{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1670","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision","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":["1997-10"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision"],"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/1670"],"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":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion for approval of revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDA TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Knight Intervenors, et al., by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM. for their Motion, state: 1. They were served with a copy of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan on September 29, 1997. 2. Due to several of the leaders of the Knight, et al. Intervenors being out of town, there will be insufficient time to frame a response to its Motion. 3. Knight, et al., Intervenors should be granted an extension of ten (10) days in which to respond to the Motion. WHEREFORE, Knight, et al., Intervenors prays that it be granted an additional ten days or until October 19, 1997, to respond to the Motion for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and that they be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 6, 1997 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building. Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JE::-.iNJNGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roache!! .,- ----- .. - 'RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT !:ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OCT 9 1997 OCT 7 1997 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, Cl.ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE LRSD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN On November 30, 1995, the LRSD filed a motion for an order - dismissing this case retroactively. This court, which had by that time considerable knowledge about the quality of plan implementation efforts in the LRSD, denied the motion on March 11, 1996. This court reasoned in part (at 8): The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. On September 26, 1997, the LRSD filed a brief motion and a short memorandum seeking \"approval of LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.\" Despite the foregoing ruling, the memorandum, incorporated by reference in the motion (para. 1 - 10), asserts that \"LRSD has now substantially complied with its obligations under the plan for six years.\" AT 1. It also characterizes the new plan as one which \"leaves it to the district's professionals to determine the best means to fulfill each obligation.\" At 4. In brief, officials found to exhibit frequently \"indifference or outright recalcitrance toward (their] commitments\" asset that they are entitled to have the court approve a largely standardless plan. Put another way, LRSD asserts the right to have approved a plan under which a number of unidentified persons define the content of the district's obligations, as they go along. It is apparent that the motion of the LRSD presents - substantial questions, warranting careful consideration. The predicate for this view is not limited to the foregoing general observations about the past performance and the degree of discretion granted by the plan. First. LRSD cites the Supreme Court decision in Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), concerning modification of a consent decree. That decision holds that a party seeking modification of a consent decree \"bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Id., at 383. It \"may meet it initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.\" Id., at 384 . In considering factual matter, it is appropriate to evaluate whether a party \"made a 2 reasonable effort to comply with the decree .... \" Id., at 385. Second. Once a party has met its burden of showing a factual or legal matter warranting modification, the court \"should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.\" Id., at 391. This can not be said is there is simply an effort \"to rewrite a consent decree so that is conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Third. The Court of Appeals applied Rufo in this case to a proposal concerning the closing of Ish Incentive School. LRSD v PCSSD, 56 F3d 904, 912-15 (8th Cir. 1995). In approving that proposal, the court emphasized with regard to the replacement school for Ish students, \"King will be integrated.