by approximately 100 students over last years' figures. The Board had requested a report of students assigned to their attendance zone schools in comparison with those who had requested to be \"grandfathered\" into their currently assigned school. That report was provided by Mr. Babbs as a part of the printed agenda. C. Budget Update Dr. Carnine briefly discussed the budget process that will be used during the next several months in preparation for the compilation of the 1999-2000 school year budget submission. Additional budget information will be provided to the Board as updated information becomes available. REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page 8 D. Pre-K Literacy Program Plan Dr. Lesley reviewed the final draft of the Pre-K through 3rd grade Literacy Program Plan and her report was printed in the Board's agenda. E. Title I Review/Update Leon Adams presented an oral report of Title I issues and changes in federal funding allocations. $4.2 million was allocated for Title programs this year\nwe have not been notified of the amount of funding for the 1999-2000 term. He responded to questions from the Board regarding the method for determining how the funds are distributed among the schools and addressed issues regarding expenditures of funds. F. Four-Year-Old Program Pat Price provided a review of the District's Early Childhood Program and presented a comparative analysis of the Early Prevention of School Failure assessment results for the 1998-99 school year. A graph comparing our Four-Year-Old students' EPSF results with results of students in HIPPY, other pre-kindergarten programs was reviewed and discussed. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None VIII. DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS Ms. Magness made a motion for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting personnel hearings on disciplinary actions. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The first hearing convened at 9:30 p.m. Food Service employee Candy Gilliam requested a hearing before the Board as an appeal to termination proceedings. Ms. Gilliam was accused of making threats, both verbal and physical, to another employee at Henderson Junior High School. She had previously been transferred from Mitchell Elementary to Garland Elementary, and then on to Henderson Jr. High due to \"disorderly and disruptive behavior.\" In the specific incident, which resulted in the termination recommendation, Ms. Gilliam had pulled a knife on another employee in the cafeteria area/kitchen at Henderson Jr. High School. REGULAR BOARD MEETING June 24, 1999 Page 9 Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources, presented the administration's position and provided the Board with written documentation of Ms. Gilliams' employment history. Ms. Gilliam was provided an opportunity to address the Board and she responded to questions regarding the evidence presented by Dr. Hurley. Witnesses to the specific incident included Dorothy Underwood, Mabel Harden, and Bobby Jones. After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to uphold the termination of Candy Gilliam as recommended by the administration. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 4-0-2, with Dr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell abstaining from the vote. In the second employee hearing, Ricky Wilson, Plant Services/Maintenance employee, was represented by Attorney Clayton Blackstock. Dr. Hurley presented the administration's position that Mr. Wilson's termination was a result of excessive use of sick and personal leave and poor attendance. According to the information presented by Doug Eaton, Mr. Wilson had been absent 189 hours over and above the amount allowed by the District's sick and annuaVvacation leave benefits. Mr. Blacks\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_1317","title":"Proceedings: ''Teacher Retirement and Teacher Health Insurance''","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":["1999-01-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","School board members","School management and organization","Teachers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Teacher Retirement and Teacher Health Insurance''"],"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/1317"],"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":["318 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1375","title":"Proceedings: ''Teacher Retirement and Teacher Health Insurance''","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":["1999-01-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","School administrators","School management and organization","Teachers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Teacher Retirement and Teacher Health Insurance''"],"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/1375"],"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":["326 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_3","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding","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":["1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding"],"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/3"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis 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_14","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding","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":["1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding"],"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/14"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis 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_254","title":"Attendance zones and 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School administrators","School attendance","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Attendance zones and 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/254"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["maps (documents)","correspondence","clippings (information artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n i B 4N T 3N 2 2N N 1N 1S 2S T 3S 4S N 5S 6S 7S T 8S 1 9S s 10S 8W 7'N R 14 W 6W 5W R 4W 13 W 2W 1W 2E R 3E 12 Senior High School Attendance Zones PAGIS 4E 5E 6E W 7E 8E R 10E 11 WElementary School Attendance ZonesI ? 4N T 3N 2 I 11 Henderson* f I 1 2N N 1N I i f' M Forest\n t-Heights,' 7 Ws P(j$ki Hg|-,ts IS 2S T 3S 1 4S N 5S 6S 7S T 8S 1 9S s 10S 8'\u0026lt;N 7^ SISSfl o%I Bl t . -?.A' * W z \n 6W 5W R 14 W Junior High School Attendance Zones L I 3I giM- 3i sw x' ' i ^1 I I  I IB ^Is Bt a' w  bS t Swthwest.. b I \u0026gt; 6 m I S flI w8^ MabelvGe  w rafc B - Ateki i rtef^ts  A... ,j a t5mbqr_^ **' Mabelvole Sj^ll f p L\n-\" * i 31 4W I R 3W 13 W 2W 1W 1E 2E R 3E 4E 12 W C Cloverdale  Dunbar Forest Heights  Henderson MabeWe iSa Putaski Heights Southwest PAGiS 6E \u0026amp; 7E 8E 9E tt R 11 W 1 Elementary Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT OPTIONS I MAGNET SCHOOLS 1 STUDENT ASSIGNED TO AREA OR ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS I -No Seat Available- Placed on Waiting List PARENTS REQUEST TRANSFERS I I NEAREST SCHOOL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS INCENTIVE SCHOOLS I M-to-M (black students only) 1 ELEMENTARY DESEGREGATION Jxmior High Schools High Schools Elementary Schools tiunior High Schools I High Schools I Black I Non Black Booker B.T.Washington Carver Gibbs Martin L. King Rockefeller Williams Dunbar Henderson Mann Central McClellan Parkview Crystal Hill (black students only) Martin L. King Romine William J. Clinton (black students only) Baker (black students only) Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Arnold Drive Baker Cato Jacksonville J.T. Robinson Lawson Murrell Taylor Oakbrooke Oak Grove Pine Forest Pinewood Sherwood Sylvan Hills Tolleson Warren Dupree Jacksonville NS Robinson Sylvan Hills Northwood Oakgrove Jacksonville North Pulaski Oak Grove Robinson Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts Terry Badgett Bale Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Fair Park Geyer Spgs Meadowcliff Romine Wakefield Watson Wilson Woodruff 10/25/94Memo To: From: Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District Gene Subject: Building Capacities Date: November 17, 1998 Please supply the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the student capacity to be used by the Student Assignment Office for the 1999-2000 school year for each of the LRSD schools. This request was prompted by the conflicting numbers we have received regarding building capacities. The real and official capacity information will allow us to study the new student assignment plan with more accuracy.IX. 09 * : Wednesday, October 14 Wednesday, October 14 Thursday, October 15 Thursday October 15 You have received your proposed neighborhood school zones for future years. Ths meetings outlined below are designed for you to attend if you have questions or comments about the new neighborhood zones. These meetings will be held in the school auditoriums. 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street J. A. Fair High School 13420 David 0. Dodd McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs Rd. Central High School 1500 Park St. If you can't attend a meeting and would like to ask questions or provide comments, please send them in writing to: Junious Babbs Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Memo To: From: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Julie Wiedower, Interim Director of Student Registrati Through: Junious Ba^^Associate Superintendent Date: 02/11/99 Re: New Attendance Zones The following information is provided in response to your inquiry about the company v0nich provided consulting services to the District for the re-drawing of school attendance zones. The name of the company is Education Logistics, Inc., or Edulog as we refer to it. The company is headquartered in Missoula. Montana and is affiliated with Laidlaw Transportation. They were one of three providers who made presentations to LRSD staff during the fall of 1997. The contract with Edulog was executed in December 1997, and the total system cost was $16,750. The services Edulog provided included\n Software packages providing geocoding, boundary planning/redistricting, and boundary optimization  Geographic data preparation / map building Installation of software  On site training of LRSD personnel If additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me.RECEIVfip CF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCT 6 1999 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: icbabbs@,stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us October 5, 1999 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication regarding possible areas that may warrant attention in the 99-2000 LRSD Student Assignment process, a meeting is being scheduled with appropriate staff persons to review projected enrollment / capacity compositions and possible strategies that may be enacted. You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, received JUN 7 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: icbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us June 2, 2000 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The following information is in response to your May 18^'^ letter. In an effort to bring you up-to- date on the planned direction of the Little Rock School District's focus and commitment at Rockefeller Elementary School. As we review the Revised Desegregation Education Plan and Student Registration process respective areas are noted that will help provide background information, pertinent data, and identification of the process being enacted. When reviewing Rockefeller P4 placement for the '99-00 school year a proposed interim solution was enacted to provide the option for all four year olds attending Rockefeller to enter kindergarten and remain through completion of the fifth (5) grade. Also, remember that kindergarten seats during the '99-00 school year were allowed to remain unfilled to permit further recruitment of white students despite 26 African American kindergarten students in the attendance zone waiting to be admitted. A review of information from earlier conversation recognized the following pertinent items:  \"Within our revised plan, first priority is provided to the Attendance Zone student\".  \"LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\".  \"School records will reflect our agreement in Rockefeller's recruitment efforts, student retention and overall program success\nhowever, items listed within our new plan are not withstanding\". Follow-up from the small ad hoc committee to investigate options was addressed in LRSD compliance meetings. Enhanced recruitment efforts from respective shadow zones were again promoted within stipulation magnets (Booker and Carver). Present Interdistrict magnet composition numbers (60/40 Black/White) continue to restrict student placement at Washington. Expansion of LRSD P4 programs have also provided additional student options. White P4 students assigned at Interdistrict schools have been permitted to continue in kindergarten rather than be reassigned to their attendance zone school. While P4 students at Rockefeller were given the same option six of these students (4 white, 2 black) requested assignment to a magnet or their attendance zone school (2 - Booker, 1 - Carver, 1- King, 1 - Mitchell, 1 - Terry). LRSD Plans for Rockefeller Elementary School for 2000-2001: 1. The total enrollment and overall racial balance forecast for Rockefeller in 2000-01. Total enrollment as of5/30/99 for the 2000-01 Is 459 students - 60% Black. 2. The class structure planned for Rockefeller, infants through grade, for the coming school year, and how this structure differs from that of 1998-99 and 1999-2000 CLASS Pl P2 P3 P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 1998-99 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1999-00 1______ r 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 2000-01 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 3. The number of students and racial balance anticipated for each class in 2000-2001.Class K Pl P2 P3 P4 01 02 03 04 05 Total Black 40/58% 5 / 50/o 8/47% 18/60% 19 / 52/o 41/65% 36/58/o 38/62%, 32/58%o 40/71% 277/60%, White/Other 29/ 42%o 5 / 5O%o 9/ 53%o 12 / 40%o 17/48%o 22/35%o 26/ 42%o 23/38%o 12/42%o 16/29%o 182/40%o Total 69 10 17 30 36 63 62 61 55 56 459 4. The rationale behind the class restructuring. This class restructuring change helps to retain desegregation recruitment efforts while increasing the attendance zone student opportunity to attend. Increasing to two P3 classes will also provide opportunities to involve additional students in the early childhood magnet program and enhance the program by extending the amount of time these students will have to reap the benefits of established curriculum. 5. How the school staff will allot space to accommodate the restructuring next year and beyond as the ECE and kindergarten classes move up through successive grade levels. Upon review of committed SRO open enrollment numbers, this effort will be coordinated by Mrs. Mangan, Principal, through Mrs. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent, and Mrs. Pat Price, Director of Eady Childhood. 6. The work and product of the ad hoc committee that was formed in your office on October 26, 1999. No formal process was enacted\nhowever, continued study of this item was addressed within LRSD compliance meeting sessions and further collaboration with Mrs. Pat Price. 7. How the district's director of early childhood education participated in the decision to restructure the ECE and kindergarten classes at Rockefeller. See #6 8. How the school's Campus Leadership Team participated in such decision. Prior issues had been discussed between Mrs. Mangan and myseif regarding P4 and kindergarten numbers. Decisions regarding student class sections are completed upon review of open enrollment and school choice totals through the departments of Schoo!Operations and Administrative Services. February 2d*' notification from the Director of Human Resources was provided to buiiding pri nd pa is through the Associate Superintendent. Appropriate notification to Campus Leadership Team members and staff wouid have been provided to staff through the buiiding principai. 9. How the parents of Rockefeller students have been factored into these decisions, as well as how and when the parents were informed about the planned changes. The LRSD Student Registration Office assisted numerous parentai concerns of attendance zone students assigned eisewhere. SRO communication updates regarding class numbers/ student sections were provided by Dr. Hurley, Director of Human Resources, to the attention of Mrs. Mangan on February . 10. The results of any studies you have conducted to determine whether some adjustments to Rockefeller's attendance zones might be in order, now that you have had time to assess the impact that the rezoning has had on school enrollment and racial balance.  Eighty-three Rockefeiier attendance zone aiternate assignments were made due to iack of space.  During this school year ninety-nine black students who live in the Rockefeller attendance zone remained on the waiting list. Of this total, twenty-six were K students.  Student Registration Office officials contacted all white students (kindergarten through fifth) on the waiting list with the option to enter Rockefeller.  When compared with LRSD elementary schools. Rockefeller has 38%, the smallest percentage of zoned students in attendance, (i.e. voluntary transfers, M-to-M, appeals, staff preference, special circumstance transfers, alternate assignments and Division of Exceptional Children assignments).  LRSD continues to provide Rockefeiier with sibiing preference. 11. How you intend to preserve the racial balance at Rockefeller while accommodating the school's zoned students. At present, restrictive school choice options outside of Rockefeller are available\nhowever, further review of Washington Interdistrict magnet composition numbers combined with opening of the new Stephens Schoo! (January, 2001) will expand student population numbers for the '01-02 school year that warrant necessary attention and possible plan modification. i I t-tfPlan modification 3.7 Modification standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modification to attendance zones or grade level structure of the construction, enlargement or closing of a school(s) other than as provided in this Revised plan unless: 3.7.1 Such action wouldfurther the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges ofpast discrimination to the extent practicable\nor, 3.7.2 The LRSD Board of Director determines (1) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (2) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (3) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Based on your inquiry, we appreciate your review and input toward possible suggestion to remedy this apparent paradox. When taking into account the mathematical equation to accommodate this task, significant constraint is recognized. LRSD will continue to work within provision established within our Revised Desegregation and Education to review student assignment numbers and target recruitment strategies. If additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Junious Babbs cc: Ann Mangan, PrincipalOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 14, 2000 To: Junious Babbs From: Ann Bn Re: Attendance Zone Changes Since the LRSD has decided that Mitchell will remain open, Id like to have some information as to how the district may have subsequently realigned the attendance zones to accommodate Mitchells continued functioning as an elementary school. Id appreciate a written description of any zone changes and corresponding maps. Id also like to know the building capacities and projected enrollments, by grade, of all schools that are affected by the zone changes. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks very much. f'lYia-h'ci'l -^0 Faf rECEITO OF JUL 21 OmCEOF DESKRtGAWNMONKORlMB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: icbabbs@.stuasnJrsd.kl2.ar.us TO: Ann Brown, Feder^ Monitor FROM: Junious Babbs SUBJECT: Attendance Zone Changes (Response to 7-14-00 Memo) DATE: July 20, 2000 In response to your July 14* request regarding realigned attendance zones to accommodate Mitchells continued function as an elementary school, the following information is provided.  The original Mitchell School Attendance Zone has been adjusted to include what was the old Otter Creek satellite zone.  Upon review of proximity and 99-00 realigned school zones, a northern section of the Mitchell zone was removed and absorbed in Martin Luther King.  To date (7-18-00), projected school enrollments for each grade at these schools reflect: School (Capacity) Mitchell (298) Otter Creek (351) King (728) Stephens (692) P4 18 18 61 37 36 58 98 37 41 77 97 52 41 61 104 39 37 49 105 44 44 51 101 42 47 52 71 46 K 1 2 3 4 5  Copies of updated elementary, middle and high school attendance zone maps have been provided to your attention.  Further review (September - October) of student attendance zones to address enrollment, building composition and plan compliance within the 2000-2001 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities is being addressed. If questions come up or additional information is needed, please feel free to give me a call.  INKJ SVCS LRSD @02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To the Parent of: Student ID: Current School: Current Grade: Map Grid: Dear Parent: Parents and students in the Little Rock School District will be hannv m Uom rk,. . students Sing a sSclose to foeir a coaunittee of parents, other You may wish for your child to continue at his/her to the mighhorhood school in the fad of 1999 IV tuc nciKDuornooo scuool in the fall of1999 school, or ytm may prefer to transfer your child Rock ^01 Board acts on these proposed neighborhood school your *^8ht5 at one of the comrauiuty meetings that will be held for included on the next page. 1 zones, we ask that you share comnuuuty input. The meeting schedule is Your proposed neighborhood schools for die fall of 1999 Elementary (Kindergarten - 5*1: Middle School (grades 6-81: SaiiorHieh (grades 9-121 are: Leslie V. Carninc Superimendait of Schools EnclosureSAMPLE LITTLC ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Slow Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To ihe Parent of\nDear Parent: Student ID: 973910 Current School BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Current Grade: 03 Map Grid: 3250 Students in the Little Rock School District will be happy to lean foat we aiu retuning to neigltborhood sdiools in our community. There are many advantages to shidents attending a school close to ftcir hortiK. First travel time to school is reduced. Second, parents can be more involved m acliviti'es hdd ar neighborhood Finally, students, parents and other neighborhood resideots feel ^ride of ownership'II PwareeventtMs oVIf students iinn uouuir asMchwoOoilSs IhMaIvVCe MexppTreeSsasCeQd ItDheeiiTr adCeSsuirVe tfOoTr QneCiIgfh BbbOoFrhbOooOdd Khook through tteii !!^^\"*^^Pdations is the districts Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the 1997 WoA icamKKommcndaQons. In response to our parents call for neighborhood schools, a conuniitefc of panwrp, lyfon* cmmninuty residents, and distria administrators patbeipated in development of foe prMOsed acidibofoood school attendance zones for each of foe school levels.  Yom may wish for your child to continue at his/her current schaeL Hwr, if pTff* for developed zones, your child will be eOowtd to tniufer to font schMi HI the fan of 1999, \u0026gt;f space u available at the school. ^P^^e Little Rock School Board acts on these proposed neighborhood school zeoaa. we adt foat yon sham yow fo^hts M one of foe coroonnity meetings foat will be held for communito mput \"nie \"***0 schedule is included on foe next page. Your proposed neighborhood schools for foe fell of 1999 are\n^5' L BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Middle School (guXB 6.gv PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Smior Hieh (grades 9-121 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Parents may apply for transfers to specialized programs, such as magnet schools, as they have m foe past. buo'f*^'**^*^* *chool zone map will be avaibble at each school. If you have questions or input that you would fflly-err. TthTan'kVs for your input as we strive to \"imeprtrionvges .o pulre sacshe odoilrse.ct your comments to the address on the enclosed Enclosure Leslie V. Caroine Superintendent of SehooU STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 PHONE\n324-2272 FAX: 324-2281 FAX COVER SHEET To: ( Fax Number: f- oro o From: Date: Ze^- 7-^ # Pages Including Cover Sheet: CC: Re: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitorina and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Attendance Zone Report Introduction The following report is submitted in compliance with the March 5 court order to review all attendance zones and make projections for the 1995-96 school year. Three sets of data are examined in this report: (1) School enrollment figures (2) Census tract data (3) Zone block (geocode) counts These sources of data should not be viewed in isolation of each other. Population trends are confirmed when different sources of data, over a period of years, suggest or establish the same pattern of growth or decline. Enrollment Comparisons and Census Projections The simplest way to project for the future is to examine any trends that have occurred in the past. In using past trends to project for the future, allowances must be made for any anticipation of deviations from the trends. In regard to projecting school enrollment, the method of studying past trends to project for the future is quite reliable. The Little Rock School District has used past school enrollments to project school enrollments for the future.Although school enrollments have been used in the past for projection purposes, the task of projecting the numbers of students in each attendance zone for tie 1995-96 school year cannot be done by using past school enrollments. The Little Rock School District has used four different assignments plans over the past four years. The 1986-87 school year was the last year for an elementary pairing plan. Primary schools on the west side of the District were paired with intermediate schools on the east side of the District. In 1987-88, the year of annexation, the Little Rock School District used a new attendance zone plan and converted all primary or intermediate schools to K-6. Students were manditorily assigned to schools, based on the new attendance zones, and then allowed to transfer if desegregation requirements could be upheld. trict referred to this plan as \"controlled choice. The disII In 1988-89, the attendance zones and \"controlled choice zones\" (zones A \u0026amp; 8) were abolished and all students could select any school in the district. The present school year, 1989-90, marks the return to the use of an elementary attendance zone plan. The plan applies only to kindergarten, rising, and new students and grandfathers all remaining students. The 1989-90 attendance zone plan is extremely different from the 1987-88 attendanze zone plan. As a result of all of these factors, the analysis of school enrollment trends prior to the 1989-90 school year cannot be used to project attendance zone trends in the future. The 1989-90 school year will serve as the baseline year for the study of school enrollment trends. Attendance zone projections can also be determined by analyzing census tract Although the boundaries of the census tracts are different from information. the boundaries of the school attendance zones, census tract projections are still useful in identifying trends in various geographic areas. In 1988, the Little Rock School District employed The Grier Partnership (in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates) to conduct a demographic study. The demographers reviewed census tract projections from Metroplan and UALR. The next section of this report will examine the results of the demographic study. An attempt will also be made to compare 1988-89 and 1989-90 attendance zone counts. Each student in the Little Rock School District is assigned a geocode or zone block number based on his/her home address. of several contiguous zone blocks or geocodes. Attendance zones consist zone includes one or more satellite areas. In some cases, an attendance A satellite is an attendance area that is detached from the immediate school vicinity and is usually a considerable distance from the school site. The 1988-89 school year was the first year for the District to load and maintain a computerized file of all zone block counts. As a result, this comparison will be based on one year of experience. Demographic Study As stated earlier, the demographers reviewed census tract projections from UALR and Metroplan. It should be noted that census tracts do not match the attendance zones used by the Little Rock School District. for geocodes, or zone blocks, and not for census tracts. School data are recorded According to the demographer, \"about 83 percent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. II Although the geocodes are not fully compatible with the census tracts, an examination of census data should yield valuable information concerning long-term trends.The Grier report notes that \"change in the schools appears to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a whole -- population losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. II In terms of specific areas, between 1980 and 1986, Metroplan estimated that there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the city, in the tracts close to downtown, and in those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. These areas are represented by tracts 1-20 (with the exception of Tract 16) on Attachment A (\"Changes in Total Population By Census Tract, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1980 to 2010\"). zones: These tracts cover the following school attendance -- Rightsell -- Rockefeller -- Mitchell -- Badgett -- Washington -- Stephens -- Garland -- Ish -- Franklin -- Forest Park satellite -- Terry satellite -- McDermott satellite -- Oefferson satellite -- Brady satellite -- Otter Creek satellite -- Meadowcliff satellite The census tract table indicates that almost half of the tracts in this area will experience growth during the period of 1980-2010. However, it is impossible to determine how much of the projected growth will occur in a specific census tract by 1995-96. ience a decline during the 30-year period. The remainder of the tracts in this area will exper- The same problem related to determining when and what degree of growth will occur also applies to projecting 1osses. The overall effect of gains and losses in this area will result in a net increase of 846 persons over a 30-year period. A net increase in total population of 846 persons over a 30-year period will probably have no effect on the boundaries of the attendance zones in 1995-96. Most of the growth during the 30-year period is expected to occur in tracts 41.04, 42.03, and 42.04. the Little Rock School District. These tracts are located on the western boundary of Creek areas. Tract 41.04 covers the Mabel vale and Otter Tracts 42.03 and 42.04 cover portions of the Fulbright, Terry, Wilson, and Dodd attendance zones. The growth in tract 42.03 should also affect the Forest Park satellite zone located on the northwest tip of the di strict. Again, there is not enough data to predict how the projected growth will affect these attendance zones in 1995-96.Although the census data provides useful information for identifying population trends, it will be necessary to wait for the 1990 census results in order to make specific projections. Under normal circumstances, long-term projections are based on data collected over a 3-5 year period. It is difficult to recognize an ongoing pattern or trend by merely comparing two separate years. Since census information is collected every 10 years, it will be necessary to rely on a comparison of 1980 and 1990 census results. The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts This will enhance the District's ability to correlate long-term census projections with student information gathered annually. Geocode Comparisons The comparison of zone block (geocode) student counts is another method that can be used to identify student population trends. Attachment B compares 1988-89 and 1989-90 zone block and attendance zone counts. These counts only reflect students enrolled in the Little Rock School District. It was noted earlier that the census data indicates a population decline in the area east of University. the same trend. The comparison of zone block information indicates 1988-89 to 1989-90. mately 30 students. Most of the incentive schools experiences small gains from However, the Garland attendance zone declined by approxi- The area east of University Avenue experienced a net gain of 149 students. As noted earlier with the census data, the gain of 149 students in the area east of University Avenue is the net result of gains and losses in this area. Although the comparison of geocode counts is a viable method for identifying enrollment trends and making projections, at least three years of geocode data should be used to ensure reliability. The Little Rock School District did not have the capability to maintain accurate geocode information prior to the 1988-89 school year. Therefore, it is recommended that the District be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information before preparing the 1995-96 attendance zone projections. Attendance Zones and Building Capacity The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity (See Attachment 0). The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Also, programs such as PAL (Program for Accelerated Learning) and Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity.Attachment C shows the number of students who reside in each attendance zone. All of these students are currently enrolled in a non-magnet (area) school even though the school may not be their attendance zone school. (NOTE: Attachment C DOES NOT show the number of students currently enrolled in each attendance zone school. It shows the number of students who live in the attendance zone even though they may attend a non-attendance zone school. The District fully understands the reason for the court's concern about attendance zone projections and adjustments for the 1995-96 school year. However, the elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted.- Otherwise, any adjustments will simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school. In regard to the incentive schools, the District has proposed to expand Rightsell and Mitchell (if a new school site in the vicinity cannot be located) close Ish, Stephens, and Garland, and build a new school at the Old King School site. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before any attendance zones are adjusted. Recommendations As already stated in this report, several factors preclude the District from being able to make reliable attendance zone projections at this time. In light of these factors, the District respectfully recommends the following: 1. The District will prepare attendance zone projections after the release of the 1990 census results. 2. 3. 4. 5. The District will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts. Attendance zone projections will also be based on any trends identified by comparing 1990-91 kindergarten and first grade enrollment figures. Both of these grade level assignments are based on the new attendance zones. The District will be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information in order to be able to compare 1988-89 and 1990-91 geocode counts. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted.s' 4 F ATTACHMENT A TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 1 Census Tract 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 23 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 920 11,100 7,378 5,539 3,813 1,354 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 8,260 6,614 1,600 4,000 3,200 1,000 5,200 4,000 3,200 800 800 4,600 4,600 2,200 4,800 3,800 10,000 5,100 850 5,900 4,500 5,700 5,600 8,000 6,000 5,600 5,300 8,800 9,500 950 16,800 13,800 4,500 5,500 6,800 12,200 8,400 4,900 7,200 38,900 22,000 740 (491) 474 (508) 296 44 231 27 (6) 209 (231) (475) (462) 383 1,825 (158) (17) (506) (529) (48) 32 (468) 1,905 404 365 862 2,560 30 5,700 6,422 (1,039) 1,687 5,446 5,989 1,740 842 839 30,640 15,386 86. OX -10.9X 17.4X -33.7X 6.OX 1. IX 7.8X 3.5X -0.7X 4.8X -4.8X -17.8X -8.8X 11.2X 22.3X -3. OX -2. OX -7.9X -10.5X -0.8X 0.6X -5.5X 46.5X 7.8X 7.4X 10.9X 36.9X 3.3X 51.4X 87. OX -18.8X 44.2X 402.2X 96.4X 26.IX 20.7X 13.2X 370.9X 232.6X 186,460 266,600 80,140 43. OX *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases. the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document,ATTACHMENT B LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE BLOCK COMPARISON ZONE BLOCKS FOR BADGETT PAGE 1 1988-89 1989-90 3201 19 10 -9 3250 68 + 11 3251 23 -1 3253 26 6 3255 4 3 -1 3640 19 + 15 TOTAL 133 142 +9 4 ZONE BLOCKS FOR BALE 1988-89 1989-90 0521 56 42 -14 0531 33 40 +7 0532 58 -3 0534 29 -4 1921 11 +9 1922 28 31 +3 1923 1924 57 64 1925 10 8 TOTAL 307 322 + 15ZONE BLOCKS FOR BASELINE PAGE 2 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 36? cr. TOTAL 1988-39 1989-90 32 39 +7 107 39 -18 28 33 33 31 21 19 24 17 -7 16 14 34 +9 23 19 -4 11 6 320 301 -19ZONE BLOCKS FOR BRADY PAGE 3 0540 0591 0592 0593 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 6 11 86 67 -19 17 13 -4 0 7 9 17 14 -3 32 38 +6 21 20 0 51 10 42 21 357 0 36 6 35 48 15 31 19 344 -21 + 16 +6 + 10 -3 +5 -11 -3 -13ZONE BLOCKS FOR CHICOT PAGE 4 3435 3440 3445 3464 5408 7401 7405 7410 7415 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7476 7479 7480 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 10 13 +3 6 0 50 29 79 21 crcr 32 9 24 7 18 17 30 32 495 13 +7 0 0 34 36 79 27 54 30 16 27 21 9 14 15 0 23 438 -16 +7 0 +6 -3 +7 CT -3 +7 -3 -15 -9ZONE BLOCKS FOR CLOVERDALE ELEM PAGE 5 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 TOTAL 198S-S9 19S9-90 26 + 1 19 12 -7 18 14 -4 4 0 -4 12 21 +9 10 13 +3 19 26 31 44 15 30 38 316 0 31 33 60 28 21 11 87 357 -19 +5 + 16 +3 +6 -19 +49 +41ZONE BLOCKS FOR DODD RASE 6 1722 1728 4001 4010 4017 4020 4025 4046 4049 4052 4053 5467 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 61 51 -10 39 + 16 17 16 -1 79 73 -6 4 3 -1 20 54 23 18 0 3 353 20 46 18 37 0 0 341 0 -8 +4 0 -3 -12ZONE BLOCKS FOR FAIR PARK PAGE 7 1988-89 1989-90 0511 13 +4 9 0512 8 7 -1 0513 68 60 -8 0554 54 51 0920 63 -8 1110 33 31 nil 32 48 + 16 1120 8 6 1121 6 0 6 TOTAL 281 271 -10 ZONE BLOCKS FOR FOREST PARK 1988-89 1989-90 0411 4 0 -4 0412 12 -12 0 0413 3 0420 14 15 0553 92 76 -16 0556 65 57 -8 0811 10 -1 0821 39 41 0910 54 47 -7 6110 55 27 -28 + 1 9 6125 0 0 0 TOTAL 350 275 -75ZONE BLOCKS FOR FRANKLIN PAGE a 0522 0523 0524 Oi 0526 0527 0528 0529 0530 0538 0539 0571 0575 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 57 63 +6 60 50 -10 65 70 87 84 35 30 35 30 71 36 54 51 631 33 21 -9 32 26 59 47 24 53 48 610 -3 -4 -12 + 11 +4 -1 -3 -21ZONE BLOCKS FOR FULBRIGHT PAGE 9 1210 1405 1410 1440 1714 1810 1811 1812 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 28 23 -5 0 21 +21 97 89 -8 19 21 104 108 +4 58 66 +8 32 39 65 66 + 1 24 12 31 497 18 6 0 13 30 519 0 + 1 -1ZONE BLOCKS FOR GARLAND PAGE 10 0581 0582 0584 0585 0586 0587 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 42 44 no 57 -53 95 50 10 42 349 ZONE BLOCKS FOR GEYER SPRINGS 1988-89 SO 73 21 44 319 1989-90 -15 +23 + 11 -30 3405 71 74 +3 4401 4405 15 20 cr 4410 38 32 6 4415 17 17 0 4420 21 26 +5 4429 29 17 -12 4430 10 18 +8 TOTAL 226 -5ZONE BLOCKS FOR ISH PAGE 11 1988-89 1989-90 0473 44 49 0476 42 45 +3 0477 23 30 0479 35 30 5 0430 43 41 0485 CT CT 57 TOTAL 242 + 10 ZONE BLOCKS FOR JEFFERSON 1988-89 1989-90 1220 6 6 0 1230 12 6 6 1231 7 11 +4 1240 157 165 +8 0431 38 37 -1 0432 53 72 + 19 0433 38 30 -8 0434 26 28 0435 19 18 -1 0438 45 49 +4 TOTAL 401ZONE BLOCKS FOR MABELVALE ELEM PAGE 12 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 545'7 5455 5462 5465 7325 7383 7388 7390 7420 7475 TOTAL 19SS-S9 19S9-90 34 48 + 14 64 67 +3 30 31 + 1 16 12 -4 14 28 7 13 18 19 15 1 13 31 0 57 28 27 437 23 +9 30 6 -1 14 15 18 21 0 12 35 21 67 34 40 516 + 1 -1 +6 -1 -1 +4 0 + 10 +6 + 13 +79ZONE BLOCKS FOR MCDERMOTT PAGE 13 0552 0561 0562 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 1542 TOTAL 198S-89 1989-90 64 62 63 78 + 15 88 84 -4 24 19 0 0 0 33 39 107 20 10 21 0 478 ZONE BLOCKS FOR MEADOWCLIFF 1988-89 ^cr -8 40 + 1 + 15 20 19 19 0 488 1989-90 -9 +9 -3 0 + 10 0533 72 65 -7 0535 64 75 + 11 0536 14 11 -3 0537 62 70 +8 2110 94 76 -18 2120 62 76 + 14 4015 16 11 4048 29 40 + 11 TOTAL 413 424 + 11ZONE BLOCKS FOR MITCHELL PAGE 14 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0451 0452 0453 0457 0458 0459 TOTAL 1988-39 1989-90 28 30 IS 42 26 46 42 36 340 ZONE BLOCKS FOR OTTER CREEK 1988-89 44 21 28 23 12 31 36 49 48 36 350 1989-90 + 16 -8 -4 +6 -13 -11 +10 +3 +6 0 + 10 0471 44 47 +3 0472 49 69 0475 68 +7 5460 29 19 -10 5470 1 3 5472 0 0 0 5475 40 46 +6 5476 43 45 5477 26 46 5478 cr 9 +45492 7 15 TOTAL 312 374 PAGE 14B +8 +62ZONE BLOCKS FOR PULASKI HGHTS ELEM PAGE 15 1988-89 1989-90 0610 19 21 +3 0620 24 16 -8 0630 3 0640 7 14 +7 0641 5 14 +9 0651 7 12 +5 0660 77 96 + 19 0710 30 31 + 1 TOTAL 174 207 +33 ZONE BLOCKS FOR RIGHTSELL 1988-89 1989-90 0439 0 73 +73 0448 0 70 +70 0449 61 +6 0450 59 58 -1 0454 0 0464 31 44 + 13 TOTAL 165 306 + 141ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROCKEFELLER PAGE 16 1988-89 1989-90 0232 7 7 0 0440 59 50 -9 0456 44 48 +4 0460 54 41 -13 0461 63 67 +4 0462 53 54 + 1 0463 19 31 TOTAL 299 298 -1 ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROMINE 1988-89 1989-90 1715 67 77 + 10 1717 102 SO 1721 93 81 -12 1723 30 1724 46 53 +7 1727 98 98 0 TOTAL 436 421 -15ZONE BLOCKS FOR STEPHENS PAGE 17 0441 0572 0573 0574 0583 TOTAL 19S8-89 1989-90 34 97 37 58 81 307 ZONE BLOCKS FOR TERRY 1988-89 38 82 45 67 81 313 1989-90 +4 -15 +8 +9 0 +6 0436 70 54 -16 0437 64 56 -8 0563 78 68 -10 1510 21 23 1511 75 68 -7 1512 27 33 +6 1515 39 -17 1530 8 13 1532 21 34 + 13 1550 53 42 -11 1610 7 8 1620 11 12 + 1 3330 4 0 -4 TOTAL 478 433 -45ZONE BLOCKS FOR WAKEFIELD PAGE IS 7201 7210 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 TOTAL 19SS89 1989-90 73 71 9 18 +9 10 10 0 35 37 39 97 +58 21 +6 34 37 11 26 10 14 344 31 -3 30 -7 24 31 11 9 418 + 13 -4 +6 + 1 -5 +74ZONE BLOCKS FOR WASHINGTON PAGE 19 0111 0112 0121 0123 0124 0125 012(:, 0127 0210 0240 0301 0455 0474 0478 0481 0482 0483 0484 TOTAL 1988-S9 1989-90 14 16 16 IS 0 29 +7 39 33 -6 79 CT CT -24 17 62 14 99 0 icr 12 71 27 39 61 78 58 35 790 0 48 93 120 24 0 51 27 43 74 103 73 38 867 -17 -14 +8 -6 -1 -12 -20 0 +4 + 13 iC7 + 15 +3 +77ZONE BLOCKS FOR WATSON PAGE 20 1988-89 1989-90 7301 48 59 + 11 7305 28 31 +3 7315 76 61 -15 7330 IS 11 - ! 7377 38 62 +24 7378 19 19 0 7381 0 7382 44 + 11 7384 rCr 26 + 1 7385 24 +4 7490 9 6 -3 7495 18 13 .R 343 389 +46 ZONE BLOCKS FOR WESTERN HILLS 1988-89 1989-90 1725 34 29 1726 33 41 +8 1822 94 95 + 1 2010 46 41 cr 2015 51 68 + 17 37 42 TOTAL 295 316ZONE BLOCKS FOR WILSON PAGE 21 1711 1813 1821 1823 1824 3301 3312 3316 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 23 53 72 89 46 28 51 18 380 ZONE BLOCKS FOR WOODRUFF 1988-89 19 -4 53 79 109 54 38 36 19 407 1989-90 0 +7 +8 + 10 -15 + 1 +27 0650 13 10 -3 0670 68 101 +33 0662 23 26 +3 TOTAL 104 137 +33SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS ISH JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ATTACHMENT C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL 142 322 301 344 488 357 341 271 275 610 519 319 226 252 422 516 488 424 350 374 207 306 K-6 CAPACITY 241 399 384 491 483 424 353 351 431 556 607 300 236 200 491 533 562 454 280 378 328 260 CAPACITY % 59% 81% 78% 70% 101% 84% 97% 77% 64% 109% 86% 106% 96% 126% 86% 97% 87% 93% 135% 99% 63% 118%PAGE 2 SCHOOL TOTAL CAPACITY CAPACITY % ROCKEFELLER 298 420 71% ROMINE 421 492 86% STEPHENS 313 260 120% TERRY 433 537 81% WAKEFIELD 418 469 89% WASHINGTON 867 820 106% WATSON 389 469 83% WESTERN HILLS 316 325 97% WILSON 407 398 102% WOODRUFF 137 209 66% TOTAL 11 ,851 13,141 90% (NOTE: These capacity figures do not reflect the proposed capacity changes in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year.)1990-91 assignment zones ArUniu ' 1 Western Hills r AtOiaman Park Geo CMit i i / Pulaski Heights i *1 Pulatkl HalgMa Elamaniary I6M J I Pan ,1 C'' I I  I I. I B\u0026gt;*(ly I Scnoofic* I =!l iro Blind I Brady P Eltmtniiiy  SW McDermott II UcDtrmoK SaitllHa Zona W. fXa'kriam I 830 ,1 Jefferson Carmack 1 vriagal JaHatooii * Elamaniary I I Forest Park BaOtaman Park CmCoutst 3 nejorvo*^}! J' ..... I' -a llw 1?lh Washington w i:ni.^Wtthlnglon Eltmtniary Jtlltraen Saiiltia Zona Fo'atlPark Ela mt nl ary lEwyft % tt I'onkay T EtMndi le eiy WTMt Fulbright 1^\"\"'ydcfcory I wit \"aS FulkilgM  Elamaniary I Bsle Va HoDarmolll Elamaniary Ma'kham VZ 'Pl'i, 1 e-. 6Cil*m' *ni*ry 1 Ifw ?#in '-r\\ ifi  1 I hooitvw  1th ElarvMnItry Cit M I Faraat Park Saialllia Zona* w mi ?lcj Fulbrighr Saialhia Zona Ish Cra/tiiallgH. Pt. J wiw? tilwsttid Pa/i i 3^ I (( JjarirkloT H Mjra lynn lalena \"^^ SiltliHtlen* I I I t nortn9\u0026lt;f Parham Terry ^JmaSa Mitchell S Wno* 'libn'i-^l W Vili Fiinkllfi JXirporf \"a City Ifnm Badgett  Badotl'l .. Elamaniary City IrmU Meadowcliff Itndman Park 3 UatdewclIIIB Maaxmaemi SalarWa Zona / W I7in 3i llomiinoe 'Jj.inaw Cr.xMl Mabclxia ' Siii*\u0026gt;lil Zona W. 3f.lh ShiicSivlorO w. 4CKn|l=-,S Cel -- ----------- - Dodd Itndnian I I i s Dodd  Elamaniary C'[kite Ima UaMKrola Prt^ W. ?Ml Baseline W.l \nw. ism W.PIIh. Franklin P.a.r.i.j. \"\"\" I Franklin w, pom^ El* ma nl ary iLp 'V Oarlarid  Xt\"'',--' I Garland WJdnrrwir.i -(I l\u0026gt;innih Maktkala  Elamtiilary Mabetvale cmyh-Soui Cify *nkl$ r i-iniii-* rFaanir Park M.ii\u0026gt;riam Fair PailiB Elamaniary 1 AhvriorMl Lk \u0026gt;11, rftaOlS 1 CllY hmns Wakelield Ij f wuir.ia JfiIiI 1990-91 Junior High School pupil assignment zones Pvi*8ki naighn 'll Fl HtndartM \\Fo*I Halghl^  i ' Mabalvala I ' ' 1 \ncimardtia' iHalghM Attendance zones t\u0026lt;^Punb\u0026gt;r I Isoulhwetl {22]PulW Holflhlt inil ClovfdoU Foroil Holghli I- .IMobolvl* rn Hondorson I s iji [kite Line I BBatalina Ikurw^. Elamaniary f Dnsaiint ' ?S OilttCrttk I Eltmantary I Otter Creek I \"Cily trn-it Salillila Zona Vi. ism ' Elamaniary 't5 noouvaii Stephens Data Lmt Watson 1 I VaNey Walton Elaminlary Little Rock elementary schools Da M! line 130 Cloverdale Clovardala ^lamanlary  \u0026gt;1 L*'.\"\n!:! r^ievk I l=iir** |L UI\n\"Wil\"ton' deynian 1^., I. K i'w'i?ili '1  a* IlgMitll ilimaniary D HoRosicgKdhi lsIjel Rightsell Kkii'a ( lk-imlta\u0026gt;ia ISM 'U-J Central i' Fair 1' ZJ 1 i'fl ClayOMca Uahalvaia Culoll s Gayar Springi Salaflltt Zona I Geyer [springs I6 n\u0026lt;Kkt(*llrBl Rockefeller P 1990-91 Senior High School pupil assignment zones Attendance zones [ j Cenlral iteCle Ian n' [UUm McClellan M*M*\u0026gt; IMinofUitltmfi i*r At*nt* 0nifatnifUif^itW9f I/Ze Need Your Ideas Attention: NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC MEETINGS Martin Luther King Jr. interdistrict School Opening for 1993-94 Community Meetings to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme seiection for Martin Luther King Jr. Schooi opening atthe beginning of the 1993-94 school year. TUESDAY, March 30, 7 p.m. Allison Presbyterian Church 922 Wright Street, Little Rock THURSDAY, April 1, 7 p.m. Ish Incentive Elementary School 3001 Pulaski Street, Little Rock The Little Rock School District will offer an innovative alternative to your neighborhood school with the opening of Martin Luther King Jr. Interdistrict School in the fall of 1993. King will offer a special interest theme woven into a strong, traditional basic skills curriculum. Pulaski County School District students may attend through a majority-to-minority transfer. EXHIBIT \"G\" AGENDA 1. Welcome/Introductions 2. Purpose of Meeting 3. An Architectural Rendering of the new Martin Luther King Jr. School. 4. The Principalis Vision for Martin Luther King Jr. 5. Survey and Theme Information 6. Consideration of Attendance Zones Questions and Concerns will follow each agenda itemMARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL THEME SELECTION SURVEY Please check your choice for a theme for the new Martin- Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School. following order: Please rank your choices in the 1 for first, 2 for second, and so forth. The Martin Luther King/ jr. Interdistrict School for Economic Education **This program will prepare students for the twenty-first century through the development of academic, technological. and interpersonal skills. Each student's knowledge and awareness of business will be developed from the consumer's point of view. The Martin'Luther King/ Jr. Interdistrict Academy for CommunicationsArts **This program will emphasis enriched reading, writing, speaking, and listening throughout the curriculum. Critical and creative thinking and problem solving skills will be developed in all content areas through debate, oratory, expressive writing, and literary study. The Martin Luther King, Jr, Intensity Learning Interdistrict School for High **This program places strong emphasis on accelerated mastery of skills in reading, math, English, writing, science, and social studies. This includes an intensive mastery learning approach to academic and social behaviors. The Martin Luther King, Jr, Interdistrict School for Health Sciences **This program will increase student awareness and understanding of content in the health sciences. Health science tapes for study will include health and first aide, environmental health, body system, microbiology, and physical fitness. Other suggestions. Would you be interested in enrolling your child(ren) at the King Elementary Interdistrict School? Yes ____Maybe No Name Race: (Circle one) Black White Other Address Phone Child's Current School Assignment GradeTO: FROM: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas March 30, 1993 Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent Jeanette Wagner, Acting Director of Communications Distribution of King Public Meeting Fliers The fliers for the King School public meetings were distributed as follows: 25 fliers - TCBY building for placement in employee lounges, etc. 20 fliers - Dept, of Education, Capitol Mall for placement in employee lounges 10 fliers - AlDC, Capitol Mall for placement in employee lounges and on bulletin boards. Janet van der Werff, director of communications, also agreed to place a notice on E-Mail for the next two days for all employees. no fliers - Arkansas Children's Hospital does not allow outside fliers to be placed in the building, Jessica Szehner, director of public relations, agreed to put notice on E-Mail for their more than 3,000 employees for the next three days. Some very good groundwork has been laid by going through the proper channels. Onward!!. I * /  C r' ( e f r ( c (' f ( f i' ( ( ( ( (' ' 1 t \u0026lt; I h Lk^-^ r ' J' a. \\3. /ip  '^'.\\, 5s_Q5==-^ 7s/2A.^.^__-, 1 1 , ,i 6yXl 1^. I I1 -3 I. p 'ii Z.l t S iT _4 i4ei 5**' I R ?* -'crr ,\" '-4- /f- I JS^ Mf: piAm^s ?^- '4 '^' ^x- !t*ragi,-AV. Jis* iBLMg'i IJ 1 .Mi5 \"f'... 1^ 0,. Q! J ! A- 9^, Ob I ^'^1. { I - ' i -7. ail[br\\ '' \u0026gt; ^1, ^-r- Ofl .1^ (2.C: r \" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF rARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION   f I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE The Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School is presently under construction at a site approved by the Court. King Interdistrict School is scheduled to be open for the 1993-94 school year. 2. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan states that It Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and by white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\". Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, p. 4. The Plan also notes that II [a]s new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School\". 3. LRSD developed a proposed attendance zone for King Interdistrict School and submitted the proposed zone to all of the parties to this case and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on March 17, 1993. The proposed King Interdistrict School attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular meeting on April 22, 1993. A map of the proposed zone is attached as Exhibit \"A\". A Memorandum from Marie Parker to the LRSD Board of Directors in support of the attendance zone is attached as Exhibit A report on the impact of the King attendance zone prepared by Marie Parker and Leonard Thalmueller is attached as Exhibit \"C\". A list of the steps which have been taken in preparation for the opening of King school is attached as Exhibit \"D\". A draft recruitment plan for King Interdistrict \"B\". School is attached as Exhibit \"E\". The results of the survery conducted to select a theme for King Interdistrict School are attached as Exhibit lipII _ Information concerning the public meetings which were conducted to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for King Interdistrict School is attached as Exhibit \"G\". 4 . The King attendance zone proposed by the Little Rock School District has been submitted to all the parties to this case and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, discussed at community meetings and approved by the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD asks this court to approve the proposed zone. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order approving the attendance zone for King Interdistrict School shown on the map attached to this motion. Respectfully submitted. 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Ji Christopher Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of King Interdistrict School Attendance Zone has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail this , day of April, 1993: on Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 3Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 'Christopher Hei 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 April 22, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent, Organizational and Learning Equity THROUGH: Dr. C.M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Approval of New Martin Luther King, Jr., Attendance Zone The new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School located at 10th and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive (King) is scheduled to open August, 1993. A map of the proposed attendance zone for King is attached. We have notified the parties, conducted neighborhood meetings with the community members and parents whose children are targeted for cruitment or assignment to the new school. \" ' We have also mailed re- surveys to all families that will be affected by the proposed including Pulaski County Special School District. The receipt of this group of surveys will allow us to establish a theme for King. zone. It is recommended that the Board approve the proposed attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School. EXHIBIT \"B\"REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF THE KING ATTENDANCE ZONE Prepared By: Leonard Thalmueller Marie Parker The new Martin Luther King, Junior Elementary School is being constructed in an area near the satellite attendance zones for Jefferson, Forest Park and Terry and near the attendance zones of Rightsell and Mitchell Elementary Schools. The vast Majority of the students who live in these attendance zones is black. The new Martin Luther King Eleaentary school will be an interdistrict school. The Little Rock School District will petition the Court to designate the school an interdistrict Magnet school. PARAMITERS Listed below are the parascters which were considered in establishing the attendance zones for -the new Martin Luther King, Junior (King) Eleaientary School: 1. The seating capacity of King will be \u0026gt;6. Thirty-six (36) of the 696 seats will ba reserved for two four-year-old classes (li students per class). 2. 5. b. Six hundred-sixty (660) of the seats will be reserved for students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade (k- 6) . 'he desegregation goal will be to achieve a racial balance of ifty percent black/white. a. b. iMby\\IGa\u0026lt;.A2 The range of acceptable racial balance will be from 40% to 60% of either race. The four-year-old classes will ^jek to obtain a racial balance of 50/50 of either race. King will have an attendance zone. The anount of busing will l^e minimized. The impact of changing attendance zones at other schools will be minimized. EXHIBIT \"c II 3 . 4 .( k PROCEDURES After a careful analysis of the data and the study of various combinations of zone blocks, the areas indicated in Attachment 1 are the proposed attendance zones for King, Rightsell, Washington and the Jefferson satellite zone. The zone blocks which were reassigned are indicated below and shown in Attachment 2. A. Zone blocks 0432, 0433, and 0438 were transferred from the Jefferson satellite zone to King. B. Zone blocks 0473, 0476, 0477, 0479, 0480 and 0485 were transferred from Ish to King. C. Zone block 0439 was transferred from Rightsell to King. D. Zone block 0439 at Rightsell was replaced with zone block 0455 from Washington. . Zone blocks 0432, 0433, end 9439 from the Jefferson satellite zone were repleced with 0111, 0112, 0121, 0122 and 0210 from Washington. F. The zone blocks from the Washington zone which were transferred to Jefferson and Rightsell were not replaced since the attendance zone for Washington contains more students than are needed at Washington. IMPACT ON SCHOOLS The school impacted most by the proposed attendance zone changes is Ish Elementary School. Ish is described below. The proposed relationship between King and 1. Students within the Ish attendance zone will be assigned to King but will have the option to remain at Ish. 2. Bus transportation will be provided for those students from the Ish attendance zone who go to the new King School. 3 . Ish will remain open unless fewer than 100 students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School community to determine building. District will work with the an appropriate use for the Ish Ish 2STUDENTS RESIDING IN ATTENDANCE ZONES The impact of the zone block assignments on the attendance zone of the schools involved are shown in the following table. Please note that these data indicate the number of students, other than magnet students, who reside in the attendance zone. Current Attendance Zone Total Proposed Attendance Zone Nonblack Total Ish 186 187 Jefferson Satellite 182 291 473 208 289 497 King 342 349 Rightsell 311 313 294 302 Washington 738 25 763 573 15 588 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 8 *AssuBing all students elect to go to King. The zone blocks shown in Attachment 2 are those whose current school assignments will be changed under this plan. The impact of changing these zone blocks on the transportation of students is indicated below. A. No Change in Transportation 1. The students in zone blocks 0439, 0455 are not 2. B. transported this year and will not transportation under the plan. require The students in zone blocks 0111, 0112, 0121, 0122, 0210 are transported this year and will be transported next year under the plan. Change in Transportation 1. The 110 students residing in zone blocks 0432, 0433 and 0438 are provided transportation this year to Jefferson but will not require transportation to King next year. 2 . The : 0476 , 187 students 0477 , 0479, residing in zone blocks 0473, 0430 and 0485 are not provided 3 lBUyXja.AZ3. Attachment 1: Attachment 2: transportation this year to transported to King next year. The above would indicate Ish an but will increase transportation for 77 students under this plan. School Attendance Zones Transferred Zone Blocks be in 4MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL We have completed the following steps regarding the Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Elementary School. ..Developed maps for proposed attendance one ..A Principal has been selected ..A theme has been proposed to the Superintendent ..Four community meetings were held - March 7, April 1, April 21, and May 4. ..Marie Parker has spoken several times via telephone and visited in her office with Sarah Facen, Ish community leader ..Proposed attendance zone presented and approved by the Board ..Sent survey letters to all students in the proposed attendance zone ..Two community meetings have been scheduled for PCSSD on May 17 and May 18, 1993. ..Draft of King recruitment plan ..Surveyed PCSSD, LRSD, and Governmental agencies near school site EXHIBIT \"D IISUPPORT DATA 1. List of signatures 2. 3 . 4. Recruitment Plan for King Theme selection survey results Report of the impact of the King attendance zone 5. Copy of attendance zone maps 6. 7 , Copy of letter submitted to Board Neighbor meetingsEXHIBIT \"E\" RECRUITMENT PLAN FOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SCHOOL March 20, 1993 SITUATION ANALYSIS The Desegregation Plan places great importance on the Inter-District Schools in enabling the LRSD to be in full compliance. In order to draw a school population from the surrounding area, this plan was designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski Counts' as well as Little Rock. TARGET AUDIENCES The major target audiences include: The neighborhood surrounding the school Additional zoned areas PCSSD Magnet Schools (non-placements) Children of employees at: Arkansas Children's Hospital The State Capitol Complex (Big Mac, Dept, of Ed., State Capitol, etc.) West Dttle Rock Areas of Chenal Valley, Taylor Loop, etc. GOALS lyj'jU'Srs At- The major goal of this recruitment plan is to desegregate. MLKJ according to the Desegregation Plan by using the neighborhood to draw black students and draw white students from PCSSD first and them from Magnet School nonplacements, employees of the medical and government comple.x, and county residents in West Little Rock. This plan will rely heavily on the cooperation of PCSSD to assist in the recruitment of white parents from their district. ACTION P\\AN It is understood that this recruitment process cannot begin until the school theme and curriculum are chosen, the principal has be^n named and some promotion\n materials have been printed. The theors' behind this -- parents want to knt .. what they are getting. i Parer's want to know the academic theme and iw.w their child will relate to the curriculum, thes' want to meet and talk wi, . the person who will be in charge, and they -v.ant to walk away with informc.tion in hand. The act on plan will begin with group presentations in hopes that the school will be rilled by using the parent recruitment team manpower in a more frugal way. Howeser if this cannot be accomplished, one-on-one recruitment will take place. In each meeting there will be an c\\ aluation component or survey for parent.s to ill out. 'Phis will be used later to evaluate\ne process ai.d to pros'ide inlormation for ODM and the Court about the\necruitmenl process. This will also be used to document PCSSD's involvement.King Recruitment Plan Page 2 GROUP PRESENTATIONS - May, June The Parent Recruitment Team will begin as soon as possible (mid-late April) in organizing and implementing the following: Meeting with PCSSD to discuss the recruitment of their white students beginning with those who were unhappy because they could not get into Crystal Hill. Organize a meeting at Crystal Hill to meet with these parents. Meeting with Magnet Review Committee to obtain a list of students who could not get into magnets. Organize a meeting with those parents at a central location. Recruitment meetings in churches in the school neighborhood. Recruitment meetings in churches in West Little Rock. Special presentations to Realtors Association, Rotary, Optimist Club, etc. Working with the Public Relations Offices of Children's Hospital, State Capitol, Big Mac, Dept, of Ed. and other government offices, decide the best time to present a program to the employees about the school. (Group presentations may be timed to catch staff arriving/leaving their work schedule and may need to include donuts and coffee or refreshments of some kind). Work with local corporation relocation staff (AP\u0026amp;L, Arkla, Systematics) to reach people as soon as they enter the area. Follow-up meetings with area employees may be necessary. ONE-ON-ONE PRESENTATIONS - July, August If the group presentations have not filled the school with the appropriate racial balance, the enrollment will be reviewed for racial composition and the following will be done\nIf more students of each race are needed: Individual letters followed by phone calls will be made by Parent Recruitment Team in the neighborhood area , PCSSD lists, West Little Rock. (This will require that PCSSD provide a list to LRSD). A Phone-a-thon organized to call after hours to insure parents are reached. If more black students are needed: Same as above and possibly home visits to parents.King Recruitment Page 3 If more white students are needed: Same as above and possibly home visits to parents. School visits and meetings held at the school should begin as soon as the school is ready. Group tours will be a must! PUBLIC RELATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT FOR RECRUITMENT Write a special, catchy promotional theme (just a few words) to be used and identified with MLKJ school. This will be used on all promotions so that the community will quickly indentify it with the school. Assist in writing and producing literature for recruitment. Use Dr. Bernd's weekly radio show to promote recruitment. Produce PSAs - radio and T.V. Use KLRE/KUAR heavily to promote the school Plan a recruitment campaign with the Chamber of Commerce to promote the school to newcomers. Order the Daily Record to receive all new residents addresses to mail information. Ask SWB, Arkla, or AP\u0026amp;L to include an ad in their billing to promote the school. Ask the same corporations as well as others to place a story' about the new school in their corporate newsletter. Work with T.V. stations to do a feature spot about the school. Ask local radio D.J's to do their morning shows from the school in order to talk about how great it is. Ask D.J.'s to bring their mobile units to the school to promote -- have T- shirt give aways and other goodies to draw people.MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL THEME SELECTION SURVEY RESULTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARCH-APRIL 1993 Suggested Theme Choices Theme Rankings 1st 2nd 3rd 4th The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School for Economic Education The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Academy for Communication Arts 9 20 11 19 26 30 19 5 The Martin Luther King, Jr. School for High Intensity Learning Interdistrict 47 16 5 3 The Martin Luther King, Jr. School for Health Sciences Interdistrict 3 9 22 27 Other Suggestions: l.Kids ride the bus from Ish to King. 2Martin_Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School Dreams Come True_____ Where 3.No Ish teachers be hired at this new school. ' history magnet with strong emphasis on African culture.  M^-tin Luther King. Jr. Interdistrict School for Music M^Ttin Luther King. Jr. Interdistrict School for Econo- Communication ,_Intensity, and Overall Learning mics. Center td X a H w HMARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FEBRUARY 1992 Site Rankings Suggested Site Choices 1st 2nd 9th and Pulaski Streets 174 134 Westside Jr, High site (14th \u0026amp; Marshall) 135 159 Theme Rankings Basic Skills Suggested Theme Choices 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6t! 185 41 33 26 18 2* Computer Science 73 121 70 37 21 13 i Economic Education 13 53 68 66 73 30 Environmental Science 16 40 36 80 86 Medical Science and Health-related Occupations Visual and Performing Arts 53 17 Would you be interested in enrolling your child(ren) at King? 40 69 73 32 i3 Yes 226 No 57 34 63 42 98 Maybe 30 14\" Other Theme Suggestions: Foreign/Sign Language Physical Education Cooking Science/Social Studies Job Preparation Communication Math/Science Special Education Aviation Black History theme Multicultural Education Education Athletics/PE Aeronautics Self-Esteem \u0026amp; Interpersonal Skills AerospaceMarlin Luther King, Jr. Inlerdistrict School Community Survey Results Little Rock/Pulaski County Special School Districts February 1992 Page 2 Cumments: - 1. All schools should have the same themes, equal opportunities for all students. 2. Neither site is in a safe location. 3. Those attending should choose their own site. 4. What about Granite Mountain as a site? 5. No additional schools are needed - Little Rock should maintain the present ones - do not bus. 6. Security/transportation - need more information on this. 7. Blacks need basic skills first before any of these other things. 8. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not deserving of this honor - he was nothing but a trouble maker - perhaps name in the honor of Alex Haley. 9. W rong side of the river - need school like this in North Little Rock or Jacksonville. 10. School too far for some North Little Rock and Jacksonville children to be bussed  they prefer their neighborhood schools.MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL THEME SELECTION SURVEY RESULTS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MARCH-APRIL 1993 Suggested Theme Choices Theme Rankings 1st 2nd 3rd 4th The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School for Economic Education The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Academy for Communication Arts The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School for High Intensity Learning The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School for Health Sciences Interested in enrolling child at King? 40 69 160 18 Yes 43 50 77 56 41 No 182 75 50 29 57 Maybe 67 55 37 13 102 ther Suggestions: Math/Science with emphasis on hands on learning using computers, \"Mr. Rogers type science labs. Combination of all four. Math/Science, make kids able to compete globally_____ Capitalism and the Free Enterprise System - what made America great - Biblical principles'art in Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School heme Selection Survey - Pulaski County Special School District 'arch-April 1993 age 2 )ther Suggestions (cont.): Music, Drama, Arts, and Sports High Intensity Learning (Re \u0026lt;1) Better to develop it from an investor's point of view. Comments: Too far away. Unsafe location for any child - location is a \"Sinner's Paradise.\" Think salaried professionals should make the theme selection - not a lottery situation. Eyery school should offer Selection No. 3. Selection No. 2 not real useful unless it follows a more serious theme such as Selection Nos. 1 and 2. Parents should have the final say in their child's school location. Magnet schools are bad because they create a \"have\" and II have not II situation. Have higher-level classes offered at schools now in operation - no need for new schools.________________ lartin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School heme Selection Survey - Pulaski County Special School District '.arch-April 1993 age 3 omments (cont.) : 9. transition 31]interdiscipline approach to combining a in curriculum is emphasized._________ 0 , 1. 2 . School should be for above-average students.______ -This curriculum may present opportunities for the _development of talents in the performing arts.____ __Theme should be something to help students develop _study skills and grades for average students._____044 P01 OCT 12 98 10:24  . z -  r I   I FR TO\nAnn Brown FROM: Mattie Ruth Tipton t FAX NUMBER\n371-0100 i # PAGESfincl cover): \u0026gt; A. in. COMMENTS: I Requested information on Proposed Attendance Zones for 9^2000 Il you have ary trouble receiving this fax, please call 570-4149.044 P02 OCT 12 98 10:25 DATE: October 12, 1998 TO: Ann Brown FROM: Mattie Ruth Tipton RE: REVISED ATTENDANCE ZONES FOR MCCLEEAN As stated over the phone, I am very concerned about the revised attendance zones for McClellan for 99/2000. Here are my areas of mncem: 1. 2. 3. Presently, McClellan has a racial makeup of 86% black and 14% white \u0026amp; others. The proposed attendance zones would futhei- promote our becoming 100% black within a very few years. There is no area within our proposed zone that will have a majority of white students. We are the only high school that does not have at least one idiite area. The areas assigned to us are saturated with no new growth areas or no new subdivisions. Therefore, there is little or no hope of change in our student body. We are placed in a catch 22 position - oiir black enrollmait is so hl^ that it is hard to recruit idiite students but with the highest black enrollment we also loose many black students to other schoolsi. They can apply for a desegregation transfer and go to any other high school 1 ecause we are so out of balance. Often the student and parents who are informed enou^ to apply for these transfers are the students and parents we need to reinforce the quality of our student body. 4. When we were originally annexed, the area directly off of Roosevelt Rd- was referred to as our satellite zone. Even ^'hen they were discussing placing a magnet program within our school, reference was made to our satellite zone was 100% black. Evidently our satellite zone has now become our nei^bor- hood because the paper stated that only Central had a satellite zone. What is ^e justification for Central being given a white satellite zone ^n they already have a racial makeup of 59.5% black to out 86% black? (Of course I know ^y!) What is 5.  McClellan dating back to the close was built, we still had Mabelvale. dividing line. LRSD took this away from us and gave us the satellite zone instead. If the Mabelvale/Alexander area was rot-nmo.) ..-.a the Mabelvale/Alexander area was returned to us and enrollment at Fair and Hall, equality would be better served for all. ctiuzixxxy wouxu 6. Tremendous investments have been made into the model Technology program here ?22JJr! our_,8net progra.. B,.ever, wasted^tLTth.\nd ! our magnet program. However, this mo^ey will be wasted without the students needed to make them succeed. 1, I teye run attendance reports today and am including them with this it is obivious that the two annexed high schools are beinf trStS diSerentR JSan 2d raciil makeup in 87/88 was 57.9% i^ite S^y?2e Siter^haS'us sure DarL,-.* Whiter thm us. I believe that '-entral was approximately 61% black lall was approximately 38% blaS  tell me idiere is the equity. We we2 p2kS2 cSrS the problem for rcu.it.vxew, uentrai, ano Mali but at vdiat coiit to us! I1fi I CALL ME AT 570-4106 IF YCXJ HAV? QUESTIOIStn N IS  -Mora - ru 8 01 LRSD -----BACS- ITS BY SCHOOL 1998/10/12  1 SCHOOL: 0 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL n IS Q. t T r Class Black --------------Xount- Black .Reccet^ other other x^oufttPercent Total Xlount- Min % -Black- Max % Black Max ca^iacity c t K SP- 10 11 0 294 231 iCB-------- .0% 88.3% 84.9% 0 -.5. 39 41 33- .0% 0 Total 751 85,8% 124 r C I F2=Screen wait F12=Break F3=Exlt F14=View 11.7% 15.1% 15,3%. -----------23 14.2% F6=Top line 333 272 24-T 875 40.0% UJ%- 45.0% 45.0% 43-0%. 75.0% ----- 67.5% 67.5% ^7.. 5%. 0 0 394 393 -393- P9=Retrieve F10=Top Fll=Bottoin i ( \u0026lt; t 1 \u0026lt;co CM IS \"MS \u0026lt;i' W*^ CB cn CM SowecKouse-Qul2 4iocta_4^ J cf Ct IS 01 LRSD --------PAGE- 1 SCHOOL: imtllWITTl' f-if.i. SCHOOL COUNTS BY SCHOOL 1998/10/12 \u0026lt; \u0026lt; r \u0026lt; 08 PAIR HIGH SCHOa Class Black Black Other other Total ---------CountEercentCountPercent___Count- K .. SP- - 10 11 0 la 230 187 .0% 73.3^ 86.2% 12...........155--------82.9%.----- Total 591 82.1% F2=screen wait P12=Break F3=Bxlt P14=View Min % slack. Max % Slack Max Capacity 0 _x 60 30 82- 129 .0% SS,S%- 2Q.l^ 13.8% 0 -ZS 290 217 40.0% ------0% 45.0% 45.0% 75.0%  67.5% 67.5% 0 a 306 305 --------18-7-----jt5..-0% *7.5% __.. 805 17.9% 720 I P6=Top line F9=Retrieve P10=Top Pll=Bottom I \u0026lt; (  C I I i I IC' ni Q 00 on \u0026lt;M * ------------Power House-.QU12., 8 f ~ 01 LRSD - PAG.-. 1 SCHOOL: ^.^^GHOOI^-COUNt,SBY SCHOOL 1998/10/12 05 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET BBtaawBgwj------------mumi f n o Class Black Black other other Total CountPercentcountPercent Count Min % Black. Max % Max r ^Lack------CapaclXy- K -------SP ...... 10 11 12 0 ___0____ 151 155 l\u0026amp;l___ .0% --------0^ 51.3% 49.8% -52-^6%, 0 ___a 153 156 145 .0% -----JJ%.- 48.7% 50.2% 0 ___0- 314 311 40.0% -------0.%.. 50.0% 50.0% aa6_~_50uD-% ' \u0026lt;  -------Q.%. 55.0% 55.0% 55.04^ 0 -Q___ 331 331 311 ,_ Total 477 51.2% 454 48.8% 931 I C F2=Screen wait F12=Break F3=Exit P14=View F6=Top line P9=Retrieve F10=Top Fl 1 =Bottoin I C ( (r t ( _ cc 8R (M PowerKouse-QUIZ h 8 01 LRSD ..PAGE- 1 SCHOOL: SCHOOL COUNTS BY SCHOOL 1998/10/12 HALL HIGH SCHOOL 1 class Black Black , Other Other Total Min % Max % Max -CapacXty. \u0026lt; K SP-------- 10 11 n 215 166 100.0% ^-64.3% 70.5% 69.5% 0 5-------- .0% c i. 90 T3 15________14 5--------6 6-^-------------------------- jrocai b9 . b% 29,5% 30.5% JU . 4% F2=Screen wait F12=Break F3=Exlt F14=View line 17 1-4 305 239 iia t'ii 40.0% -----41%^ 45.0% 45.0% 75.0% ----- 20 a 400 400 Aoa F9=Retrieve F10=Top Fll=Bottoin \u0026lt; f C + \u0026lt; \u0026lt; I \u0026lt; ICD ru Q co (Ti C w JOaM^JiQ-Use--QUi z ( 8 ( 01 LRSD ___EAftEL. 1 SCHOOL\nim 0011 SCHOOL COUNTS BY SCHOOL 1998/10/12 8 CL s c Class c ( c r f C f c. CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Black liQunt. Black Eercent. other HQUnt. Other Percftnt. Total Count- Min % ^lack. Max % Max BJ ack---Capaf 1 fry K _____SE______ 10 11 Total 34 ___0. 411 397 97.1% ail 60.6% 61,6% i2_j6,%. 1 261 2/^1 254 2.9% -------Q.V 39-4% 38.4% A7.4%.,. 35 ___0. 678 644 5116. 59.5% nft: 45.0% 45.0% A3U1%. 15.01 ------01 67.5% 67.5% 35 a 667 667 K6. 1124 59.4ft 769 40 . 1.99' P2=Screen wait P12=Br6ak F3=Exit F14=vieM F6=Top line P9=Retrieve P10=Top Fli=Bottom c ( ( c I8 01 LRSO PAGE 1 SCHOOL: Class K SP 10 11 12 Total 012 PowerHouse quiz SCHOOL COUNTS BY SCHOOL MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL Black Count Black Percent Other Count Other Percent Total Count Mln % Black Max % Black Max Capacity 0 18 275 257 241 791 F2=screen wait P12=Break .0% 78.3% 84.1% 83.7% 86.1% 84.4% P3=Bxlt F14=view 05 52 50 39 146 .0% 21.7% 15.9% 16.3% 13.9% 15.6% F6=Top line 0 23 327 307 280 937 40.0% .0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 75.0% .0% 67.5% 67.5% 67.5% 0 0 394 393 393 F9=Retrieve P10=Top FH=BottoiB This was our assignments after the deseg transfers, that takes such a hit in our enrollment. 1998/05/18 More + - I We are the only school you can see, most of these are soohanores 1410 are reassigned before even attending one day at McClellan. \"  ' by the reputation that we are dangerous and do not offer quality education I can ever get them here for at least one nine week period, we do not loose that but we can t fight our reputation and the Student Assignment Office too. We loose good black students through this process and still end up with a higher black If we Ba too. many  i  benefit to us but t { 044 Pll OCT 12 98 10:30 199fi/99 OFFICIAL EtraOLLMKMT 10/01'98 GRADE BM lOTI 160 IITE llA 12TB 111 BF 138 125 100 TOTAL BLACK 298 239 211 WH 11 18 15 WF 15 19 19 TOTAL WHITE 26 34 OM OF TOTAL OTHERS lA TOTAL BY GRAD] 338 281 251 31 8 6 1 5 3 3 6 TOTAL NUMBER 01 SOPHOHOSES: 338 TOTAL NUMBER Ol JUNIORS\n281 TOTAL NUMBER 01 SENIORS\n251 OFFICIAL ENROLIMENT\n870 RACIAL PERCENTAGES BY GRADE: 10th Grade: 11th Grade\n12th Grade: SCHOOL TOTALS: BREAKDOWN BY SEX: 88.2% Black 85.1% Black 84.1% Black 86.OX Black 07.7% White 13.2% White 13.5% White 11.IX White 04.1% Other 01.7% Other 02.4% Other 2.9X Other 10th Grade: 179 Boys 159 Girls 11th Grade: 133 Boys 148 Girls 12th Grade: 129 Boys 122 Girls SCHOOL TOTALS: 441 Boys 429 Girls C(HfPARISON TO LAST YEAR\nOfficial Enrollment for 97/98: 935 We are now the 3rd largest school in the LRSD. Central is the largest and Parkview has passed us as the 2nd lirgest..9 O^ You have received your proposed neighborhood school zones for future years. Tne meetings outlined below are designed for you to attend if you have questions or comments about the new neighborhood zones. These meetings will be held in the school auditoriums. Wednesday, October 14 6:00 p.m. Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street Wednesday, October 14 6:00 p.m. J. A. Fair High School 13420 David 0. Dodd Thursday, October 15 6:00 p.m. McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs Rd. , Thursday, October 15 6:00 p.m. Central High School 1500 Park St. If you can't attend a meeting and would like to ask questions or provide comments, please send them in writing to: Junious Babbs Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 III An Individual Approack to a World of Knowledge November 6,1998 Dear Parent: We are conducting a survey to determine how many students plan to attend their neighborhood schools next fall according to the proposed new attendance zones. Last month you received a letter listing your proposed neighborhood schools based on your street address. As the parent of a student who is not currently attending his or her proposed attendance zone school (based on the new zones), you have to make a decision regarding your childs school assignment for next school year. If you elect for your child to remain at his or her current school, he or she would be considered a grandfathered student and would be allowed to remain through the completion of that schools organizational level (for elementary this is K-5\nmiddle school next year wiU be grades 6-8\nhigh school will be grades 9-12). Keep in mind, however, your students grandfathered status is tied to your current address. If you move to a new address, your child will lose the grandfathered designation and will be reassigned to a school based on your new address. Please complete the enclosed survey card to help us determine the approximate number of Students who prefer to attend their proposed neighborhood attendance zone schools. It is not a firm commitment on your part for next year - your response is for our planning purposes only. If your address is listed incorrectly, please contact your school immediately with proof of address to update this information. us Please complete the enclosed card and mail it by November 13, Thank you for helping as we improve our schools to better serve students. If you have any questions, please contact the Student Assignment Office at 324-2272 or the Parent Recruiters at 324-2147 or 324-2438. Sincerely, Junious-Babbs Junioi Associate Superintendent 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax\n501-324-2032Student I.D.#: Current School: Current Grade: Zone Block: '99-2000 Attendance Zone School\nInstructions - Please check the appropriate box below: For the 99-2000 school yean  I wish for my child to remain at his/her current school. n I wish for my child to transfer to his/her attendance zone school. Parent/Guardian Signature Date Student I.D.#: Current School\nCurrent Grade: Zone Block: 99-2000 Attendance Zone School\nInstructions - Please check the appropriate box below: For the 99-2000 school year:  I wish for my child to remain at his/her current school.  I wish for my child to transfer to his/her attendance zone school. Parent/Guardian Signature Date Student I.D.#\nCurrent School: Current Grade: Zone Block\n99-2000 Attendance Zone School: Instructions - Please check the appropriate box below: For the 39-2000 school year:  I wish for my child to remain at his/her current school.  1 wish for my child to transfer to his/her attendance zone school Parent/Guardian Signature Datemill NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO.282 LITTLE ROCK AR POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W MARKHAM ST LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-9706 .....,\n|.l..t...lli....ll...ll..i NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO.282 LITTLE ROCK AR POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W MARKHAM ST LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-9706 liiinilllllliliHlilfillll.nili.l BUSINESS REPLY MAIL RRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO.282 LITTLE ROCK AR NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W MARKHAM ST little rock ar 72201-9706 lliiiliililiiiilltJuly 20, 1998 PCSSD filed a brief regarding the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. Based on the best information available at this time. Dr. Donald Stewart stated that PCSSD should be awarded $1,637,571 for 1996- 97 and $1,445,360 for 1997-98. Attached to this filing is Exhibit 1, which are the worksheets for PCSSD State Teacher Retirement. July 24, 1998 LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD filed a joint motion to extend time in which to file a reply brief regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement issues. The districts requested an additional four (4) days, to and including July 31, 1998, in which to pursue discussions prior to submitting reply briefs. July 31, 1998 ADE filed its July Project Management Tool. August 10, 1998 The Court granted ADE to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file reply briefs to PCSSDs July 20, 1998 opening brief regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues. August 19, 1998 ADE filed its response to PCSSDs July 20, 1998 brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance. In its response, ADE stated that there were two methods of calculations submitted: The method proposed by ADE (and endorsed by LRSD and NLRSD) and the method proposed by PCSSD which is flawed and should not be adopted. For the reasons listed in this response, the State requested the Court to reject PCSSDs method of calculation because it would allow some districts to receive more than 100% of its retirement and health insurance obligations. August 19, 1998 The districts (LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD) filed a brief in response to ADEs submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance. In this filing, the districts stated that under Act 917, the districts outside Pulaski County will receive 107% of the teacher retirement and health insurance costs from the State. Therefore the three Pulaski County districts requested the same percentage. In order to fund the Pulaski County districts the same percentage as the other districts, the following amounts were requested: LRSD, $8,740,083 for 1996-97 and $9,079,676 for 1997-98\nNLRSD, $1,3030,417 for 1996-97 and $1,328,590 for 1997-98\nand PCSSD, $1,920,359 for 1996-97 and $2,222,213 for 1997-98. August 19, 1998 PCSSD filed a supplemental submission regarding the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. In this filing, PCSSD requested to be allowed to argue the adoption of the methodology and outcomes reflected in the exhibits attached to this submission, if the court does not accept the proposal. The 2NOV- 3-98 TUE 14:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 B. DEWEY FITIHVGH 4715 DARRAGH DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (SOI) 565-1994 October 27, 1998 received OCT 29 1998 U S. DISTRICT XfDGE Mr. Junious C. Babbs, Jr. Associate Superintendent For Administration Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: The Proposed Changes in The Little Rock High School Attendance Zone Dear Mr. Babbs: I am the parent of a 14-year old ninth grader who attends Pulaski Heights Junior High School. K through 6ch grade. She attended Carver Elementary from I have been very pleased with the both Carver and Pulaski Heights. I held several offices in the local PTA, including Co-President my child's Sth grade year, very proud to be selected by the Little Rock School District in I was 19SS to be the recipient of the VIPS Mentor Award for my work at T . I have remained active in junior high PTA serving on ---------- The faculty and staff at Carver and Pulaski Carver. various committees. Heights Junior High have been excellent. I believe that Carver and Pulaski Heights are the best elementary and junior high schools in the district. I believe that it is crucial that our public schools remain strong and well financed. I have always been a strong supporter of tax increases for the public schools. I am requesting that the committee vote against rezoning of Central for the following reasons: 1. My wife and I purchased our home in Western Hill eleven years ago because we wanted to live in the Central High attendance zone. remaining the same. We have relied on the high attendance zone We could have kept our house at 1111 Schiller Street had we had notice that the high school attendance zones would change. 2. Although I am aware of my child's option to apply for the Magnet Programs at Central and Parkview, she may not get accepted. 3. I believe that the proposed high school attendance zone will cause the district to lose students, black and white, to the private schools.NOV- 3-98 TUE 14:24 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Mr. Junious C. Babbs, Jr. October 27, 1998 Page Two 4. Parents should be given at least two or three years schoo zlm Vt d-* i1s t\u0026gt;r3 i ct makes such. a drast*ic change in the high school attendance zzoonneess..  o V ,5 . child need the academic challenge Central High School offers, even though I know that all schools have excellent or good teachers. In conclusion, work with the community and take reaoning changes. -  -  1 am requesting that the school district a more gradual approach to , , - - -. believe that all of you have noble goals in mind for the Little Rock School District. However, if parents had more notice of what you have proposed, we could make better decisions for the good of our children. However, if parents I believe a more gradual approach would engender the public support for the public schools that IS needed to achieve your goals. Sincerely yours, cc: Mr. H. Baker Kurrus Ms. Kathrine Mitchell Mr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr, Larry Berkley Mr, Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue Strickland Hon. Susan Weber Wright Hon. John W. Walker NOV- 3-98 TUE 14:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 522 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 DATE: TO: FAX NO.: i'll '6! 