\" Id., at 914. In the light of the foregoing factors, including the - standards governing in the case of a request for modification of a consent decree, the Joshua Intervenors seek a hearing to discuss at least the following factors. (1.) An opportunity for intervenors to conduct discovery. The LRSD relies to a considerable extent on assertion. The plan refers to policies (unspecified) in many areas. The meaning of the educational component of the plan is not self-evident. The quality of implementation efforts is relevant under Rufo. The impact of the student assignment proposals on desegregation is significant in view of the appellate ruling in this case cited above. (2.) The need for a report or reports by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the nature and the quality of 3 LRSD implementation in key areas. The LRSD seeks to dilute its obligation to address achievement disparity, as wells racial disparity in other areas. Compare the initial portion of the Interdistrict Plan to the new plan. It is appropriate to request ODM to determine whether the LRSD made an organized effort to eliminate the achievement disparity and other racial disparities to the extent possible, before changing the plan. Rufo addresses the quality of implementation efforts, and cautions against efforts to move to the \"constitutional floor: -- from the provisions to which a party voluntarily agreed. (3.) The possibility of a delay in the consideration of the motion until the court of appeals reviews the denial of a fee award to intervenors' counsel. The parties should be on equal - footing when addressing such fundamental changes in the plans. That is not the case now. (4.) A time period for the intervenors to respond to the motion, whatever the court's reaction to these issues. District court decisions cited by the LRSD do not warrant the relief sought by the District. In the Denver litigation, the court found in 1987 that \"the defendants have made a sincere and strenuous effort to meet the requirements of the October 1985 Order.'' Keyes v School District No. 1, 653 F. Supp. 1536, 1540 (D. Colo. 1987); see also Keyes, 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1286 (D. Colo. 1995) (\"The District has complied in good faith with the Interim Decree entered by this Court in 1987.\"). The court in the Dallas case voted significant improvement in the district's 4 implementation efforts over time. Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 457, 460, 477 (N.D. Tex. 1994). This case does not present a parallel situation. Here, the court has found implementation to be deficient. E.g., Order of March 11, 1996, at 8-9. (5.) The district's request that ODM monitoring continue to be restrained. In intervenor's view, as noted, ODM monitoring should focus on key elements of the current plan and that the ODM monitoring role should be consisitent with the one which the Court of Appeals established. (6.) The actions, advice and recommendations provided by the court or through the ODM to the school district which actions. advice and recommendations have not been otherwise shared with the intervenors. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to set a hearing for the purpose of developing procedures for the consideration of the motion of the LRSD for the approval of the revised plan. The Intervenors further respectfully request that ODM monitoring be resumed and continued in the interim and in the manner contemplated and directed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With respect this requested relief, Joshua also respectfully requests that the court and the ODM disclose any and all information, assistance, advice and counsel which, it or anyone associated with the court, have provided to the Little Rock School District or any of its employees, board members or agents during the past year, during 5 - the time when monitoring was abated. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was s~ry~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of October, 1997. 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ., V . NO . LR - C - 8 2 - 8 6.it. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL NECEn,m DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DCi 14 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION INTRODUCTION The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court co examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing 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. In this peticion, 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 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 mos~ 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. ~he Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Moun~ain 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 t o 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 comolete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexatior.s, segregated housing, school siting, student 1The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, o~her proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not =inalized 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 ~n 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: \"[I)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 3 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: [l] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. Green, supra, at 439, 88 S.Ct., at 1694. Here, as 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 former 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 af:irmed the district court's declaration of unitary scatus in Coalition 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 former 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 II were particularly addressed.\" Green, 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. However, the Green Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in 4 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.\" Id.; 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 Green 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 Wilminoton Court also commented upon federal court supervision in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins, the Wilminoton 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.C~. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent praccicable\" 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 [**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 5 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: 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 Court, on remand, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1 ) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSSD; and (2) by expanding LRSD so that the new boundary line becween 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.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 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 Circ. 1986) (per curiam) . Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) 6 It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the Interdistrict 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 Soecial School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985 ) . To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the Green 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. were 1985. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in 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); 7 Milliken I, 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. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 433. 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 earlier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school enrollments may 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 8 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: 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 9 (\"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 che 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; (6) 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 74 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. Id., at 31a. 112 s.ct. ac 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Courc found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the 10 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: I I 89-90 I I Total I 21,607 I I % Black I 26 I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 I 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 I 94.95 21,597 I 21,062 I 21,633 I 20,426 I 20,417 26 I 27 I 28 I 30 I 31 I 95-96 I 96-97 I 20,534 I 20,295 I 32 I 33 Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Total % Black Arnold Drive Elem Total % Black Baker Elem Total % Black Bates Elem Total % Black Bayou Meto Elem Total % Black Cato Elem Total % Black Clinton Elem Total % Black College Station Elem Total % Black Crystal Hill Elem Total % Black PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON' 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 371 360 352 420 411 40 36 39 36 37 387 411 408 390 348 18 16 14 18 23 294 291 268 283 294 27 30 25 27 25 698 638 737 680 599 47 46 47 45 45 602 596 611 648 649 2 2 2 1 1 656 655 663 650 569 21 24 21 21 22 242 279 310 326 277 40 38 34 33 40 776 746 40 43 94.95 95-96 96-97 397 343 312 39 36 38 375 380 381 25 24 22 304 318 318 24 27 24 550 485 464 53 56 54 639 635 628 1 2 3 523 552 542 23 22 22 661 661 739 49 50 47 316 309 323 43 41 41 791 790 778 45 46 46 21995-1996 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD PCSSD Dated January 30, 1996, by Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Docket No. 2614 11 I I I School 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Dupree Elem Total 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438 % Black 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 Fuller Elem Total 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 % Black 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 Harris Elem Total 633 616 605 546 479 331 325 303 % Black 31 32 34 40 47 44 50 53 Jacksonville Elem Total 796 817 844 847 763 759 752 731 % Black 32 28 27 27 31 37 41 42 Landmark Elem Total 563 566 522 518 498 499 484 504 % Black 47 46 44 46 46 43 41 43 Lawson Elem Total 334 345 331 321 304 305 308 294 % Black 19 15 16 14 16 23 19 16 Oak Grove Elem Total 572 573 515 469 438 435 451 421 % Black 12 14 13 24 24 22 23 24 Oakbrooke Elem Total 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 % Black 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 Pine Forrest Elem Total 625 677 658 518 434 455 498 456 % Black 14 14 15 20 21 19 20 21 Pinewood Elem Total 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543 % Black 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 Robinson Elem Total 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 % Black 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 Scott Elem Total 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 % Black 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 Sherwood Elem Total 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 % Black 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 Sylvan Hills Elem Total 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 % Black 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 Taylor Elem Total 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 % Black 24 28 26 26 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_238","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/238"],"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\nt' (.'Ii,,,,. ~/1-' '{ I  .J\n1/ - - -- - - October 1 State Department Enrollment Report - LRS -- - - - All Enrolled Students: 02-0ci-97 --- - ----- ----------- ---- 001 CENTRAL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~:, 13 10 10~8' B. 18 132 213 244 4 2 2 0 0 716 I w 11 1~-'I\n:) 26 147 168 201 2 0 4 4 1 0 653 ~ 12 _\nl.\u0026lt;} 0 97 104 104 138 0 I 3 4 0 452 r'I J., KF 18' I 1,\u0026gt;134~ 20 13 ~t 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 97 384 505 596/lt 6 3 9 9 1 1J 002 HALL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total \"I 3 10 ,s=r/ d 24 33 104 99 4 l 4 7 0 0 276 0 w II /'l! 1 w 21 31 92 89 4 2 5 3 0 I 248 - 12 .\u0026gt;./a C 31 42 85 76 3 1 6 2 0 0 246 1 KF 7'8'-',I 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 /'!O (1 s 4 6 3 ~o 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOT AL FOR: HALL 71 (O ,i180 107 289 272~ 1 4 15 12 0 1 \u0026gt;13,gfi 1 1i ~ L._..../ 003 MANNM/S Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 77 60 75 76 0 I 2 0 0 292 08 57 75 69 81 2 0 1 0 287 09 8 75 59 86 0 4 2 4 0 1 279 ~~i-- TOTAL FOR: MANN MIS iq 182 210 203 2434\u0026gt;llr2 5 4 7 0 2?p 858 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 51 87 70 84 3 4 I 0 302 11 68 75 83 80 2 1 3 0 0 313 12 54 83 51 96 v\\3 5 3 I 0 0 296 B,.,~ TOTAL FOR: PARKVIEW \u0026gt;\\\\\u0026lt;$173 245 204 260 ~ 8 7 5 8 1 o~'I 911 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 13 16 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 78 02 4 18 22 13 24 I 0 2 0 0 0 80 03 6 20 19 22 23 0 0 0 0 86 04 3 19 22 21 22 0 0 0 0 86 05 3 22 24 28 21 0 1 I 0 0 98 06 4 17 26 29 19 I 0 0 0 0 93 KF 4 18 19 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 76 ~?7 ft\n121 148 150 158pfi 3 4 6 0 0 ,~ 597 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total Information Sen-ices Department - All Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-97 - ---- 07 52 42 77 86 4 5 2 3 0 0 271 08 51 45 71 82 3 4 2 2 0 0 260 09 48 53 69 57~ 4 3 2 0 240 /17 TOTALFOR:DUNBAR ~'I I 151 140 217 225 10 13 7 7 o,~ 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 29 23 131 94 0 I 0 0 0 0 278 II 14 23 84 100 3 0 0 0 0 225 12 16 25 83 102 I 0 0 0 0 228 s 4 4 II 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ~17 TOT AL FOR: FAIR ,ii 63 75 309 303(tl~4 1 1 0 0 '/ 757 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 34 34 77 68 I 3 0 2 0 I 220 08 36 20 66 