00 NUMBER or PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 3 FROM: ORGANIZATION: FAX NO.: 501-324-6576 COMMENTS: A RECEIWO Monday, October 19,1998 OCT 20 1998 3220 South Arch Street Little Rock, AR 72206 (H) 501-375-8606 (W) 501-324-6113 WmoiiMoniiG Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Now that the proposed neighborhood attendance school zones have been revealed, the picture that appears is not very pretty for the Little Rock School District or the City of Little Rock. Upon closer inspection, I see two (2) distinct and separate cities within Little Rock. One White and another African-American. I see the doctrine of \"Separate But Equal\" in the very face of these attendance zone maps. Many schools will become, if not already, one-race schools, or predominantly African- American, without the adequate funding necessary to sustain growth in those particular schools. For instance, the Little Rock School District disregarded the wishes of the parents of the formerly Ish School by changing their attendance from King to Washington, which was the original zone over thirty years ago. These parents, after having attended many meetings and hours of participation in the process of deciding what was best for their children, have been basically slapped in the face, after the district assured, promised, guaranteed, that their children would be permanently assigned to King, if Ish would close. Now we know that the district basically lied to the parents of the Ish school community. I ask you. How can America be America, when those in power continue to manipulate, twist, and cajole the minority to further their own agendas and not do what is best for the entire district. How can America be America, when the ideas, suggestions, and comments of African-American parents are continually being trampled upon like a bug and totally ignored. How can America be America, when African-American children are being tossed about like pawns in a chess match to further increase the economic dollar in the Little Rock School District without benefitted the children in which it is intended. How can America be America, when African-American children are being warehoused into particular schools with no intent of providing adequate funding for thoseschools. And how can America be America, when the suggestion has been made, and studied, to close schools in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. yet the buildings are used for other purposes than schools by the Little Rock School District. I suggest to the residents of Ward 1, and possibly Ward 2, to look into the possibility of succeeding from not only the Little Rock School District, but the City of Little Rock as well, begin your own municipality, and school system. When your tax dollars are being used to subsidize expansion of the City of Little Rock, as well as the Little Rock School District, and your neighborhood has not benefitted directly, it is time to take drastic measures. The disregard of the African-American communities concern for the education of their children has gone on to long, as well as the economic degradation of their neighborhoods. Desperate times calls for drastic measures. Sincerely, Kenyoir 6 c \u0026lt;- Lowe, Sr. Arkansas Democrat TSP (5azcUc | THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998  ' Zone revamping expected to trim school busing BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARJCVJSAS DEMOCRAT\u0026lt;!.AZErrE atten- Neighborhood-school dance zones proposed for next year would eventually reduce mandatory cross-town busing in the Little Rock School District to levels not seen since busing for desegregation began in the early 1970s, school officials say. This week, district officials mailed parents of about 23,000 students letters listing the elementary, middle and high MAP SHOWING proposed - attendance zones. Page 6A. their schools children will be assigned to beginning next August if the School Board approves the re- vised attendance zones. The board is expected to act in late November or in December. Junious Babbs, associate superintendent for administrative r. See ZONES, F|ge7A (jSc- in  *0 lOuncjC I Zone  Continued from Page 1A services, said Wednesday that the proposed plan will enable many students to attend schools closer to h^me, reduce district transportation costs and make it easier for parents to be involved in schools.  Students who do not wish to attend a newly assigned attendance zone school can continue at their schools or transfer to another school if space is available at them, Babbs said. Babbs stopped short of promising that every student who wants to continue at school outside his attendance-zone school will get to. Students living in a particular attendance zone will have priority for enrollment at that school, Babbs said. Julie Wiedower, the districts interim director for student assignment, said that 90 percent to 95 percent of students who want to continue at their schools should be able to do so next year. At the elementary schools, moving sixth-grade classes into the middle schools next year will make it possible to increase the number of classes to accommodate pupils both inside and outside the attendance zones. High school space, however, will be tighter, as those schools are acquiring ninth-graders for the I first time in generations. Parkview ' Magnet High School, for example, is expected to go from about 900 students to about 1,200 with the addition of the freshman class. Wiedower said she wont know until next week how many students are attending schools outside their proposed new attendance zones. Around Nov. 1, the district will mail to the parents of those students surveys asking whether they are inclined to keep their children at current schools or move them to the attendance zone schools. The district will ask parents to commit to a choice of schools in January. By then parents will have had time to visit their proposed schools. Information from the November surveys will enable administrators to refine their set of priorities for making student assignments to schools, Babbs said. Its our hope that grandfathering students into their current schools wont be a problem. We just cant overcommit, he said. The revised desegregation plan allows for some student transfers to magnet schools, desegregation transfers that improve racial balance at both the sending and receiving schools, and racial isolation transfers, where students in a school that is more tlian 90 percent black can transfer. Still other transfers are allowed for children of employees, special circumstances and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. Transportation will be provided to the grandfathered students  those allowed to keep their current school despite their out-ofzone status  as well as students going to attendance-zone schools two miles away. The proposed attendance zone plan, which affects all schools except the vocational and alternative schools, was made possible by the districts newly revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A federal judge approved that plan  negotiated between district officials and representatives of black families  in April. The revised desegregation plan gives the district the flexibility to redraw school attendance zones to make them reasonably compact and contiguous. The plan also allows the district to abandon its use of satellite attendance zones, a practice that links schools to distant neighborhoods to produce a racially diverse student body. The new desegregation plan doesnt require every school to be racially balanced. Nor does it require the district to recruit students to obtain a particular racial composition in every school. But if a reasonably compact zone results in an elementary or middle school less than 20 percent black, the district can:  Draw the zone to less than full capacity to allow room for voluntary transfer of black students.  Create satellite zones of black Williams magnet elementary students to avoid a virtually all- white school. The proposed attendance zone plan, at least on paper, does create some elementary school zones where fewer than 20 percent of elementary children are black. But Babbs and Wiedower said they expect black pupils already attending those schools to choose to remain next year even if they live outside the zone. Otherwise, seats will be reserved at those schools for black transfer students. The proposed plan is also expected to produce some virtually all-black elementary schools. Almost a dozen are at least 80 percent black under the existing plan, which required schools to be between 40 percent and 60 percent black. At high schools, the revised desegregation plan calls for black enrollment at a school to be within 20 percentage points of the districts overall black high school enrollment District administrators developed the attendance zone plan with advice from a committee of residents chaired by newly elected School Board member Baker Kurrus. Committee members included representatives of the Joshua intervenors  the class of black families in the Pulaski County desegregation case  and the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring, as well as parents from different sections of the community. The district will hold four public meetings next week to answer questions and listen to comments i about the proposed attendance ' zone plan: Meetings will be held at 6 p.m. Wednesday at Hall High, 6700 H : St., and J. A. Fair High, 13420 David 0. Dodd Road. At 6 p.m. : Thursday, meetings will be held at McClellan High, 9417 Geyer Springs Road, and Central High, 1500 Park St. Also, each school has a copy of its proposed attendance zone map, which the public can view. The proposed attendance zone plan includes the following provisions:  Magnet and interdistrict schools will continue to operate. Students now attending them may continue to do so until they complete all avm'lablo ctfqHoc tho cphnnl Oth- ! available grades at the school, 0th-  er students can continue applying for seats in the magnet schools.  The grade structures at the magnet schools will change just as they are changing at all other district schools to accommodate the conversion of the junior highs into middle schools for grades six through eight.  Booker, Carver, Gibbs and schools, Mann Magnet Middle\nSchool and Parkview Magnet High : School do not have attendance zones. Students from all over Pu- ! laski County can apply for those\nschools.  A new Stephens Elementary will open in August 2000. Proposed plans call for closing Garland and Mitchell elementary schools once Stephens is completed.  Only current students can be considered for assignment to a school' not in their attendance zone. The allowance doesnt extend to siblings not enrolled at a school.  Central is the only school to retain a satellite attendance zone.  Pre-registration for the 1999- 2000 school year will start Jan. 25 through Feb. 5,1999. Assignments will be mailed March 5.  Kindergarten classes at Central and Hall high schools will be eliminated next year.Arkansas Democrat (6azclte National   THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8,1998  5A Immigration service chafes at new mandatory detention rules THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON  The immigration service must start locking up thousands more legal permanent residents and other aliens this week who are deportable because they have criminal records, as a final piece ofthe 1996 immigration law. Struggling with a record demand for jail beds, the Immigration and Naturalization Service contends that it lacks the space, personnel and budget to fulfill the new detention rules. But that plea has aroused little sympathy on Capitol Hill. . \"The problem here is not money. The problem here is a lack of commitment on the part ofthe agency, said Allen I^, a spokesman for mass roundup of certain categories said Annie Wilson ofthe Lutheran V.c continue to Jack sufficient ever ito J733 Uullton detention bud- House Judicial'immigration sub- ofindividuals,norwillitpromptany Immigration and Refugee Service detention capacity and personnel to get, comply with the new rules committee Chairman Lamar Smith, mass rele^ of individuals from and the Detention Watch Network, comply fUlly... and maintain a com- to the foil extent possible within R-Texas. INS detention, said Russ Bergeron, They cant possibly suddenly de- prehensive and balanced enforce- the limitation of our resources,\" The immigration service has lob- an agency spokesman. tain 34,000 people, which is the uni- ment effort al the borders and in the Bergeron said. We lack over its $733 million bud-bied Congress unsuccessfully to ex- lie immigration service esti- verse of people that they would de- interior, Meissner said. The American Bar Association tend a two-year grace period, which mates it would n^ anywhere from tain ifthey had the space. expires toni^L that allowed the l,000tol5,000newjailbedstofolfill o\n-.. .000 .u. ____ ______ release criminal aliens the new detention rules. vice has nearly doubled its deten- 60 percent of immigrant detainees, detention rules are unconstitution-believed to pose no danger. The requirements leave us with tion space. At any one time some remain the agencys top enforce- al. Theyre pii.shingthi irnmigratinn Human rights, reli^ous and im- far less flexibility tlum weve had in 16,000 detainees are incarcerated in ment priorities. Hie rest of the de- service to develop alternatives, inmigrant advocacy groups, which the past to determine who is de- agency-run facilities and local jails tainees are illegal immigrants cap- eluding the use of supervised re-have complained of widespread tain^ and who is noVBeigeron with which the agency contracts. '--------------- .k-. --------------- - Commissioner Doris Meissner, forcement operations, deportable 'Die detention and removal of and human and immigrant ri^ts Since 1996, the immigration ser- criminal aliens, who make up about groups contend that the mandatory vice has nearly doubled its deten- abuses in an already-taxed immigra- said. And dial certainly compli-don agency detention system, sup- cates our ability to utilize the limit-tured at the border or in interior en- lease pn^rams. port extending the grace perii^. Implementation of the new rules aliens whose home countries wont Some lawmakers have chided in no way will prompt any type of lot of new pressures on the system, -------------- ---------------- - appearing before the Senate immi- the agency for being too zealous in ed detention space we have. ^tion subcommittee last month, take them back and asylum seekers, jailing asylum seekers at a time Mandatory detention \"places a signaled that her agency cannot \u0026gt;    ... .. .  * meet its mandate. 'The immigration service, which when bed space is scarce for crimi-expects little increase next year nal aliens. College costs rise at slower pace But higher education has become 50% more expensive over 10 years THE ASSOCIATED PRESS the most for those at the low end ooff There were no such figures for WASHINGTON  The price of the economic scale, said Lawrence two-year public institutions. Democrat c--o-ll-e\u0026lt;ge gre-w -a-t- -a- -s-lo--w-e-r- p-a--c-e- -th--is -G-l-a-d-i-e-u-x-, an analyst with -th--e- -C-o-l - Despite congressional pressure year, but the ticket to a higher edu- lege Board, which represents col- on institutions to curb prices, some cation -still -c-o-s-ts- -5-0 rp-e-r-c-e-n-t- -m--o-r-e -leog.e.s,, u n-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-ie-s-- a--n-d- -e-d--u-c-a-t-i-o-n-a-l states enacted large increases for than a decade ago. their public, four-year colleges. The 4 percent average increase col- Mississippi colleges are ch^ng this year means tuition and fees lege or university cost 62 percent of lo percent more this year after the rose $132 at public four-year insti- a low-income familys earnings and first increase in six years brought tutions to reach an average of 17 percent ofa middle-income fam- the average tuition and fees to $3243, the College Board reported flys earnings last year, the most re- $2,800, Florida h^ had three Wednesday, cent year for which numbers were straightyearsofincreasesofabout . For pnvate, four-year colleges, available. Sending a child to a pri- 7percenteachyearbringingtheav-averaoe biifinn nnH foos moo yate Institution would have con- ----  associations. Attending a public, four-year col-average tuition and fees rose up S percent to $14,508. Those costs sumed 162 percent of a low-income averaged $1,633 at public two-year familys earnings, compared with 44 colleges, up 4 percent, or $66. A 4 percent ofthe earnings of a middle-erage to $2,114. In New Jersey, several state institutions raised prices, including ..., .. . J.------ -- ------- ------------- - Kean University in Union, which percent increase also occurred at income family and 4 percent ofthe had back-to-back increases of 78 private two-year colleges, where av- earning of a hi^-income femily. erage tuition and fees rose $2W to VJ333. __________________ ____ ______. The costs rose even as overall in- the chief source of aid for needy flation is averaging less than 2 per- students, it hasnt provided all the Although Congress recent^' authorized an increase in Pell Grants, cent this year, as it did last year. Tuition and fees rose an avenge money. College Board President Donald of 5 percent last year and 6 percent Stewart urged families to begin sav-each ofthe three years before that ing early for college, but he also Because of an earlier round of dou- said most students at four-year col-ble- digit ^wth, tuition at public leges and universities pay less than four-year institutions has risen 50 $4,000 a year for tuition and fees. percent and 8.9 percent, for a tuition and fee price just under $4,000. Faculty pay raises accounted for most of this year's increase. Not a lot of that went to bettering the education received here, complained Matthew Caruso, 23, a senior and student government president, who has had to borrow more to cover his costs. percent in the past decade, adjust- ^e truth is that the majorly of ed for Inflation. Family income dur- Americans often overestimate the ing that time rose only 1.5 percent, price of attending college and may also adjust^ for inflation. Financial aid has also grown, off- lations, he said. be discouraged by those miscalcu-setting some of the increases, the The survey of 3,000 institutions College Board said. But students also found room and board costs are Arrowing more and getting fewer grants. The neediest students suffer most The share of family income re-rose an average of:  Four percent at public four-year institutions, up $172 to $4530. Office Furniture Warehouse -------------------------- _ Three percent at private four-quired to pay college e^nses has year institutions, up $190 to $5,765. i.n..c.r.e..a..s..^ fo r a ll. .f.a.m...il.ie s .i.n. the  Five percent at two-year private 1980s and 1990s, but it has gone up institutions, up $224 to $4,666. S^iJ^ 411 E. Markham  376-6881 SEMI-ANNUAL ^RE-mARKET floor sampli Sale Campaign Ua6fe i I Nichols Furniture Shackleford at narkham AT OUR DEEP, DEEP DISCOUNTS iaig Flowerbulbs Are Here Now! It'a time Io plant Tulips. DaJfodlls. Hyacinths. Crocus and many more beautUul bulbs lor a garden full of color next spring! AORDENJ NURSERY AND LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE* * 7800 CANTRELL  225-1030 HOURS\nMON-SAT 8AM*g\n30PM  SUN 11AM-5PM 59 Sj Department Store Reguullaarr PPrriicceess /J i-J PI ARKET FLOOR SAMPLE Save 185 to 190 on Samsonite EZ Carts Large or jumbo softsided wheeled pullmans closeout priced! Adjustable handle lets you push or pull with ease. Convenient top strap (or adding other bags\nside and lop handles (or easy carrying. Packing features include collapsible inside shelf strap plus two front pockets. Made of durable 600 denier polyester in assorted colors. Three-year manufacturers warranty. Style *1689-95. Retail $285 to $390 50% - 60% \u0026amp; 70% DISCOUNTS On All Genuine Leather And Solid Wood Furniture Americas Finest Brands On Sale Over 500 Pcs. of Solid Cherry  Solid OakSolid Maple \u0026amp; Solid Pine  Bedroom * Dining Room \u0026amp; Occasional Furniture Plus Over $100,000.00 In 100% Genuine Bench Made Leather At _________________ 1/2 Price or Below!!!_________________ Father! Carmel Color Pillowback Sofa. LEATHER! Casual Style Cobblestone Color Sofa. Si [ATHER! 7 Ft. Burgundy Leather Sofa..................................... iATHER! 92 Inch Overstuffed Sofa in Blackberry or Walnut, iATHER! Mission Style in Hunter Green Sofa................ ....... . DINING ROOM  Solid Cherry Commonwealth Collection........ BEDROOM  Bob Timberlake Collection..................................... Bedroom  Palmer Home Collection......................................... HOME THEATER - Victorian Style Holds 36 TV....................... CURIO CABINETS - 2 in Cherry Picture Frame Front............... DINING ROOM  Solid Oak- Cochran Collection........................ KING SIZE BEDS * Solid Oak \u0026amp; Solid Cherry............................. DUCKS UNLIMITED Collections in Dining Room \u0026amp; Bedrooms. RECLINERS  In Genuine Leather................................................ QUEEN SIZE  Plantation Bed Solid Mahogany......................... CHINA CABINET  Solid Oak........................................................ CHERRY HIGHBOY  Bonnett Top Commonwealth Collection. SLEIGH BEDS - Solid Cherry- Queen \u0026amp; King Size...................... CHERRY ARMOIRE - Cherry Mountain Collection..................... Hundreds of Pieces on Sale. .70% OFF ,70% OFF ,54% OFF ,50% OFF .70% OFF .60% OFF .50% OFF .60% OFF ,50% OFF .60% OFF ,50% OFF .50% OFF .50% OFF .50% OFF .70% OFF .60% OFF .60% OFF .50% OFF .50% OFF CLOSEOUT PIECE $QQ99 EACH X PIECE Save $12 to $25 on Gold Save $50 on Handmade Ivory Glazed Ceramics from Italy Collection includes bowls, jugs, urns, temple Selection includes black lacquer/goldplated, chmme/^ldplated, 18K ^Idplated or white lacquer/goldplated finishes. Gift boxed. Lifetime manufacturer's warranty. Finishes may vaiy. Retail S70 to SlOO U Purchased Separately, CLOSEOUT $19.99 BONUS $4.99 WITH EACH $35 OR MORE PURCHASE or Silver Decorative Accent Minors Wide vari^y of square or rectangular shares with solid, floral, ribbon, geometric or solid molding Unified in gold. jars and more with antique ivoiy glaze. For decorative use only. 87\n' to 16'H. Selection varies. =5==^ Retail $70 WITH Each $35 or More Purchase. A $70 TO $100 Retail Value! antique gold or silver. Sizes range from /h /v) 7' X r to 8- X 20\". Made in the USA Jj)! 199 R.22$3S CLOSEOUT CLOSEOirr One Of Arkansas' Largest inventories of Fine Furniture! Rm rW $1099 Ajr EEAACOH PAY ZERO DOWN - 90 DAYS NO INTERESTAND 36 MONTHS TO PAY Next To Wal-mart Super Center In Benton 9 IN BENTON Use your plastic or good credit 1100 Military Rd. 778*0489 in Benton 847*2788 I $^99 Save $70 on Childrens Rocky k Mechanical Riding Pony from Italy k Deeply discounted battery operated ponv with mechanical I rocking action lor riders age 2 and over. Made in Italy of heavy F duty plastic by Peg Perego\n28''Wx24'H. Recha^rand6-volt ' batteiy included\nadult supervision and assembly required. Retail SI 19.99 AHIR10/8 CLOSEOUT $59.99 Tuesday Mornim 1514 MARKET SUITE BISO LITTLE ROCK 225-5699 1 Gms. 50% TO 80% Off Everything. 2516 CANTRELL RD. LITTLE ROCK 280-0737 2913*15 LAKEWOOD VILLAGE DR. NORTH LITTLE ROCK 758-5590 l! Ulf MIR HWIMlOd I Dm 31  KGUUI HOUK Non. Sal. 10 mIo i pa IIwi. B pa. Saa. iww I aa Ohan aw juonam aa land betoM  pwAow ttii fail poaldy. ftuun ndiw doie^  fiKeiieRcd dntaonk  SaMailm  row money \u0026lt;beufB*Y WdoysmAproololpwihme 'leefdoy Ueiiwig If98*hnr //vvwijcvln\u0026gt;n Zone revamping expected to trim school busing BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Neighborhood-school atten dance zones proposed for next year would eventually reduce mandatory cross-town busing in the Little Rock School District to levels not seen since busing for desegregation began in the early 1970s, school officials say. This week, district officials mailed parents of about 23,000 students letters listing the elementary, middle and high schools their children will be assigned to MAP SHOWING proposed attendance zones. Page 6A. beginning next August if the School Board approves the revised attendance zones. The board is expected to act in late November or in December. Junious Babbs, associate superintendent for administrative See ZONES, P^e 7AArkansas Democrat (gazette Zone  Continued from Page 1A services, said Wednesday that the proposed plan will enable many students to attend schools closer to home, reduce district transportation costs and make it easier for parents to be involved in schools. Students who do not wish to attend a newly assigned attendance zone school can continue at their schools or transfer to another school if space is available at them, Babbs said. Babbs stopped short of promising that every student who wants to continue at school outside his attendance-zone school will get to. Students living in a particular attendance zone will have priority for enrollment at that school, Babbs said. Julie Wiedower, the districts interim director for student assignment, said that 90 percent to 95 percent of students who want to continue at their schools should be able to do so next year. At the elementary schools, moving sixth-grade classes into the middle schools next year will make it possible to increase the number of classes to accommodate pupils both inside and outside the attendance zones. High school space, however, will be tighter, as those schools are acquiring ninth-graders for the first time in generations. Parkview Magnet High School, for example, is expected to go from about 900 students to about 1,200 with the addition of the freshman class. Wiedower said she wont know until next week how many students are attending schools outside their proposed new attendance zones. Around Nov. 1, the district will mail to the parents of those students surveys asking whether they are inclined to keep their children at current schools or move them to the attendance zone schools. The district will ask parents to commit to a choice of schools in January. By then parents will have had time to visit their proposed schools. Information from the November surveys will enable administrators to refine their set of priorities for making student assignments to schools, Babbs said. Its our hope that grandfathering students into their current schools wont be a problem. We just cant overcommit, he said. The revised desegregation plan allows for some student transfers to magnet schools, desegregation transfers that improve racial balance at both the sending and receiving schools, and racial isolation transfers, where students in a school that is more than 90 percent black can transfer. Still other transfers are allowed for children of employees, special circumstances and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. Transportation will be provided to the grandfathered students  those allowed to keep their current school despite their out-of- zone status  as well as students going to attendance-zone schools two miles away. The proposed attendance zone plan, which affects all schools except the vocational and alternative schools, was made possible by the districts newly revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A federal judge approved that plan  negotiated between district officials and representatives of black families  in April. The revised desegregation plan gives the district the flexibility to redraw school attendance zones to make them reasonably compact and conti^ous. The plan also allows the district to abandon its use of satellite attendance zones, a practice that links schools to distant neighborhoods to produce a racially diverse student body. The new desegregation plan doesnt require every school to be racially balanced. Nor does it require the district to recruit students to obtain a particular racial composition in every school. But if a reasonably compact zone results in an elementary or middle school less than 20 percent black, the district can:  Draw the zone to less than full capacity to allow room for voluntary transfer of black students.  Create satellite zones of black Williams magnet elementary students to avoid a virtually all- schools, Mann Magnet Middle white school. The proposed attendance zone plan, at least on paper, does create some elementary school zones where fewer than 20 percent of elementary children are black But Babbs and Wiedower said they expect black pupils already attending those schools to choose to remain next year even if they live outside the zone. Otherwise, seats will be reserved at those schools for black transfer students. The proposed plan is also expected to produce some virtually all-black elementary schools. Almost a dozen are at least 80 percent black imder the existing plan, which required schools to be between 40 percent and 60 percent black. At high schools, the revised desegregation plan calls for black enrollment at a school to be within 20 percentage points of the districts overall black high school enrollment District administrators developed the attendance zone plan with advice from a committee of residents chaired by newly elected School Board member Baker Kurrus. Committee members included representatives of the Joshua intervenors  the class of black families in the Pulaski County desegregation case  and the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring, as well as parents from different sections of the community. The district will hold four public meetings next week to answer questions and listen to comments about the proposed attendance zone plan: Meetings will be held at 6 p.m. Wednesday at Hall High, 6700 H St., and J. A. Fair High, 13420 David 0. Dodd Road. At 6 p.m. Thursday, meetings will be held at McClellan High, 9417 Geyer Springs Road, and Central High, 1500 Park St. Also, each school has a copy of its proposed attendance zone map, which the public can view. The proposed attendance zone plan includes the following provisions:  Magnet and interdistrict schools will continue to operate. Students now attending them may continue to do so until they complete all available grades at the school. Other students can continue applying for seats in the magnet schools.  The grade structures at the magnet schools will change just as they are changing at all other district schools to accommodate the conversion of the junior highs into middle schools for grades six through eight.  Booker, Carver, Gibbs and School and Parkview Magnet High School do not have attendance zones. Students from all over Pulaski County can apply for those schools.  A new Stephens Elementary will open in August 2000. Proposed plans call for closing Garland and Mitchell elementary schools once Stephens is completed.  Only current students can be considered for assignment to a school not in their attendance zone. The allowance doesnt extend to siblings not enrolled at a school.  Central is the only school to retain a satellite attendance zone.  Pre-registration for the 1999- 2000 school year will start Jan. 25 through Feb. 5,1999. Assignments will be mailed March 5.  Kindergarten classes at Central and Hall high schools will be eliminated next year.Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette National A  THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8,1998  5A Immigration service chafes at new mandatory detention rules TOE ASSOCIATE) PRESS WASHINGTON - The immigration service must start locking up thousands more legal permanent residents and other aliens this week who are deportable because they have criminal records, as a final piece of the 1996 immigration law. Struggling with a record demand To( jail beds, the Immigration and Naturalization Service contends that it lacks the space, personnel and budget to fulfill the new detention rules. But that plea has aroused little sympathy on Capitol Hill. The problem here is not money. Ibe problem here is a lack of commitment on the part of the agency. said Allen Kay. a spokesman for mass roundup of certain categories said Annie Wilson of the Lutheran House Judiciaiy immigration sub- ofindividuals.norwillitpromptany Immigration and Reftigee Service committee Chairman Lamar Smith, mass release of individuals from and the Detention Watch Network. R-Texas. The immigration service has lob- an agency spokesman. INS detention, said Russ Bergeron, They cant possibly suddenly detain 34,000 people, which is the uni- bied Congress unsuccessfully to ex- TThve immigration service esti- v..e..rs..e. .o.fr peorp--le-- -t-h--a--t- t-h--e--y would detend a twoyeargrace period, which mates it would need anywhere from tain iftheyhadthespace, expires tonight that allowed the 1,000 to 15,000 new jail beds to fulfill   agency to release criminal aliens the new detention rules. believed to pose no danger. Since 1996, (he immigration service has nearly doubled its deten- The requirements leave us with tion space. At any one time some Human rights, religious and im- far less flexibility than weve had in 16.000 detainees are incarcerated in migrant advocacy groups, which the past to determine who is de- agency-run facilities and local jails have complained of widespread tain^ and who is not, Bergeron with which the agency contracts. a-b-u-s-e-s- -in-- a-n-- a-l-r-e-ad..y---ta--x-e-d- -im--m-oigra - sa-i.d . --A-n--d- -t-h-a-t- -c-e--r-ta-iVn ly- comr-p li- Commissioner Doris Meissner, Don agency detention system, sup- cates our ability to utilize the limit- appearing before the Senate inuni-ppocrrite exxttsennddmingg tthhee ggrraaccee ppeerriioodd.. ed detention space we have. ^tion subcommittee last month. Implementation of the new rules We continue to lack sufficient over its $733 million detention bud-detention capacity and personnel to get, comply with the new rules comply Wly... and maintain a com- to the ftill extent possible within prehensive and balanced enforce- the limitation of our resources, ment effort at the borders and in the Bergeron said. interior, Meissner said. The American Bar Association The detention and removal of and human and immigrant ri^ts criminal aliens, who make up about groups contend that the mandatory 60 percent of immigrant detainees, detention rules are unconstitutionremain the agencys top enforce- al. They re pushing the immigration ment priorities. The res\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1038","title":"\"Board of Education Policies and Regulations,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Policies and Regulations,\" 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/1038"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nlittle Rock School Distlict Board of Education Policies~ Regulations A. Foundations \u0026amp; Basic Commitments 0) O') 12 c'-:',- - LL.I c.=, 0 1 0 , . ..)\n::: oza :..J u.., -::\u0026gt; er: ::a m ,     SECTION A: FOUNDATIONS AND BASIC COMMITMENTS Section A of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on the District's legal role in providing public education and the basic principles underlying school board governance. These policies provide a setting for all of the school board's other policies and regulations. AA AB AC ACA ACB ACBB ACBE ACC ACD ACE ACF ACG ACG-R1 ACG-R2 ACG-R3 ACH AD ADA ADB ADC ADD AE School District Legal Status The People and Their School District Nondiscrimination Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender (Sex) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race Equitable Student Assignment Equitable Maintenance and Repair of Facilities Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap/Disability Interpersonal/Hu man Relations Compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA Section 504, or Other Similar Requirements Compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Complaint Resolution for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA, Section 504, or Other Similar Requirements Student/Parent/Guardian Complaint Procedure Anti-Harassment Policy Little Rock School District Mission Statement Little Rock School District Objectives Drug-Free Schools Tobacco-Free Schools Safe Schools Commitment to Accomplishment    SECTION A: FOUNDATIONS AND BASIC COMMITMENTS Section A of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on the District's legal role in providing public education and the basic principles underlying school board governance. These policies provide a setting for all of the school board's other policies and regulations. AA AB AC ACA ACB ACBB ACBE ACC ACD ACE ACF ACG ACG-R1 ACG-R2 ACG-R3 AD ADA ADB ADC ADD AE School District Legal Status The People and Their School District Nondiscrimination Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender (Sex) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race Equitable Student Assignment Equitable Maintenance and Repair of Facilities Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap/Disability Interpersonal/Human Relations Compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA Section 504, or Other Similar Requirements Compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Complaint Resolution for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA, Section 504, or Other Similar Requirements Student/Parent/Guardian Complaint Procedure Little Rock School District Mission Statement Little Rock School District Objectives Drug-Free Schools Tobacco-Free Schools Safe Schools Commitment to Accomplishment    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AA SCHOOL U1STRICTLEGAL STATUS The corporate name of this school district shall be Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, as provided by the law of the State of Arkansas . Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Statute 80-401, 80-402, 80-403 School Law of Arkansas    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AB THE PEOPLE AND THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT The Board of Education is the legal entity for conducting a system of public education within the geographic area of the school district. The system was created by, and is governed by, state statutes. Members of a Board are chosen by citizens of a district to represent them and the state in the legislative management of public schools. The Board of Education has the dual responsibility for implementing statutory requirements pertaining to public education and local citizens' desires for educating the community's youth. While the Board has an obligation to determine and assess citizens' desires, it should be understood that when citizens elect board members to represent them in the conduct of public education they at the same time endorse their representatives with the authority to exercise their best judgment iri determining policies, making decisions, and approving procedures for carrying out the responsibility. The Board therefore affirms and declares its intent to: 1. Honor the Little Rock School District Covenant for the Future as approved by the Board on January 11, 2001 (attached). 2. Maintain two-way communications with citizens of the District. The public will be kept informed of the progress and problems of the schools, and citizens will be urged to bring their aspirations and feelings about their public schools to the attention of this body which they have chosen to represent them in the management of public education. 3. Establish policies and make decisions on the basis of declared educational philosophy and goals. All decisions made by this Board will be made with primary emphasis given to the purposes set forth, most crucial of which is the optimal learning of the children enrolled in our schools. 4. Act as a true representative body for citizens of the District in matters involving public education. The Board recognizes that ultimate responsibility for public education rests with the State of Arkansas, but individual Boards of Education have been assigned specific authority through statute. The Board will relinquish none of this authority since it believes that decision making control over the children's learning should be in the hands of local citizens as much as possible. Revised: March 22, 2001 Adopted: September 24, 1998 Attachment: LRSD Covenant for the Future  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COVENANT FOR THE FUTURE WHEREAS, the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan established a workable framework for improving the academic achievement of all students and for creating an equitable, nondiscriminatory learning environment\nWHEREAS, improving the academic achievement of all students and maintaining an equitable, nondiscriminatory learning environment will forever be the core of the Little Rock School District's mission\nand WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District will no longer be required to  implement the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan after the District earns \"unitary status\" and has been released from federal court supervision\n THEREFORE, the Little Rock School District in order to manifest its post-unitary commitment to the community hereby resolves to establish this covenant. After obtaining \"unitary status\" the District will in good faith continue to exercise its best effort to:  improve the academic achievement of all students,  comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD, and  provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools .   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AC - NONDISCRIMINATION The commitment of the Little Rock School District to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from discrimination in all its forms. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or handicap/disability in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe employment, assignment, training, or promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Title VI and Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title I and Title II, Civil Rights Act of 1991 Equal Pay Act of 1963 Executive Order 11246 of 1995 Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 and regulations, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503 and 504 Section 504, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 Vietnam-era Veterans Readjustment Act, 1974 Age Discrimination Act, 1975 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 1967 Arkansas General Laws Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997  Cross References: Board of Education Policies ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE, ACF   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACA  NONDISCRIMINATIO~ ON THE BASlS OF GENDER (SEX) Gender equity is the provision of equal opportunities for all individuals without regard to their gender. Gender equity is attained through compliance with laws prohibiting gender discrimination and through the elimination of gender bias and gender stereotyping. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty or staff in the Little Rock School District will, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity or employment. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross References: Board of Education Policy AC   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACB NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY AND RACE The Little Rock School District is committed to serve the educational needs and aspirations of our culturally diverse community. The District is committed to the pursuit of racial and ethnocultural equity for all its students and staff and the promotion of positive attitudes which respect the cultural diversity of our community. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there will be no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe recruitment, employment, assignment, training, and promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. In pursuit of equity, the Board is committed to: (1) The development and promotion of racial harmony among students and staff and within the community it serves\n(2) Respect for the principle of racial and ethnocultural equity in its personnel practices\n(3) Provision in its programs of opportunities for students to develop positive attitudes toward people with diverse racial, religious and cultural heritages\nand (4) The acquisition of learning materials which are free of racial and cultural stereotyping. Further, the Board: (1) Strongly reiterates its refusal to tolerate expression of racist or ethnic bias in any form by its students or staff or Directors\n(2) Affirms its right to deny access to any person, group or association whose intent is to promote discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, nationality or place of origin, and\n(3) Reaffirms its support for special services and programs for students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACBB EQUITABLE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The Board of Education is committed to the implementation of student assignment programs and procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of Little Rock School District schools to the extent practicable, recognizing that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan may not require that every Little Rock School District school be racially balanced. The Board directs the administration to develop and implement procedures designed to ensure desegregation within the parameters of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, to periodically assess the student assignment plan and to remedy any inequities that are apparent from that assessment. Adopted: April 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACBE EQUITABLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF FACILITIES The Board of Education is committed to the equitable maintenance and repair of all District facilities. It is the expectation of the Board that repairs and maintenance of facilities will be made equitably, promptly, and effectively, and in keeping with the intent of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Board directs the administration to develop and implement procedures designed to periodically assess the equitable repair and maintenance of District facilities and to remedy any inequities that are apparent from that assessment. Adopted: April 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACS, ACBB Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACC NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE Discrimination on the basis of age is illegal under the Federal Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA). Age discrimination is present if an individual 40 years of age or older covered under this provision is treated unfavorably in the terms and conditions of his/her employment. Employment issues include hiring, promotions, demotions, terminations, wages, benefits, hours worked, working conditions, and availability of overtime. It is the policy of the Board of Education that individuals employed by the Little Rock School District will not experience discrimination in any form on the basis of age in the terms or conditions of employment. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACD NONDISCRIMrNATION ON1HE BASIS OF RELIGION The First Amendment to the United States of America's Constitution requires that public schools remain religiously neutral. All students, staff, and faculty have the right to choose or not to choose their own religion and there will be no discrimination of any kind based upon an individual's religion. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty, or staff in the Little Rock School District will, on the basis of religious belief, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACE NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS.OFr1ANDICAP/DISABILITY In support of Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973, the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, the District will not discriminate against persons who qualify on the basis of handicapping/disabling conditions. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty or staff in the Little Rock School District will on the basis of handicapping/disabling conditions be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACF INTERPERSONAL/HUMAN RELATIONS The Little Rock School District,is committed to providing a learning environment that is free from discrimination, culturally sensitive, and promotes positive interpersonal/human relations across all cultures. It is the policy of the Board of Education to provide a learning environment free from discrimination. Programs and procedures will be developed which serve to promote understanding and positive relationships among people . Adopted : September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN, TITLE VI, TITLE VII , TITLE IX, ADA, SECTION 504, OR OTHER SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this policy is to affirm the Board of Education's commitment to compliance with the District's Desegregation and Education Plan and the Civil Rights Law of 1964 as amended. LRSD will implement a compliance program that will include the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\nOversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by thE? Superintendent and the responsible officials\nCommunication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\nUtilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\nUtilization of a reporting system whereby students, patrons, and employees can report complaints or noncompliance without fear of retribution\nEnforcement of compliance standards and procedures through disciplinary mechanisms when appropriate, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. 8. Annual review of the compliance program for necessary revisions. Adopted: July 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACA, ACB, ACBB, ACC, ACD, ACE Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 Administrative Regulations ACG-R1/R2/R3    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent will comprise the Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee. The District's compliance official also will be a member of the committee. (The compliance official duties may be one of the responsibilities of one of the aforementioned positions.) The committee will have responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program will include any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fulfills all of its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Plan). The compliance philosophy will be based on internalizing the Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the Instruction division will be responsible for integrating the Plan's requirements into the curriculum development, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. The associate superintendent who heads \"the division will be the responsible person for the components of the Plan that are appropriate for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions will proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents will take appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance and take steps to prevent future similar incidences of non-compliance. Communication and Training All employees will be provided training on the Plan and the District's commitment to the principles of equity and Plan compliance. Each employee will be provided a copy of the Plan and a Plan compliance handbook. The associate superintendents will be responsible for the training of the employees in their areas on the specific obligations of the division and the employees. The Plan compliance handbook will include the following information:  A statement of the District's commitment to compliance\n The procedures for reporting complaints and/or non-compliance with the Plan\n The possible sanctions for non-compliance\n The employees' responsibilities for reporting non-compliance\n The possible sanctions for the failure to report non-compliance\n The avenues for suggesting modifications in the compliance plan.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R1 ( continued) The District web site will be used to assist in communication associated with the Plan and Plan compliance. The web site will include the following information:  A copy of the Plan\n The name, telephone number, and E-mail address of the District's compliance official\n The procedures for filing a complaint or reporting non-compliance . Date: July 22, 1999 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R2 COMPLAfNTRESOLUTION FOR THE REVISE8-DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN, TITLE VI, TITLE VII, TITLE IX, ADA, SECTION 504, OR O~HER SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are:  To ensure that a complaint is considered fairly, with all due speed, and without prejudice or reprisal to the aggrieved person\n To encourage employee expression regarding conditions that affect him/her\n To provide a specific procedure that will facilitate the understanding of district policies affecting employees\n To build confidence, in the sincerity and integrity of the complaint resolution procedure as a means to establish the facts upon which a complaint is based, a problem is stated, and a fair conclusion or solution is reached . Definitions  A \"complaint\" is an allegation of action or inaction by the District or its representatives in violation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title IX, ADA or Section 504, or the implementing regulations, or other similar requirements.  The \"complainant\" is the student, patron, or employee bringing the complaint.  \"Employee\" means a person who is a full or part-time employee who is on the payroll of the District.  \"Patron\" means any student's parent or other resident in the LRSD.  The \"responsible official\" means the employee designated by the District to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under the abovementioned requirements . .  \"Student\" means a person enrolled in one of the schools operated by the corporation.  \"Superintendent\" means the Superintendent of Schools or his/her designee. Responsible Official The following LRSD administrators are the responsible officials for the areas listed:  Revised Desegregation and Education Plan-Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services  Title VI-Director, Exceptional Children  Title VII-Director, Human Resources  Title IX-Special Assistant to the Superintendent    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R2 (continued)  ADA-Director, Human Resources  Section 504 for Employees-Special Assistant to the Superintendent  Section 504 for Students-Director, Exceptional Children Process The following process will be used in the review and resolution of complaints regarding compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA, Section 504, or other similar requirements of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 as amended: Step 1 (Informal Resolution) The complainant is encouraged to try to resolve any issues relating to implementation and compliance with any of the aforementioned legal requirements at the lowest administrative level possible. The complaint should be brought to the administrator/supervisor at the point where the possible violation exists. Within ten days after receipt of the complaint, the administrator will attenipt resolution with the complainant in an informal manner. If a satisfactory informal resolution cannot be reached, the complainant and/or the administrator may seek the assistance of the District's responsible official. Step 2 (Formal Complaint) If the complainant is unable to secure a satisfactory resolution through informal means at step 1, the complainant may file a formal complaint. The complaint should be filed with the LRSD's official who has district level responsibility for that area. The complaint must be filed within ten days of the response of the administration at step 1. The complaint should be in writing and give a concise but thorough overview of the alleged problem or violation and indicate the specific relief requested. All relevant documents also should be included. The responsible official will investigate the complaint and collect whatever information is needed to make an informed decision. The responsible official will issue a written finding within fifteen days of the receipt of the complaint or inform the complainant of the reasons that it is not possible to issue a finding in that time frame. If a finding cannot be issued within fifteen days, it will be issued as soon as practicable . 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R2 ( continued) Step 3 (Appeal to the Board of Education) If the complainant is not satisfied with the finding at step 2, he/she may request a hearing with the Board of Education. The request for the hearing must be made within ten days of the written finding issued at step 2. The request for the hearing must include a statement of the complaint, the finding of the responsible official from step 2, and any response to the finding that the complainant wishes to present. It should include the reasons that the complainant believes the finding is in error. The individual members of the Board will review the information presented with the written request for the hearing prior to following month's Board agenda meeting. The Board will decide at the agenda meeting whether or not to place the appeal on the agenda for a hearing. If the Board decides not to hear the complaint, the written finding of the District's responsible official will be the position of the LRSD. Timelines The failure of the complainant to comply with the identified timelines will be considered to be an abandonment of the complaint.  Effect of Settlement Any settlement of a complaint will be applicable to that complaint only and will not be binding authority for the disposition of any other complaint. Anonymous Complaints The LRSD is committed to compliance with its legal obligations. As a result anonymous complaints will be thoroughly investigated and handled in a serious manner. However, anonymous complaints are more difficult to substantiate and investigate. Therefore, complainants are encouraged to be open, forthcoming , and identify themselves to assist in a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. The LRSD recognizes that some students, patrons, and employees will not come forward with legitimate complaints because of a fear of retribution. The LRSD will not condone or tolerate reprisals against complainants by any of its employees. Employees who exercise retaliatory behavior against any complainant will be appropriately disciplined. 3    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R2 ( continued) Reporting Outside the Process In instances where there is a genuine sense of potential reprisal and it is not realistic to report the complaint at the lowest administrative level, the complaint may be made with the District's responsible official. The responsible official may refer the complaint to another administrator in the department's organizational structure to attempt a resolution . Date: July 22, 1999 4   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R3 STUDENT/PARENT/GUARDIAN COMPLAINT PROCEDURE The following procedure will be used to address a complaint from a student, parent, or guardian. Complaints can include, but are not limited to, discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, handicap, age or gender, including sexual harassment: 1. Report the alleged incident to the principal as soon as possible after the event(s) has occurred. If the complaint involves the principal, the report of the alleged incident should be made to the Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent for School Services as soon as possible after the event(s) occurred. 2. The complaint will be investigated and the individual bringing the complaint will be advised of the outcome of the investigation within ten (10) days. 3. If the individual bringing the complaint is not satisfied with the principal's resolution he/she may appeal to the Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent for School Services. The appeal must be made in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of the principal's decision. 4. If the individual is not satisfied with the Assistant or Associate Superintendent's resolution of the complaint, he/she may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools or his/her designee. Date: November 18, 1999  Cross Reference: Student Handbook    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY It is the policy of the District to maintain a learning environment that is free from harassment. The District prohibits any and all forms of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, or disability or protected activity (i.e. opposing unlawful harassment or discrimination or participating in an investigation. Any such conduct will result in disciplinary action and notification to the proper authorities. It will be a violation of District policy for any student, teacher, administrator, or other school personnel of the District to harass a student through conduct of a sexual nature, or regarding race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability, or protected activity as defined by this policy. It will also be a violation of District policy for any teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District to tolerate sexual harassment or harassment because of a student's race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity as defined by this policy, by a student, teacher, administrator, other school personnel, or by any third parties who are participating in, observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including sports events and other extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District. For the purpose of this policy, the \"school personnel\" includes school Board of Education members, school employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, or persons subject to the supervision and control of the District. The District will act to promptly investigate all complaints, either formal or informal, verbal or written, of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity to promptly take appropriate action to protect individuals from further harassment\nand, if it determines that unlawful harassment occurred, to promptly and appropriately discipline any student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel who is found to have violated this policy, and/or to take other appropriate action reasonably calculated to end the harassment. This policy will be broadly interpreted as evidence of the District's commitment to equality of opportunity, human dignity, diversity, and academic freedom. No person will retaliate or threaten retaliation against another person for reporting, testifying or otherwise participating in any investigation, or proceeding relating to a complaint of harassment.