76 3 0 1 0 0 0 202 09 27 26 81 74 2 0 0 0 212 s 3 I 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOT AL FOR: FORST HT f~' 100 81 231 221\u0026gt;1~5 4 3 2 0 1 ,6 648 10 OIO PULHTJ Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 56 47 84 65 1 2 2 0 0 258 08 53 52 78 66 0 2 0 0 253 09 50 53 66 75 I 1 1 0 0 0 247 s 4 2 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 :f11 TOT AL FOR: PUL HT J i\"' 163 154 230 201Ai'12 3 4 4 0 0 1i 767 011 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 12 8 68 74 2 3 0 0 0 0 167 08 23 11 82 58 0 4 0 0 0 179 09 6 6 65 65 2 3 0 I 0 0 148 s I 13 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 ,g~t' TOTA L FOR: SOUTHWST c,c4i2 26 228 198 #i( 4 10. 0 2 0 0 ,~ 510 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 26 23 147 152 1 0 0 0 351 11 21 22 128 125 0 3 1 0 0 0 300 12 18 19 103 109 3 1 2 0 0 0 255 s 1 2 17 9 t\u0026gt; 0 0 0 0 0 ~\u0026gt;17TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA ,~'7ti6 66 395 395 \"\" 4 5 4 0 0 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LR.soIn formation Services Department 2 Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-97 07 14 13 102 95 I 0 2 I 0 229 08 14 10 103 96 0 I I 2 0 0 227 09 22 13 104 103 I 0 0 2 0 0 245 s ii 2 0 17 4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 o 23 \"lll., 52 36 326 298 t,'tl-2 3 5 o,re CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 13 2 99 68 3 3 0 1 0 0 189 08 8 10 109 87 4 0 0 0 0 219 09 6 13 99 90\n_ 2 0 0 0 214 ~ci7, TOT AL FOR: CLOVR JR f'27 25 307 245~j 7 9 1 1 0 0 ,i 622 MABELJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 21 20 64 68 0 0 0 0 0 174 08 17 13 64 63 0 0 0 0 2 0 159 09 24 20 55 57 0 0 0 0 0 157 1~1 s 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 . TOTA L FOR: MJ\\BEL JR (i'\n65 57 184 195 ~{\\ 0 1 0 0 2 1 \u0026gt;Ic s\n?~k 017 BALE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 6 2 14 24 2 I 0 0 0 0 49 02 2 5 4 18 18 0 0 1 0 0 47 03 2 4 3 15 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 40 04 2 4 5 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 05 2 8 10 20 13 0 0 0 0 53 06 2 2 20  14 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 E 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 KF 5 5 5 19 18 0 3 0 0 0 51 PK _9 1\u0026gt; 3 7 11 10 2 0 0 \" 0 \"-9/3. 5 fi1 TOT AL FOR: BALE \" 44 34 133 132,?li 4 5 9 1 0 0 1C\\ 362 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 8 25 20 2 0 0 0 62 02 3 11 11 21 15 0 3 0 0 63 03 2 9 2 20 15 0 2 1 0 0 50 04 3 3 4 16 9 0 3 6 4 0 0 45 05 2 5 8 18 8 0 0 43 06 6 5 9 2 1 2 1 0 0 27 E 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 3 5 9 19 20 0 2 0 0 0 56 LRSD Information Services Department 3 - Enrolled ~tude_~ts: 02-Oct-97 ---- PK 5 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 (\u0026gt; 0 \"\" 18 ~1 TOTALFOR:BRADY qi 50 48 134 101 ,.P 5 II 14 9 0 0 i' 372 -- -- - - --- - ----- BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 I I 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 2 0 2 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 03 1 0 1 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 04 2 3 3 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 05 0 I 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 0 0 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 E 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 2 4 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 0 :, 2 11 ~'f 18 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 1) o '!J/7,-31 cp- 1 TOTALFOR:BADGETT '' 8 11 110 1041 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 MCDERMOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 24 13 19 14 2 0 0 0 74 02 3 13 11 22 22 0 1 0 0 71 03 2 12 19 28 13 0 0 0 0 0 73 04 2 20 10 19 18 0 2 0 0 71 05 3 13 10 23 21 0 0 0 0 1 69 06 3 10 7 19 27 0 0 2 0 0 0 65 KF 3 l( 14 10 13 15 ?\u0026gt;I 0 0 0 0 54 aJ7 TOTALFOR:MCDERMOT ~ 106 80 143 130,\" 5 3 5 4 0 1 ,i 477 021 CARVER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 19 12 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 69 02 4 26 16 22 23 0 0 2 0 0 90 03 3 20 18 29 19 0 0 1 0 0 88 04 3 26 12 32 20 0 0 4 0 0 95 05 4 26 21 31 19 0 1 0 0 100 06 4 20 22 24 26 0 0 1 0 0 94 KF 3 A 16 10 9 21 :,,,0 0 2 2 0 0 60 ,~1- 0 TOT AL FOR: CARVER ~l, 153 111 168 144J' o 3 6 11 0 0 ~ 596 022 BASELINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 4 4 24 19 0 0 0 54 02 2 1 2 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 35 03 2 0 5 17 23 0 0 0 48 04 3 2 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 LRSDI nformationS ervicesD epartment 4 :AlEl nrolled Stud\nrrts: - ~-- '...----- TOT AL FOR: BASELINE OS 06 E KF PK 2 2 4 4 0 I 2 0 2 S ) 2: 'i3 2! 17 11 0 IS 12 I 2 4 0 17 28 0 11\n\u0026gt;..116 ~ 0 132 135~~ 3 I 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-Qcl-97 0 I 35 0 0 29 0 0 8 0 0 54 0 O O 777- 35 2 1Y323 023 FAIR PRK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 01 02 03 04 OS 06 KF PK 2 2 2 S 4 2 4 I 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 13 ,?~ 25 29 11 24 0 13 12 I 18 11 0 7 8 0 7 9 0 7 14 0 14 16 0 S ,1 12 0 82 106 {~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 44 0 30 0 34 0 20 0 21 0 27 0 36 0 .i/1.'/3. 6 0 ~ 248 024 FORST PK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: FORST PK 01 02 03 04 OS 06 KF 3 18 16 IS 13 0 3 22 3 17 3 16 2 11 2 12 3 16 if'\\ 112 17 19 19 IS 9 12 107 14 17 0 16 13 0 12 20 0 13 12 0 14 19 0 12 IS ~ 0 96 109 '\n/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 71 65 68 52 55 4~1 0 57 0 C., 430 025 FRANKLIN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: FRANKLIN 01 02 03 04 OS 06 E KF J\u0026gt;K ~ LRSD Information Services Department 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 0 2 1 2 4 30 31 2 30 27 0 30 24 23 19 0 0 0 0 1 14 18 0 0 0 11 24 0 2 I I 4 0 2 33 40 I 8 1\n. 4 24 ~, 34 (\\ 0 ?J' 17 14 206 221  2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 61 55 46 33 37 18 0 0 77 q\n/7 o~ofn 0 0 (, 464 5 W)Enrolled Stude~ts: --- 02-Oct-97 ----- - ---- -- --- 026 GARLAND Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 15 17 1 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 14 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 03 2 0 I 16 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 37 04 3 0 0 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 33 05 2 0 0 14 16 I 2 0 0 0 0 33 06 2 0 I 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 E 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CjJ7o KF 2 0 14 18 I 0 0 0 0 0 34 PK 0 Q 0 11 it, 5 ~ 0 0 0 ~o t 18 TOTALFOR:GARLAND lJ 2 4 127 126-J\n7 4 0 0 01~71 027 GIBBS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 2 13 9 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 2 11 9 II 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 2 12 6 14 9 2 I I 0 0 0 45 04 2 8 12 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 11 12 9 14 I I 0 0 0 0 48 06 2 14 7 11 JO 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 ~-\n7 KF 2 9 JO 10 JO 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 TOT AL FOR: GIBBS rf?\u0026gt;78 65 84 77 ,1.,\\ 4 2 1 0 0 o1 311 028 CHICOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 10 9 26 24 3 0 0 0 0 73 02 3 8 6 22 '.3I 4 4 0 0 0 0 75 03 4 8 6 25 26 5 2 0 0 0 73 04 4 8 8 27 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 68 05 3 5 7 24 24 2 0 0 0 0 63 06 3 12 4 27 22 2 3 0 0 0 71 E 4 2 7 6 0 0 I 0 0 0 20 (, ,,. KF 4 6 7 23 16 3 4 0 0 0 0 59 PK JO 11 7 II 1~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 D Q-6_/). 35 TOT AL FOR: CHICOT f,1 71 56 192 178 ~12' 2 15 3 0 0 0 ~() 537 029 WESTHIL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 2 7 6 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 02 2 5 6 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 03 2 4 8 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 04 2 7 20 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 LRsD Information Services Department 6 -- -- :,\\II Enroll~ Students: 02-Oct-97 -- 05 2 9 7 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 06 2 8 12 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7\u0026gt;1' KF 2 5 7 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: WEST HIL q?'45 47 114 108 fi'o 0 0 0 0 315 JEFFRSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 14 15 14 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 3 26 19 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 3 24 15 18 15 0 I I 0 0 0 74 04 3 18 19 16 13 0 0 0 I 0 0 67 05 3 23 23 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 81 06 3 25 17 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 E 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~7 KF 4 21 17 13 5 ~I 0 0 0 0 58 TOT AL FOR: JEFFRSN ,\nf\"1 53 126 117 110~ 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 513 CLOVREL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 5 43 35 I 2 0 0 0 0 89 02 3 3 32 37 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 3 2 I 40 24 0 0 0 0 0 68 04 2 l 2 25 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 05 2 3 2 27 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 06 1 2 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 KF 4 0 4 31 35 1 0 0 0 0 72 1'f7' PK 4~ 