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH (continued) PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS OF HARASSMENT These regulations are intended to protect the rights of students, employees, administrators, the Board of Education and visitors on District property and to outline procedures, which will be followed in the event harassment occurs on District property or atan event sponsored by the District. The following definitions will be used for the purpose of enforcing the Anti-Harassment Policy. DEFINITIONS Racial or Color Harassment Racial or color harassment includes unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's race or color, such as nicknames emphasizing stereotypes, racial slurs, comments on manner of speaking and negative references to racial customs.  Sexual Harassment  Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical conduct or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It also includes conduct that is not sexual in nature but that is engaged in because of the gender of the victim. It includes conduct that is also criminal in nature such as rape, sexual assault, stalking, and similar offenses. Under federal law, sexual harassment is prohibited regardless of the sex of the harasser, i.e., sexual harassment may occur even if the harasser and the person being harassed are the same sex. Sexual Orientation Harassment Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's sexual orientation, such as negative name-calling and imitating mannerisms. Marital Status Harassment Harassment on the basis of marital status is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's marital status, such as comments regarding pregnancy or being an unwed mother or father. National Origin Harassment Harassment on the basis of national origin is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's national origin, such as negative comments regarding surnames, manner of speaking, customs, language, or ethnic slurs. 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH ( continued) Religious Harassment Harassment on the basis of religion or creed is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's religion or creed, such as derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs, or graffiti. Disability Harassment Harassment based on a person's disabling mental or physical condition and includes any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's disabling condition, such as imitating manner of speech or movement, or interference with necessary equipment. REPORTING PROCEDURES Any person who feels he/she is being harassed may wish to consider informing the offending person that the behavior is inappropriate and not appreciated. Oftentimes, this is all that is required to stop the harassing behavior. You are not, however, required to take this step prior to filing a complaint. Any student, District personnel, or visitor who believes he/she has been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District, or by any other person who is participating in, observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District, is encouraged to immediately report the alleged acts to the building principal. If the principal is the perpetrator of the harassment, the report of the incident will be made to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for School Services or the Director of Human Resources. Any teacher, administrator or other school official who has knowledge of or receives notice that a student or visitor has or may have been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator, or other school district personnel is required to immediately report the alleged act(s) to the building principal unless the principal is the perpetrator. If the harassment involves the principal, the incident will be reported to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent for School Services. Upon receipt of the report, the principal, Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent will notify Safety and Security personnel to conduct an investigation of the allegation. A third party may be involved in the investigation. The parent of the student (victim) will be notified immediately, unless after consultation with the student, it is determined not to be in the best interest of the student. 3   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH (continued) If the alleged harassment is committed by a student, the student's parent/guardian will be notified that an investigation is being conducted. Complaints will be kept confidential to the extent possible. A prompt, thorough and impartial investigation will be conducted of all complaints of violation of this policy. Upon completion of the investigation, a written report will be submitted to the principal, Assistant Superintendent, or Associate Superintendent. The report will include a determination as to whether the allegations have been substantiated as factual and whether they appear to have violated District policy and/or law. Notification of the outcome of the investigation will be sent to all parties involved. If the allegation is substantiated, the District will take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including the following: 1. a student will receive a disciplinary sanctioned as outlined in the Student Handbook, and/or notification to the proper authorities. 2. a staff member will receive a disciplinary sanction as outlined in the Employee Handbook and/or the proper authorities will be notified. 3. a report of the incident regarding a visitor who committed an act while on District property or at an event sponsored by the District, will be referred to the proper legal authorities. Notwithstanding this policy, employees may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. EEOC. Employers who wish to file a charge must do so within 180 days of the last act of alleged harassment. Adopted: July 23, 2001 Legal References: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1965, 42 U.S.C.  2000d Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.  1681 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S. C.  794 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12134  Cross References: Student Handbooks and Personnel Handbook 4   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously, and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community .  Adopted: September 24, 1998   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVES No later than the year 2003, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others. By 2003, the percentage of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the national average in reading and math on standardized tests shall be at least 65%\nperforming at the highest quartile in reading and math on standardized tests shall be at least 30%\nand performing at the lowest quartile in reading and math on standardized tests shall be no more than 10% .  Adopted: September 24, 1998    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADB DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District is committed to providing a drug and alcohol free learning environment and workplace. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse at school or in connection with school-sponsored activities on or off school grounds threaten the health and safety of our students and our employees and adversely affect the educational mission of the school district. It is the policy of the Board of Education that the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of illicit drugs, alcohol or other controlled substances in the workplace, on school premises or as part of any school-sponsored activities is strictly prohibited. These standards of conduct are equally applicable to students and employees. Any employee who is convicted of a drug statute violation arising out of conduct occurring in the workplace must notify the central administration of such conviction not later than five (5) days after the conviction. Compliance with these standards of conduct is mandatory. In accordance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, compliance with this policy is made a condition of employment by the school district. Disciplinary sanctions (consistent with local, state and federal law), up to and including termination of employment and referral for prosecution, will be imposed on employees who violate the standards of conduct set forth in this notice. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Drug-Free Schools Act, 1988 Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989 (Public Law 101-226) Cross References: Board of Education Policy GBEC Student Handbook    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADC TOBACCO-FREE SCHOOLS The Board of Education believes that tobacco smoke in the school and work environments is not conducive to good health. As an educational organization, the Little Rock School District should provide both effective educational programs and a positive example to students concerning the use of tobacco. It is the policy of the Board of Education that all uses of tobacco and tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, will be prohibited in all District facilities. At no time will the use of tobacco or tobacco products be permitted in classrooms, corridors, restrooms, locker rooms, work areas, cafeterias, offices, faculty lounges, gymnasiums, all other rooms and school grounds. This policy also prohibits the use of tobacco or tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, in all vehicles owned, leased or operated by the District. District employees and students enrolled in the District's schools are not permitted to use tobacco or tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, while they are participants in any class or activity in which they represent the school district. Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: School Law of Arkansas, Acts 854 and 779 Cross Reference: Student Handbook   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADD SAFE SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District will maintain a safe and nurturing educational environment where students can learn, teachers can teach, and where parents and patrons can meet. The Little Rock School District will not tolerate violence or injury to staff or students, nor will weapons be tolerated at any school activity or on any school district property. It is the policy of the Board of Education to enforce fairly and firmly all federal and state laws and related District policies pertaining to school safety and student discipline. Any criminal misconduct will be reported to the proper law enforcement authority, and school district staff will cooperate with any subsequent criminal prosecution . Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Arkansas General Laws Federal Gun-Free Schools Act  Cross Reference: Student Handbook   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AE COMMITMENT TO ACCOMPLISHMENT The Board of Education accepts ultimate responsibility for all facets of Board operations. Because it is accountable to the people, the Board will maintain a program of accountability consisting of the following elements: 1. Clear statements of expectations and purpose as they relate to operations, . programs, departments, and positions. 2. Provision for the staff, resources, and support necessary, to achieve stated expectations and purposes, subject to the District's financial capabilities. 3. Evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services to determine how well expectations and purposes are being met.  Adopted: September 24, 1998  B.SchoolBoard Governance      SECTION B: SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS Section B of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on the school board - how it is appointed or elected\nhow it is organized\nhow it conducts meetings, and how the board operates. This section includes bylaws and policies establishing the board's internal operating procedures. BA BAA BB BBA BBB BBBA BBBB BBBD BBBE BCA BCB BCC BD BDA BDB BDC BDCA BDCB BDD BDF BDG BDH BE BEA BEB BEC BED BEDA BEDB BEDC BEDD Board of Education Operational Goals Board of Education Self-Evaluation School Board Legal Status Board Powers and Responsibilities Board Membership Elections Board Membership Qualifications Board Membership Oath of Office Board Member Removal from Office Unexpired Term FulfillmenWacancies School Board Member Code of Conduct Prevention of Nepotism Financial Disclosure by School Board Members Organization of the School Board Board Organizational Meeting Board Officers Appointed Board Officials District Representative to the Board of Equalization District Representative to the Little Rock Planning Commission Board-Superintendent Relationship Advisory-Committees School Attorney/Legal Services Consultants to the Board School Board Meetings Regular Board Meetings Special School Board Meetings Executive Sessions Meeting Procedures Notification of Board Meetings Agenda Quorum Rules of Order Section B - Page 1 of 2  BEDDB Suspension of Rules of Order BEDF Voting Method BEDG Minutes BEDH Public Participation at Board Meetings BEE Board Hearings/Appeal Proceedings BF School Board Work Sessions and Retreats BG School Board Policy BGD Review of Regulations BGE Policy Communication BH School Board Communications BHA School District Logo BIB Board Member Development BID Board Member Compensation BJ School Board Legislative Program BK School Board Memberships in Professional Associations   Section B - Page 2 of 2   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BA BOARD OF EDUCATION DPERATIONAL GOALS The Board of Education is responsible to the people, all of the people, for whose benefit the school District has been established. By virtue of this responsibility each member of the Board must look to the future and to the needs of all people. This requires a comprehensive perspective and long-range strategic plan in addition to attention to immediate problems. The Board 's primary responsibility is to establish those purposes, programs, and procedures that will best produce the educational achievement needed by District students. It is charged with accomplishing this while also being responsible for wise management of resources available to the District. The Board must fulfill these responsibilities by formulating and adopting policy, by selecting a superintendent to implement policy, and by evaluating results. Further, the Board must carry out its functions openly, while seeking the involvement and contributions of the public, students, and staff in its decision making processes .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BAA BOARD-OF EDUCATION SELF-EVALUATION Annually, the Board of Education will conduct a self-evaluation. The evaluation plan will be developed by the Board president and an Ad Hoc Board committee appointed by the president. The following areas of Board functions will be included in the self-evaluation: 1. Board Meetings 2. Policy Development and Evaluation 3. Fiscal Management 4. Board Role in Educational Program Development 5. Board Member Orientation 6. Board Member Development 7. Board Officer Performance 8. Board-Superintendent Relationships 9. Board-Staff Relationships 10. Board-Community Relationships 11. Legislative and Governmental Relationships .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BB  - SCHOOL BOARD LEGAL STATUS The corporate name of this school district will be Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, as provided by the law of the State of Arkansas. The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, will be referred to as the \"District\" or \"Little Rock School District\" in this policy book. The District is governed by a Board of Education consisting of seven Board members, each of whom is elected for a three-year term . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: Statute 80-401 , 80-402, 80-403 School Law of Arkansas  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AA   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBA - - BOARD POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Board of Education is a representative body elected to provide for and oversee the operation of the District. Power and mandatory responsibilities of the Board are defined in state statutes. The Board exercises its powers and responsibilities only when convened in a legally constituted meeting. Powers of the Board:  Legislative or policymaking. The Board is responsible for the development of policy and for the employment of a superintendent who will carry out District policy through the development and implementation of regulations. The Board will serve as the final authority within the school system to resolve any issue which cannot be resolved through regular administrative channels.  Educational planning and appraisal. The Board is responsible for using reliable information which will enable it to make the best possible decisions about the scope and nature of the educational program. The Board is responsible for requiring appraisal of the results of the educational program.  Staffing and appraisal. The Board is responsible for approving the employment of staff. The Board is responsible for approving salaries, salary schedules, terms and conditions of employment, and for ensuring an effective appraisal of District staff through the annual evaluation process.  Financial resources. The Board is responsible for adopting a budget that will provide the financial base for staff, buildings, materials, and equipment to enable the District to carry out the educational program. The Board is responsible for exercising control over the finances of the District to ensure proper use of, and accounting for, all District funds.  School facilities. The Board is responsible for ensuring that District facilities support and enhance the educational program.  Communication with public. The Board is responsible for keeping the community informed about the schools and for providing opportunities for the community to share ideas and concerns with the Board.  Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-620   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBB BOARD MEMBERSHIP ELECTIONS The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District is composed of seven (7) directors. As established by law the directors are elected by qualified voters of each zone on a nonpartisan ballot on the third Tuesday in September. Directors' terms of office are staggered to ensure that not more than three (3) Director positions are elected each year. The term of office is three (3) years with the right to succession. Candidates for election are nominated by petition. The petition must be signed by twenty (20) qualified voters from the candidate's zone. This petition must be filed with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk 45 days prior to the election date and the candidate certified by the Pulaski County election Commission . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal References: AC.A. 6-13-615, 6-13-608, 6-13-607    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBBA BOARD MEMBERSHIP QLJA[IFfCATIONS Qualifications to be a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education as stated by law are as follows:  Be a qualified elector from the District  Be eighteen (18) years of age or older  Be a citizen of the United States of America  Be a resident of the election zone  Reside in the zone at least six (6) months prior to the election  Not be employed by the District Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-13-616, 6-13-607, 6-13-630   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBBB BOARD MEMBERSHIP OATH OF OFFICE Each Director will, within ten (10) days after receiving notice of his or her election or appointment, subscribe to the following oath: \"I,_, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will not be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the District of which I am a director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as school director in the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, upon which I am about to enter.\" The county clerk, upon receipt of the director's oath, will immediately commission the director and the director will enter at once upon his or her duties . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-617   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBBD BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL FROM OFFICE Board members will be removed from office for the following reasons: Conviction of a felony: A vacancy will exist on the Board of Education from the date of the final judgment of conviction. The prosecuting attorney who prosecutes a board member will immediately notify the Little Rock School District Board of Education and a vacancy shall be declared. Removal of residence from the zone represented: If a Board member's primary residence is moved outside the zone he or she was elected to represent, the board member will immediately tender a letter of resignation. Temporary vacancy due to service in the armed forces: A successor will be appointed to fill the temporary vacancy. Upon return to civilian activities the elected member may resume the duties of board member for the unexpired term by written notice to the Board secretary . Absence from board meetings: A vacancy may be declared by a vote of the Board if a member fails to attend a school board meeting during a ninety (90) day period due to removal of residence from the District or employment at a distance from the District. A vacancy may be declared by a vote of the Board if a member misses three (3) regular and consecutive board meetings during a school year for any reason other than service in the armed forces or illness documented by the member's attending physician. The member must be given an opportunity for a hearing before the Board upon fifteen (15) days notice received by personal delivery or certified mail with return receipt signed by addressee. When a vacancy occurs on the Board of Education the remaining Board members will appoint an individual to serve until the next annual school election. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-13-612, 6-13-613, 6-13-6  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BBBA, BBBF   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BBBE UNEXPIRED TERM FULFILLMENTNACANCIES Vacancies may occur on the Board of Education because of a member's resignation, death, moving out of the District, or other reasons provided by law. The Board by formal action will declare the Board position vacant. The vacancy will be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members within thirty (30) days. At least fifteen (15) days before making an appointment to fill a vacancy, the Board will publish a notice in the newspaper(s) having general circulation in the District. Qualified persons interested in filling the position may make application. If the Board fails to fill the vacancy within thirty (30) days, the vacancy will be filled by appointment by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Appointed directors will serve until the next annual school election and may be a candidate for election to the seat to which they are appointed . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-611  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BBB, BBBA, BBBB, BBBD  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCA SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT The Board of Education is elected to develop policy and provide overall leadership to the District. The role of the Board will be to act on issues that impact the quality of education for all children. They will act as both statespersons and representatives. To ensure that this goal is achieved, the Little Rock School District Board of Education adopts the following code of conduct for all Board members. 1. The Board of Education (the Board) has oversight responsibility and control over all activities related to the public school education provided by the District. The Board is elected by the public and has decision-making authority, the power to designate management, the ability to significantly influence operations and primary accountability for fiscal matters. 2. Board members will act as policy makers, monitors, and evaluators of educational  policies, and they will be the liaison to the people.  3. Individual Board members have no power or right to make individual promises that would be binding upon the Board and/or the District. 4. When Board members are contacted by staff or community members, they should listen to the concern or complaint and inform the individual of appropriate board policies and procedures regarding the complaint or concern. 5. Board members should praise employees when it is appropriate to do so, but criticism must be handled through the office of the superintendent. 6. Interaction between the superintendent and Board members will be constructive, open, productive and mutually respectful. 7. Board members may provide individual advice but may provide direction to the superintendent only as a result of official Board action. 8. Confidences shared among colleagues will be honored and information that is privileged under applicable law will remain completely confidential. 9. Each member of the Board agrees to direct questions about school district operations to the superintendent or to his/her designee(s).    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCA (continued) 10. Each Board member is expected to work to establish an open, positive, problemsolving atmosphere to achieve the goals of the organization. 11. In the area of policy, only the president of the Board is empowered to speak for the Board, and then only on matters which the Board has resolved by a majority vote of the Board. Board members may state personal positions as long as they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the Board or the District. The Board speaks only through its resolutions. 12. Before each meeting Board members should read all available agenda materials and call the superintendent prior to the meeting if clarification is needed. 13. Once a decision is reached, the administration should ensure the decision is implemented. 14. When interacting with staff, Board members are expected to be cognizant of their role as policy makers, in contrast with the role of administrators as managers of the school system. 15. Board members will facilitate dialogue, divergent thinking, and debate in order to make the best decisions. In order to ensure that this code of conduct is adhered to, the President of the Board will entertain discussions of perceived violations of this code, and the Board is empowered to censure officially, in public meetings, members who persistently violate this code . Adopted: January 28, 1999 2   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB -  PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in any capacity who is related (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin) to a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education, the superintendent of schools, or senior administrators reporting directly to the superintendent. The policy will be applied prospectively and will not be construed to affect the employment or annual renewal -of employment of any individual so related who is in the employ of the Little Rock School District at the time of adoption of this policy. Additionally, no person will be employed in a position where he/she would be related, as defined above, to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Members of the Little Rock School District Board of Education must file a written financial disclosure statement on or before the last day of January of each year. The statement is filed with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk and is open for public inspection. The financial disclosure statement is retained for five years and then destroyed . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal References: AC.A. 21-8-305 through 21-8-309   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BO ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD The Board of Education will organize by electing officers of the Board. The Board will elect a president, a vice-president, and a secretary. Officers will be elected by majority vote of the members present at the organizational meeting. The Board may assign a District employee to provide clerical assistance to the Board .. Board officers will serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected and qualified. No member of the Board will serve more than two consecutive terms as president. A vacancy among officers of the Board, other than the president, will be filled by majority action of the Board. A vacancy in the presidency will be filled by the vicepresident, and a new vice-president will be elected . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: Arkansas School Law 80-506  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BBBD, BBBE, BEDC, BEDD, BEDF   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOA BOARD ORGAr-:JfZATIONAL MEETING The Board of Education will organize annually at its first regular meeting after the annual school election for the purpose of swearing in successful candidates and electing officers. At this meeting, the Board will elect a president, a vice president, and a secretary from its members. The incumbent president of the Board will preside until a successor is elected, whereupon the successor will assume the chair. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: Arkansas School Law 80-506  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BBB, BE, BEA, BED, BEDF  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOB \"BOARD OFFICERS Duties of the President The president will preside at all meetings, will decide questions of order in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order Revised and will appoint all committees at the direction of the Board of Education. The president will have the right as other members of the Board to discuss and vote on all questions. The president will call a special meeting of the Board of Education whenever conditions required for special meetings have been met. Duties of the Vice-president In the absence or incapacity of the president, the vice-president will perform the duties and assume the obligations of the president. Duties of the Secretary  The secretary of the Board of Education will keep a record of the proceedings in all Board meetings. This may be done through clerical assistance. In the absence or incapacity of the president and vice-president, the secretary will perform the duties and assume the obligations of the president.  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOC -- - -- -, -APP-OINTED BOARD OFFICIALS . It is the practice of the Board of Education to appoint individuals to officially represent the Board on appropriate county, city or community based boards and commissions. The representative will appear before the Board at the Board's request to report on the actions and future actions of the related board or commission. At that time, the Board may direct any questions to the representative concerning the function or actions of the related board or commission .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOCA DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TOTHE'BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The Board of Education will appoint a representative to the Board of Equalization for Pulaski County, Arkansas. The function of the Board of Equalization is to review the assessments made by the county assessor and make recommendations to the county assessor, to raise or lower individual assessments and to make a report to the Arkansas Tax Coordination Reassessment Division for the State of Arkansas. The County Clerk reviews the report of the Board of Equalization and forwards the report to the Arkansas Tax Coordination Reassessment Division. This body reviews the report and determines if the assessments fall within the guidelines dictated by state law. The term for this appointment is three years. The representative must be a qualified elector, a real estate owner, and have familiarity with property values in Pulaski County. The representative must be able to attend the several day planning meeting in July and to meet daily during the month of August. Occasionally, a special session is held during the first two weeks of September to complete any unfinished business. The representative is compensated $50.00 per day while in session. A certain amount is appropriated and cannot be exceeded . Each school district (Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special) has a representative on the Board of Equalization at all times. The three-year terms of the representatives are staggered so that one school district representative's term expires each year. The superintendent of the school district with the expiring term in consultation with the Board of Education nominates the representative to replace the representative whose term expires or who may have resigned. By gentleman's agreement, the superintendents of the remaining two school districts cast their vote to elect the nominee from the district with the expiring term. Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal Reference: Arkansas School Law 84-701   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BDCB DISTRICT REPRESENTATfVETO TRE LITT[E ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION The Board of Education will appoint a representative to the Little Rock Planning Commission. The function of the Little Rock Planning Commission is to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Board of Directors on matters relating to land development, proposed utility expansion, and proposed new improvement districts and to act as final authority on the proposals for subdivision plats. No formal qualifications are required to serve on the Planning Commission. The person appointed to serve on the Planning Commission should be able to spend about one-half day each month in his/her personal vehicle driving to areas that are under consideration\nto meet with the full commission at least twice monthly\nand to spend a total of approximately four days per month on Planning Commission business. One position of the Planning Commission is designated for the representative of the Little Rock School District and is an \"open-ended\" term. The representative serves until the representative resigns . There is no compensation for service in this position. Expenses for out-of-town retreats or other authorized business is reimbursed. Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal Reference: City Ordinance Article II, Sec 23-27(a)    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BDD BOARD-S0PERlNTENDENT RELATIONSHIP The Board of Education believes that the legislation of policies is the most important function of a school board and that the execution of the policies should be the function of the superintendent and staff. Delegation by the Board of its executive powers to the superintendent provides freedom for the superintendent to manage the schools within the Board's policies and frees the Board to devote its time to policymaking and appraisal functions. The Board holds the superintendent responsible for the administration of its policies, the execution of Board decisions, the operation of the internal machinery designed to serve the school program, and for keeping the Board informed about school operations and problems. The Board will strive to employ the best professional leader available for the head administrative post. Then, the Board as a whole, and individual members, will:  Give the superintendent full administrative authority for properly discharging his or her professional duties, holding him/her responsible for acceptable results.  Act in matters of employment or dismissal of school personnel only after receiving the recommendations of the superintendent.  Hold meetings of the Board in the presence of the superintendent, except when his or her contract and salary are under consideration.  Refer all complaints to the superintendent for appropriate investigation and action.  Strive to provide adequate safeguards around the superintendent and other staff members so that they can discharge their educational functions on a thoroughly professional basis.  Present personal criticisms of any employee directly to the superintendent. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-620   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BDF  ADVlSORY-COMMITTEES The Board of Education may appoint ad hoc advisory committees to counsel it as one means of discerning the needs and desires of the school district and its residents. The central purpose of all advisory committees is to contribute to the educational program by conducting studies, identifying problems, and developing recommendations that will enhance the effectiveness of the decision making process. The ultimate authority to make decisions will continue to reside in the powers and duties of the Board as imposed by law. Such committees will be formed by the Board at such times and for such specific purposes as the Board deems necessary. They will function until their assigned goal has been accomplished, and then will be dissolved. Generally, citizens' advisory committees will be assigned to investigate areas of educational program which need development, change, or reorganization and areas of community involvement in District affairs. Members will be broadly representative of the community's population and chosen from among residents who have shown an interest in the topic to be studied and who express a sincere interest in the advancement of public education. Once activated, the committee will report periodically to the Board, keeping it informed of progress and problems. The Board may designate the intervals at which it will hear from the committee, but any significant developments will be reported as they occur. No announcement may be made by any committee or its members to the public or press until such release has been cleared with the Board president or his or her designee. The Board will provide citizens advisory committees with a suitable meeting place and administrative assistance. Recognizing the contributions to be made by staff members in the deliberations of citizens advisory groups, the Board may authorize participation of school personnel in various ad hoc advisory committees. In such cases, the superintendent will recommend the staff member or members to serve on the committee.  Adopted: January 28, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOG SCHOOL ATTORNEY/LEGAL SERVICES The increasing complexity of school operations requires the frequent procurement of legal services. Consequently, the Board will retain an attorney or law firm. The school attorney must be admitted to the state bar and licensed in the legal profession. In addition, the attorney will either have supplementary training in schoolrelated law and the role of the public school in society, or will commit himself or herself to acquiring such knowledge within a reasonable time following appointment. The school attorney's services will include, but not be limited to:  furnishing general legal advice in policy development and on relations with employees, employee organizations, pupils, parents, district residents, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups and agencies\n aiding the well-being of the district\nand  rendering services in impending or actual litigation involving the school system as a whole or any unit, individual, or groups of individuals connected with the schools. A decision to seek legal advice or assistance on behalf of the school system will normally be made by the superintendent. Such action will be taken as consistent with Board policy and as it meets an obvious need of the District. It may take place as a consequence of formal Board direction. Except in unusual circumstances, all communications between the school attorney and District personnel and Board members will be directed through the superintendent or the president of the Board. If inquiries are addressed directly to the attorney by other district personnel, responses, in writing, will be channeled through the superintendent or the president of the Board. Many types of legal assistance will be considered routine and will not need specific Board approval. However, when the administration concludes that an unusual type or amount of legal service may be required, the Board directs the administration to advise it expeditiously and to seek either initial or continuing authorization for such service. Selection Procedures The school attorney will be appointed or reappointed at the annual organizational meeting. In order to provide an opportunity for firms or attorneys to apply periodically   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BOG Continued for the position, the Board will adhere to the followmg selection procedures every three years:  Law firms within the District will be contacted by letter to determine interest in being considered.  A survey questionnaire will be sent to firms that indicate an interest.  Firms expressing an interest will be interviewed by the Board. Selection Considerations  Experience in school law will be an important consideration.  The attorney must be willing to: Fees 1. devote the time needed to keep up with school law, attend Board meetings when requested, and respond promptly when legal assistance is requested by the Board or the administration\nand 2. participate in state and national organizations of school attorneys and attend meetings sponsored by these and other organizations that deal with school legal problems. The fee schedule for the various types of services rendered (legal research, information, attendance at meetings, in court, etc.) will be established at the time of appointment and/or reappointment.  Adopted: January 28, 1999 2   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BDH CONSULTANTS TO THE BOARD The Board of Education may enlist the services of consultants to provide specialized advice or assistance to the District concerning educational, management or administrative matters where an additional opinion or opinions are appropriate or when knowledge or technical skills are needed that cannot be provided by persons on the staff. Where appropriate, bids for consulting services will be sought, but the Board will have ultimate discretion with respect to selection. Consultants who serve this District will exercise no authority over the work of the employees of the District, but will act only as advisor in the field in which they are qualified to offer assistance .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BE SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS The Little Rock School District Board of Education will meet in regular session once each month in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District Administration Building at 810 West Markham. A twelve-month calendar of Board meetings will be approved prior to the beginning of each school year. Changes in the site, date, or time of any meeting may be made by a vote of the Board . The Board may also meet to set the agenda, conduct work sessions, and participate in Board retreats. All meetings of the Board of Education will be open to the public and will be governed by the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Newspapers, television and radio stations will be notified at least two (2) hours prior to all regular and special Board meetings . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal References: A.C.A. 6-13-619, 25-19-101   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEA REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS The regular meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Education will be held on the fourth Thursday of each month in the Boardroom of the Administration Building at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise set by action of the Board. Board members will receive copies of the final agenda by Tuesday prior to the ThL,Jrsday regular meeting. All Board meetings are open to the public. The order of business of any regular Board meeting will include an opportunity for citizens to address the Board. Notification of Board meetings will be sent sufficiently in advance to the newspapers, television and radio stations . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-13-619, 25-19-101 et seq.  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEDH   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEB SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS Special meetings of the Little Rock School District Board of Education may be called in four (4) ways. 1. By the Board president 2. By the Board secretary 3. By any three (3) members of the Board 4. By petition signed by fifty (50) electors in the District. No business will be transacted at any special meeting of the Board which does not come within the purpose set forth in the call for the meeting unless all members of the Board are present and agree to the consideration of the additional items. All special meetings will be open to the public. All Board members will be given reasonable notification of the special meeting. The news media will be notified at least two (2) hours prior to the meeting . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: AC.A. 6-13-619, 25-19-101 et seq.  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEDA   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEC EXECUTIVE SESSIONS During a regular or special meeting Board members may vote to go into executive session which is closed to the public and the media. Executive sessions are permitted only for the purpose of considering employment, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or resignation of a public officer or employee.  The superintendent at the invitation of the Board may attend all executive sessions except those that pertain to the superintendent's contract. The immediate supervisor of the employee involved and the employee may be present at the executive session when so requested by the Board. Also, any person being interviewed for superintendent may be present when so requested by the Board. No minutes are taken during executive session. That such a meeting is held will be recorded in the minutes of the open meeting. In accordance with law, no official action may be taken in executive session. To take final action on any matter discussed, the Board will reconvene and act upon the matter in open session. Board members, the superintendent and other persons attending the executive session are duty-bound not to disclose matters discussed in executive session. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 25-19-106  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy BEDG    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BED MEETING PROCEDURES The Little Rock School District Board of Education uses certain procedures for conducting business. Except as specifically altered herein, all meetings will be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order Revised. Agenda For regular Board meetings the superintendent will determine which administrative items will be placed on the agenda. Board members may request items placed on the agenda. The Board will have until noon on Friday of the week it receives the proposed agenda to request additional items be placed on the agenda or to object to items on the agenda. For special Board meetings the superintendent in consultation with the Board president will set the agenda item(s). Board members may request an item be placed on the agenda by submitting the request at least two (2) days prior to the meeting . All Board meetings will be conducted in accordance with the printed agenda unless the Board votes to suspend the rules for the purpose of considering an item of business. Order of Business The order of business of all regular meetings will be as follows: Preliminary items: Roll Call, Recognitions, Superintendent's Report, Board of Education Report, Public Communications and Petitions. Consent agenda: Routine items of business will be placed on the agenda under \"Disposition of Routine Business by Consent\" and will be introduced by the superintendent. If a Board member has a question about any item on the consent agenda, that item will be pulled from the consent agenda and considered as a separate agenda item immediately following \"Disposition of Routine Business by Consent\". Other items on the agenda for Board action and/or discussion will generally be handled as follows: The Board President will identify the item. The superintendent will make his/her recommendation . A Board member will present the motion and receive a second.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BED (continued) The superintendent or a designated administrator will be available to make a brief explanation of the item and respond to questions from the Board. Board members will discuss the item. The Board President will call for the vote. Closing items: Administration Reports, Announcements, Hearings. Adjournment Minutes will be recorded at all Board meetings and kept on file. Meetings will also be recorded on tape . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: AC.A. 6-13-619 Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEA, BEDS, BEDC, BEDD, BEDDB,BEDF,BEDH,BEE 2   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDA NOTIFICATION OF BOARD MEETINGS At the beginning of each school year the Board will approve a calendar of regular Board meeting and agenda meeting dates and times. This calendar will be made available to the news media and to anyone requesting this information. In the event of a special Board meeting the news media will be notified of the time, place and date of the meeting at least two (2) hours prior to the meeting. Board members will be notified as early as possible . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 25-19-106 (2)  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEA, BEB    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDS AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Education will be prepared by the superintendent. The method used by the superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain all, but only those items introduced by the Board members and superintendent. Only action items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in the regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is approved by Board members. The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Education will be as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Call to Order Roll Call Procedural Matters: a. President's Welcome b. Approval of Regular Agenda Recognitions and Public Comments Reports and Communications a. Board Members b. Administration Approval of Minutes Action Items a. Instructional Services Division b. Administrative Services Division c. Financial Services Division d. School.Services Division e. Operations Division 8. Closing Remarks / Superintendent's Report 9. Adjournment Board members will receive a copy of the official agenda at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the regular Board meeting. All supporting materials for action items will be provided to Board members one week prior to the regular meeting. Copies of the agenda for the public will be available in the superintendent's office. Revised: July 23, 2001 Adopted: January 28, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEA, BED, BEDD, BEDDB, BEDG, BEDH   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDC QUORUM A majority of the Board of Education will constitute a quorum. A quorum must be present to convene a meeting that would enable the Board to conduct business . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal Reference: A.C .A. 6-13-619 /   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDD RULES OF ORDER The Board will observe Robert's Rules of Order Revised except as otherwise provided by policy or by statute .  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDDB SUSPENSION OF RULES OF ORDER The Board of Education may suspend its parliamentary rules of order by a vote of consent of at least five (5) members . Adopted : January 28, 1999  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BED, BEDB, BEDD    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDF VOTING METHOD  A majority of the Board will constitute a quorum.  A majority of a quorum voting affirmatively will be required for the passage of any motion or resolution.  Any member who abstains from voting will be counted as having voted against the motion or resolution.  If a member announces a conflict of interest with regard to the issue, the member may leave the meeting until the voting on the issue is concluded, and the member who abstains from voting thereby will not be counted as having voted.  The rules of parliamentary procedure comprised in Robert's Rules of Order Revised will govern the Board of Education in its deliberations. The rules may be suspended at any meeting by a vote of consent of at least five Board members.  The President of the Board will vote on motions before the Board.  When a tie vote exists on a motion, the motion will be declared to have failed.  The individual votes of Board members will be recorded in the minutes when the vote is not unanimous .  A role call vote may be requested by any member of the Board. The secretary will call the roll in alphabetical order.  Board members voting or. the prevailing side of an issue may move to reconsider an item. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-619 Cross References: Board of Education Policies BED, BEDC, BEDD, BEDDB, BEDG   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDG MINUTES The official minutes of the Little Rock School District Board of Education regular and special meetings will constitute the written record of Board action. The secretary for the Board will be responsible for reporting in the minutes all actions taken by the Board. The minutes will include the time, date, and location of each meeting, the members present and absent, all motions made, the name of the Board member making the motion, the name of the Board member who seconded the motion, a summary statement of the discussion, and a record of the vote. The record of the vote will show how individual members voted unless the vote in unanimous. The minutes will also include a summary statement of presentations and reports made at the meeting. The minutes of the Board will be filed in a permanent record at the Little Rock School District Administration Building. This record will also contain a copy of all budgets of the District and all reports of the Pulaski County Treasurer on the financial affairs of the District. A copy of the minutes will be made available during regular office hours to any citizen desiring to examine them. Minutes that are awaiting approval at the next Board meeting become public documents after they are transcribed into typewritten material. The minutes become official when they are approved by majority vote of the Board. Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-13-619, 25-19-105  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEA, BEB, BEDF, BEDH, BEE   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEDH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT BOARD MEETINGS Regular and special Board meetings, Board agenda meetings, and Board work sessions are open to the public. The public is cordially invited to attend Board meetings. Board meetings are conducted for the purpose of carrying on the official business of the District. Minutes of every regular and special Board meeting record the action taken and are available to the public during normal business hours. At all regular meetings of the Little Rock School District Board of Education there will be an opportunity for the public to address the Board. Citizens desiring to address the Board are asked to call the superintendent's office by 5:00 p.m. the day of the Board meeting to place their name on the list of speakers. Guidelines for public participation will be provided at each meeting. To have an item placed on the Board agenda a citizen should submit the request to the Board President or the Superintendent for consideration. The requesting party will be notified of the result of the request. Adopted: January 28, 1999  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BED, BEA, BED, BEDB,BEDG    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BEE BOARD HEARINGS/APPEAL PROCEEDINGS It is the intent of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District that any employee who appeals a grievance or other personnel action will receive a fair and impartial hearing pursuant to the policies of the Little Rock School District and applicable state and federal laws. It is also the Board's intent that any student who appeals a disciplinary recommendation will receive a fair and impartial hearing. In order to ensure that these objectives are met, Board members will not receive ex parte written information or engage in discussions, including telephone calls, concerning the merits of any personnel action or student disciplinary action which may result in an appeal to the Board. Any Board member who receives such information, or is otherwise approached prior to a hearing, will have grounds to disqualify himself or herself from participating in the hearing. It is the responsibility of each Board member to inform any teacher, student, school patron or other person who may attempt to discuss or provide information on a pending action of the Board's policy and the consequences. The Board may set a reasonable time limit (to be shared by the parties to the appeal) for the hearing, taking into consideration the amount of evidence and witnesses to be presented. The parties will be informed of the amount of time set aside for the hearing at the beginning of the hearing. The Board expects the parties to make all reasonable efforts to present their respective cases within the allotted time. If the hearing cannot be completed in the amount of time allotted, the Board will have the option of continuing the hearing or adjourning to reconvene at a later date. If the Board adjourns prior to the conclusion of the hearing, no member will discuss the case with either of the parties, other Board members, or any other person until it reconvenes to conclude the hearing. Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BF SCHOOL BOARD WORK SESSIONS AND RETREATS The Little Rock School District Board of Education may schedule work sessions and retreats from time to time in order to informally discuss in detail proposed policies, program changes or other items of information requiring in-depth examination. All work sessions and retreats are open to the public. No formal action will be taken by the Board at such sessions . Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: AC.A. 25-19-106  Cross References: Board of Education Policies BE, BEDH    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BG SCHOOL BOARD POLICY The Board of Education has the jurisdiction to legislate policy for the District and considers policy development one of its chief responsibilities. Board policy is to provide guidelines and goals for the development of administrative regulations that direct the daily operations of the District. The following process will be used to develop and adopt Board policy: 1. A policy may be proposed by board members, the superintendent, staff members, students, and community members. 2. Written policy proposals will be submitted to the superintendent for research to assure the integrity of the resulting policy statement. 3. The superintendent will bring policy proposals to the Board and will keep the Board informed of necessary policies or changes needed to existing policies . 4. The Board will give the proposed policy a first reading and allow for feedback from interested persons. 5. The proposed policy may be modified or changed before returning it to the Board for a second reading. Based on the extent of modifications or changes in the policy after the first reading, the Board may decide to defer the second reading to the next regularly scheduled monthly Board meeting. 6. Second reading is the final approval step by the Board. Second reading is to occur no sooner than the next regularly scheduled monthly Board meeting unless in the unanimous opinion of the Board members present, second reading should occur earlier. 7. The superintendent will disseminate approved policy statements and develop regulations if and as required to ensure appropriate implementation. 8. The Board and superintendent will work together to keep Board policies and the Board's policy manual up-to-date. The Board endorses the policy development, codification and dissemination system of the National School Boards Association 's National Education Policy Network (NSBA/N EPN ) . Adopted: March 25, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies BGD and BGE    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BGD REVIEW OF REGULATIONS The Board of Education reserves the right to review regulations issued by the administration, but it will revise or veto such regulations only when, in the Board's judgement, the regulations are inconsistent with policies adopted by the Board. Regulations will be officially approved by the Board when this is required by state law or when strong community, staff or student attitudes make it advisable for the regulation to have Board approval. Officially approved regulations will be included as part of the appropriate Board policy . Adopted: March 25, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BGE POLICY COMMUNICATION The superintendent will establish and maintain an orderly plan for preserving and making accessible the policies and regulations of the District. Accessibility will extend to students, staff members, members of the Board, and to persons in the community. All staff members are expected to know and observe the District policies and regulations. Each school will be furnished a copy of the policy manual. The superintendent will arrange for school employees to be informed of new policies and revision of existing policies . Adopted: March 25, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BH SCHOOL BOARD COMMUNICATIONS It is the belief of the Board of Education that keeping open communications with the public is critical to its proper functioning. Through the procedures below, the Board will ensure that its members have knowledge of the communications directed to it from the public, and the public will know that Board members have received the communications. All communications received by the District which are addressed to the Board will be copied and distributed to all Board members, either in the agenda materials for the next meeting or at the beginning of the meeting. Significant complaints or communications from teachers, parents, or pa_trons to individual Board members or to the Board as a whole, will be conveyed to the office of the superintendent. Communications to individual Board members requesting action or a statement of view may be acknowledged . It is recommended that an answer which commits the Board member should be avoided until the full Board has reviewed the issue. Statements of a Board member's opinion to any citizen will be clearly identified as an individual opinion which does not necessarily reflect the thinking of the entire Board. Channels of communications will be kept free and open in reaching decisions.  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BHA SCHOOL DISTRICT LOGO The Board of Education will approve the District logo. This logo can be used to identify schools, departments, and services of the Little Rock School District.  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BIB BOARD MEMBER DEVELOPMENT In order to perform their responsibilities to the electorate, the state, and the students, Board members are encouraged to participate in professional development activities. New Board members are required by law to receive a minimum of six (6) hours training and instruction in the school laws of this state and in the laws governing the powers, duties, and responsibilities of school boards. All Board members are encouraged to participate in school board and related workshops sponsored by local, state, and national school boards and education associations. The Board will pay the necessary expenses of assigned Board members who attend meetings and conventions pertaining to school activities and the objectives of the Board. The Board on a case-by-case basis will determine and limit the number of Board members authorized to attend specific workshops and conventions where the expenses involved warrant such limitations. Adopted: March 25, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-13-629  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy BID   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BID BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION Board of Education members will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out Board business at the Board's request and for reasonable expenses incurred while attending meetings and conventions as official representatives of the Board . Reimbursements to Board members will be based on District travel regulations and will be drawn from the District's budget allocation for Board expenses . Adopted: March 25, 1999  Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy BIB   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BJ SCHOOL BOARD LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM The Board, as an agent of the State, must operate within the bounds of state and federal laws affecting public education. The Board will work vigorously for the passage of new laws designed to advance the cause of good schools and for the repeal or modification of existing laws that impede this cause. To this end: The Board will keep itself informed of pending legislation and actively communicate its concerns and make its position known to elected representatives at both the state and national level. The Board will work with its legislative representatives (both state and federal), with the Arkansas School Board Association, the National Schools Board Association, and other concerned groups in developing an annual, as well as long-range, legislative program. One of the major objectives of the Board's legislative program will be to seek full funding for all state and federally mandated programs. The Board will annually designate a person who may or may not be a member of the Board to serve as its legislative representative. In all dealings with individual elected representatives, the legislature, or Congress, the Board's representative will be guided by the official positions taken by the Board. Legislative Representative A legislative representative will serve as the Board's liaison with the Arkansas School Board Association. The legislative representative will attend Arkansas School Board, Association meetings conveying our views and concerns to that body and participating in the formulation of state legislative programs. The legislative representative will monitor proposed school legislation and inform the Board of the issues.  Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS The Little Rock School District Board of Education will maintain memberships in national and state school boards associations and take an active part in the activities of these groups. The Board may also maintain institutional memberships in other educational organizations that the executive officer and Board find to be of benefit to members and district personnel. The materials and benefits of institutional membership will be distributed and used to the best advantage of the Board and the staff .  Adopted: January 28, 1999  C. Uenera Administration      SECTION C: GENERAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION Section.C.of the Little-Rock School Distr.ict.policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on school management, administrative organization and school building and department administration - including the administrative aspect of special programs and systemwide reforms such as school or site-based management. It also houses personnel policies on the superintendent, senior administrators (management team), and school principals. All phases of policy implementation - procedures of regulations - are properly located in this section. CB CBA CBD CBG CBI cc CF CFD CH CHD Cl Superintendent of Schools Qualifications and Duties of the Superintendent Superintendent's Contract Superintendent's Professional Development Opportunities Evaluation of the Superintendent Administrative Organization School Building Administration Campus Leadership Policy Implementation Administration in the Absence of Policy Temporary Administrative Assignments   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CB SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS The superintendent of schools will be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and the administrative head of all divisions and departments of the District. The superintendent may delegate responsibility for the operation of various segments of the District, but he/she will always be responsible to, and must regularly report to, the Board of Education . Adopted: January 28, 1999  Legal Reference: Arkansas School Laws\nSection 80-534, Section 2-001A    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CSA QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT The qualifications and duties of the Superintendent are as follows: TITLE: Superintendent of Schools 1. Must hold an Administrator's Certificate in school administration from the state of Arkansas 2. Minimum of a Master's degree 3. Successful experience as an administrator in an urban setting REPORTS TO: Board of Education SUPERVISES: Directly, or through delegation, all Little Rock School District employees JOB GOAL: To provide the best possible educational programs and services for the children in the Little Rock School District. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY: 1. Provides leadership for the educational system. 2. Informs the Board of the needs, conditions, and accomplishments of all schools in the District. 3. Proposes needed policy and procedure changes for Board consideration. 4. Maintains citizen support for public education in Little Rock . 5. Maintains communication with the Board, staff, students, and community.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CBA 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. (continued) Assures procedures to identify the needs of students. Assures the development, implementation and evaluation of programs to meet the needs of students. Develops and recommends a budget that reflects the needs and priorities of the District. Maintains a highly qualified, dedicated, and effective staff. Generates additional school income through appropriate sources. Coordinates with agencies and institutions whose activities affect the Little Rock School District. Assures effective use of physical, fiscal, and human resources . Performs such other tasks as may from time to time be assigned by the Board. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: Twelve months a year\ncontract term and salary to be negotiated with the Board. EVALUATION: The Board will evaluate the Superintendent's performance in accordance with a mutually agreed upon process and procedure . Adopted: January 28, 1999 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CBD SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT A. Term of Employment The superintendent will be employed by a written contract with a term of not more than three years. Specific terms of the contract are included in the \"Superintendent's Employment Agreement\" and are part of the public record . B. Contract Extension The superintendent's contract may be renewed annually at the time of re-election for a term not to exceed three years . Adopted : January 28, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CBG SUPERINTENDENT'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES The Board encourages the superintendent to make every effort to stay abreast of educational trends and use opportunities for exploring new ideas and programs that may be advantageous to the school district. For the benefit of the entire school system, the Board encourages the superintendent to set aside time each year to attend certain seminars and conferences and visit other school systems where innovative, creative programs are being demonstrated . Adopted: January 28, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CBI EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Through evaluation of the superintendent, the Board will strive to: 1. Clarify for the superintendent his/her role in the school system as seen by the Board 2. Clarify for all Board members the role of the superintendent in light of his/her job description and the immediate priorities among his/her responsibilities as agreed upon by the Board and the superintendent 3. Develop harmonious working relationships between the Board and superintendent 4. Provide effective administrative leadership for the school system The Board will provide the superintendent with periodic opportunities to discuss Superintendent-Board relationships . Adopted: January 28, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CC ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION The legal authority of the Board is transmitted through the superintendent along specific paths from person to person as shown in the Board-approved organizational chart of the district (see Exhibit CC). The lines of authority on the chart represent direction of authority and responsibility. The Superintendent may reorganize lines of authority and revise the organization chart subject to Board approval of major changes and/or the elimination and creation of positions. The Board expects the superintendent to keep the administrative structure up to date with the needs for supervision and accountability throughout the school system . Adopted: January 28, 1999  I Administrat ive Services org chart 04-23-98 I Disc ipline Altemativ Student A Pupil Human e Education ssignment Services Resources I I  I BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~ I SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS I I Special Assistant I I Labor Relations ~ I Communications Ir I Technology ~ I .. School Services I Instruction I I Elementary Assistant Reading/Language Arts Planning/Research/Evaluation Secondary Assistant Mathematics/Science Exceptional Children Accelerated Learning Social Studies Grants Writer Athletics Staff Development New Futures HIPPY Federal Programs Career \u0026amp; Technical Parent Involvement Adult Education VIPS Early Childhood  I I I I Operali ans 1_ ___ _ Financial S ervices udilor ment rvices curity Internal A Procure Plant Se Safety/Se Child Nut Transport rition ation I    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CF SCHOOL BUILDING ADMINISTRATION The Board affirms the rights and responsibilities of the building principals for the administration of their various programs and buildings within the broad scope of adopted board policies. Therefore, acting with the approval of the superintendent, the principal is the chief administrator of his/her school. All professional and support staff personnel assigned to a building will be directly res~onsible to the principal. The principal is the professional leader in the implementation of the educational program, the improvement of instruction and interpretation of the school's program to the community . Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CFO CAMPUS LEADERSHIP 1 I The Board of ucation of the Little Rock School District believes that a fundamental responsibility oft school system is to support the sustained improvement of the schools. Site-base decision making provides each school with a framework to attain the District's mission. Shared decision-making allows ~presentation of administration, staff, students, parents, and patrons to provide more efficient use of time and energy. This facilitates a quality !ironment for students, ? productive working environment for staff members, and increa ed opportunity for community involvement in our schools. To effect this belief, it is the p icy of the Board of Education of the LRSD, that each school will establish a campus I adership te9m to improve performance of all student populations. This team will assis n the deVelopment and evaluation of campus goals and objectives through planning, b ~geting, curriculum development, staff development, and staffing needs. Th1:_ough consensus based decisions, the campus teams will support the District's commitment to the sustained improvement of schools . Adop{ed: July 9, 1998  9oss Reference: Administrative Regulation CFD-R I    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CFO CAMPUS LEADERSHIP The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District believes that a fundamental responsibility of the school system is to support the sustained improvement of the schools. Site-based decision-making provides each school with a framework to attain the District's mission. Shared decision-making allows representation of administration, staff, students, parents, and patrons to provide more efficient use of time and energy. This facilitates a quality environment for students, a productive working environment for staff members, and increased opportunity for community involvement in our schools. To effect this belief, it is the policy of the Board of Education of the LRSD, that each school will establish a campus leadership team to improve performance of all student populations. This team will assist in the development and evaluation of campus goals and objectives through planning, budgeting, curriculum development, staff development, and staffing needs. Through consensus based decisions, the campus teams will support the District's commitment to the sustained improvement of schools . Adopted: July 9, 1998 RS FfB 6 liff/Cf Of DE$fGREGATION MONITORING Legal References: A.C.A 6-13-1301 through 6-13-1309 Cross Reference: LRSD Campus Leadership Handbook ' .    Board of Education Policies and Regulations Corrected Copy of CFO February 1, 2001 Remove CFO and replace with new CFO. NOTE: The cross reference changed and the legal references were added. There was no revision to the body .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CH POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The superintendent has responsibility for carrying out, through supplementary regulations and directives, the policies and regulations established by the Board. The policies developed by the Board and the regulations and directives developed to implement policy are designed to achieve an effective and efficient school system. All Board members, district employees, and students are expected to abide by them. Administrators and supervisors are responsible for informing staff members in their schools, departments, or units of existing policies and regulations and for seeing that they are implemented in the spirit intended. Within the policies and regulations of the Board and the regulations of the superintendent, principals are authorized to establish rules and procedures for the staff and students of their schools . Adopted: January 28, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CHO ADMINISTRATION IN THE ABSENCE OF POLICY In the absence of Board policy relating to a specific situation, the superintendent will use his/her best judgment in arriving at a decision. If possible, action in the absence of policy will be deferred until the Board has had time to adopt a policy to govern the situation in question. If it is necessary to take action, the superintendent will make a decision based on the spirit and tenor of other existing policies. Following this action, the superintendent will notify the Board and will recommend to the Board whether or not a policy should be written to cover similar incidents .  Adopted: January 28, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: Cl TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS The superintendent is authorized to appoint an acting superintendent to serve for specified periods of time during his/her temporary absence from duty. A temporary absence is defined as a vacation period, attendance at national conventions, and/or any other periods when the superintendent is out of the District for more than 24 hours. When so appointed , the acting superintendent will assume all duties which are the responsibility of the superintendent of schools, with particular emphasis on emergency and day-to-day decision-making. The acting superintendent will not be expected to deal with matters requiring long-term planning or preparation unless specifically so assigned by the superintendent. The acting superintendent will take special care to keep the Board informed as to any departure from normal routine . In the event of a vacancy in the office of superintendent of schools, or in the event of incapacitation of the superintendent, the responsibility for the appointment of an acting superintendent rests with the Board . Adopted: January 28, 1999   D. Fiscal Management     SECTION D: FISCAL MANAGEMENT Section D of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on school finances and the management of funds. Policies on the financing of school construction and renovation, however, are filed in Section F, Facilities Development. DA DB DBB DBG DBJ DC DCA DCA-R DD DE DEA DFA DFB DFC DFD DFD-R1 DFD-R2 DFE DFF DG DG-R DGA DGE DH DI DIB DIC DID DID-R Fiscal Management Goals/Priority Objectives Annual Budget Fiscal Year Budget Adoption Process Budget Transfers and Adjustments Taxing and Borrowing Management of Capital Projects Fund Management of Capital Projects Fund Funding Proposals, Grants and Special Projects Revenues From Tax Sources Funds From Local Tax Sources Revenues From Investments/Use of Surplus Funds Revenues From School-Owned Real Estate Leasing of District Facilities Gate Receipts and Admissions Activity Scheduling and Gate Receipts Athletic Gate Receipts and Admissions Royalties Income From School Sales and Services Banking Services Banking Services Authorized Signatures Personal Debts of Employees Bonded Employees and Officers Fiscal Accounting and Reporting Types of Funds Financial Reports and Statements Inventories Inventories Section D - Page 1 of 2  DIE Audits/Financial Monitoring DJ Purchasing DJ-R1 Procurement Regulations DJC Petty Cash DJC-R Petty Cash DJD Cooperative Purchasing and Resource Sharing DJGA Sales Calls and Demonstrations DK Payment Procedures/Disbursements DKC Out of Area Travel DKC-R Travel Expense Authorization/Reimbursement DLA Employee Benefits Administration DM Cash in School Buildings DN School Property Disposal DN-R School Property Disposal Procedures   Section D - Page 2 of 2   SECTION D: FISCAL MANAGEMENT Section D of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, gulations, and exhibits on school finances and the management of funds. Policies o the financing of school construction and renovation, however, are filed in S tion F, Facilities Development. DA DB DBB DBG DBJ DC DCA DCA-R DD DE DEA DFD DFD-R1 DFD-R2 DG DG-R DGA DH Fiscal Management Goals/Priority Objectives nnual Budget Fiscal Year dget Adoption Process Bu et Transfers and Adjustments Taxing an Borrowing Manage ent of Capital Projects F Managem t of Capital Projects n Revenues From Tax Funds From Local Gate Receipts a s Activity Scheduli eceipts Athletic Gate Re issions Banking Services Banking Services Authorized s natures DI Fiscal Ace nting and Reporting DIB Types f Funds DIC Fina cial Reports and Statements DJC DJC-R DK DKC DKC-R DM yment Procedures/Disbursements Out of Area Travel Travel Expense Authorization/Reimbursement Cash in School Buildings RECEIVED JUN 16 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - SECTION D: FISCAL MANAGEMENT Section D of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on school finances and the management of funds. Policies on the financing of school construction and renovation, however, are filed in Section F, Facilities Development. DA Fiscal Management Goals/Priority Objectives DB Annual Budget DBB Fiscal Year I R'l -t.c.' ~\":Jl\\l!i'' iEO DBG Budget Adoption Process ,, 7GG0 DBJ Budget Transfers and Adjustments ~.?R 0 - DC Taxing and Borrowing / Gfr\\Ct Cr rors OEStGREGAi'O~l tAul\\10 ,t DD Funding Proposals, Grants nd Special Projects DE Revenues From Tax Sources DEA Funds From Local-fax Sources DG Banking Services DG-R Banking Service DGA Authorized ignatures DH Bonded Efl)ployees and Officers DI Fisca~ccounting and Reporting DIB Ty es of Funds DIC Fi ancial Reports and Statements DJC Petty Cash DJC-R Petty Cash DK Payment Procedures/Disbursements DM I Cash in School Buildings APR 5 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT rm=Ir.F OF DESEGREGATION ?10NITORING NEPN CODE: DA FISCAL MANAGEMENT GOALS/PRIORITY OBJECTIVES It is the policy of the Board of Education to accept only new programs or services that are consistent with legal requirements of court agreements, law, or Board adopted planning documents such as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998, the Strategic Plan, and their successors. The quantity and quality of learning programs are directly dependent on the funding provided and the effective, efficient management of those funds. The District's mission and objectives can best be achieved through excellent fiscal management. As trustee of local, state, and federal funds allocated for use in public education, the Board will be vigilant in fulfilling its responsibility to see that these funds are used wisely for achievement of the purposes to which they are allocated. In the District's fiscal management, the Board will achieve the following:  align resources with programs and services set forth in Board adopted planning documents including the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998, the Strategic Plan and any successors of these plans\n engage in thorough advanced planning in order to develop budgets and to guide expenditures to achieve the greatest educational returns and the greatest contributions to the educational program\n establish levels of funding which will provide high quality education for the students of the District\n use the best available techniques and processes for budget development and management\n ensure effective and timely communication of financial information between the Board and all staff with fiscal management responsibilities\nand  establish and implement efficient procedures for accounting, reporting, investing, purchasing and delivery, payroll, payment of vendors and contractors, and all other areas of fiscal management. APR 5 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OfflC! Or NEPN CODE: DA o::SEGREGATlm MONITORING (continued) Planning During the annual budget planning process, the Board will review the financial resources of the District, ensure alignment of resources with programs and services set forth in Board adopted planning documents and update the five-year fiscal plan. Budgeting The budget is the expression of the plans of the Board in financial terms. The District will express those plans through two budget components:  Operating - budgeting for the provision of annual resources.  Capital - budgeting for the provision of necessary sites, buildings and equipment. The annual budget will be available to the public. Members of the public, as well as the internal school community, will be given opportunities to provide input to the budget process. Implementation and Control The budget, once approved by the Board, is considered a statement, in financial terms, of the operational plans for the District. Therefore, a system of fiscal control must be established to govern the administration of the budget and the receipt and expenditure of funds. Implementation and control will be governed by the following provisions: The superintendent has authority to authorize expenditure of funds within the limit of an adopted budget in conformity with Board policy, procedure and legal requirements. The Board may direct the superintendent as to expenditure limitations or reporting requirements on specific sections of the budget. The superintendent may authorize transfers of up to $50,000 from one function code to another with Board notification\ntransfers over that amount are subject to the approval of the Board. The superintendent will establish procedures which clearly delegate authority to expend funds within each budget program, establish accountability for those expenditures, and outline methods of control.  To maintain necessary service levels, additional revenue generated by increased enrollments may be expended with the superintendent's authorization. The plan for 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DA (continued) such expenditures will be presented to the Board prior to expenditure. Expenditures of additional revenue, except as indicated above or in the event of an emergency, require Board approval. Adjustments required to accommodate reduced revenues will also be reported to the Board.  Expenditures from any program will be for the purposes indicated in the budget unless variation is authorized as provided in this policy. No individual or group with delegated authority and accountability for a program or portion thereof will expend funds beyond the budget for that account without the written authorization of the superintendent or his/her designee.  A deficit will not be permitted without formal approval of the Board and the Arkansas Department of Education.  The Board will be provided a monthly financial report. -  The Board will have full access to financial information.  The superintendent is authorized to make necessary adjustments or to exceed budgeted amounts to handle emergencies, provided that the Board is advised immediately. Adopted: March 24, 2000 Legal References: AC.A. 6-20-101 through 6-21-711 ti.PR 5 2000 omcE or OESEGREGAi\\ml MONITORING Cross References: Board of Education Policies BA, BAA, BSA 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DB ANNUAL BUDGET The annual budget is the financial plan for the operation of the District. It provides the framework for both expenditures and revenues for the year and translates into financial terms the educational programs and priorities for the District. The Board expects the superintendent to work closely with administrative staff and principals to identify the needs of the District and each local school. After a proposed budget has been developed for each cost center, the superintendent, with the help of his/her staff, will coordinate the requests and present a recommended budget to the Board. Adopted: March 24, 2000 Legal References: AC.A. 6-20-1301 through 6-20-1304 APR 5 ZDGU Cffit: r~ DESESREG.ID?' t':: }iIT~rJ\nG LITTLE R\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from the The Andrew W.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":51,"next_page":52,"prev_page":50,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":600,"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}}]}}