12,: 17 ~ 0 2 0 0 0 0 t/7, 36 TOT AL FOR: CLOVR EL ~ 18 16 231 2384t\n2 7 0 0 0 0 11 512 032 DODD Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 10 5 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 3 5 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 I 3 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 2 4 7 11 II 1 0 0 0 0 35 05 2 5 11 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 06 2 4 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 E 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ~~7~ KF 2 -rl 6 3 4 9 ~I 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOT AL FOR: DODD 36 38 78 67 ,~ 4 0 0 0 0 ~ 224 033 MEADCLIF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 7 23 21 0 0 0 0 58 LRSD Information Services Department 7 ---- -- - -- -!t\\1E1n ~lled ~tudents: 02-Oct-97 --- 02 3 7 4 26 17 0 0 1 0 1 0 56 03 2 2 2 23 18 0 0 0 1 0 47 04 2 3 2 22 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 05 2 5 3 13 17 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 5 4 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 fl1\" KF 2 6 4 16 13 ~o 0 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: MEADCLIF ft. 33 26 143 120 '?Ju I 4 2 0 3 0 10 332 MITCHELL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 1 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 03 3 1 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 04 2 0 0 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 05 2 2 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 2 0 2 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 E 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 2 1 2 19 12 1 1 0 0 0 37 q-:,7o PK 2 .s 3 5 /3 8 0 0 0 0 0 _o 0 7.:1NJ8 TOT AL FOR: MITCHELL 8 8 114 109~1 I 0 0 0 I 3, 242 035 ML KING Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 5 31 22 30 35 I 0 0 0 0 0 119 02 4 20 21 20 25 0 0 0 I 0 0 87 03 3 13 25 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 86 04 3 16 15 21 19 0 2 2 0 0 76 05 3 15 13 29 16 I 0 4 I 0 80 06 2 14 JO IO 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 KF 5 20 17 31 23 0 0 0 0 0 92 ~~7 .. p (\\ 16 .3!:i 19 20 .3~75 ~ 0 0 0 I O I 0 '171 TOT AL FOR: M L KING ~\"6 145 142 187 167p 3  3 9 1 0 11 6-58 036 ROCKFELR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 13 9 13 18 0 I 0 0 0 55 02 3 8 7 15 19 0 0 I 0 0 SI 03 3 12 7 21 II 0 0 0 0 53 04 3 9 4 13 24 I 0 0 0 0 52 05 2 8 8 15 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 48 06 2 9 8 13 9 0 I 0 0 0 0 40 KF 4 II 9 15 16 0 0 0 0 53 PK 21 \"'-524 21 S-P29 0 0 O~l,,98 LRSD Information Services Department 8 A.II Enrolled Students: - l,~ 02-Oct-97 B11\u0026gt; 1u1 91 0 ,~ TOTALFOR:ROCKFELR 76 126 138 /i 9 7 2 0 50 --- -- 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ---- - 01 2 5 5 17 15 2 0 0 1 0 0 45 02 2 1 7 12 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 44 03 2 3 3 14 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 04 2 6 2 13 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 1 1 3 10 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 06 2 2 7 22 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 38 7~7 KF 2 6 4 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK Lt' 7 ri 7 8 ,~ 10 :, 1 0 0~ 0.51~ 35 TOTAL FOR: GEYER SP 31 38 114 123 ?-1 4 4 0 0 JO 316 038 PULHTE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 8 15 29 20 0 1 0 1 0 0 74 02 3 14 11 14 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 03 4 18 14 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 04 3 22 20 22 12 2 0 0 0 0 79 05 2 18 13 22 25 0 0 0 0 0 79 06 2 10 16 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 ${\n~ KF 2 ~10 13 8 7~0 1 I 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: PUL HT E '/' 100 102 130 124 2 2 3 1 0 0 \u0026lt;t 464 039 RIGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 2 0 0 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 2 0 1 11 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 05 2 0 20 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 06 2 0 0 19 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 KF 2 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 5 3 2 ~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 ,So~ 18 q-\u0026gt;f'I TOT AL FOR: RIGHTSEL ,-:/1 5 106 128,-~ 1 1 0 1 0 0 ~ 249 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 6 20 13 1 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 6 5 14 12 I 2 0 0 0 41 03 2 7 2 15 11 3 0 I 0 0 40 04 3 5 4 8 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 05 2 5 7 9 6 2 0 0 0 0 30 LRSD Information Services Department 9 All Enrolled Students: 02-Ocr-97 - -- - 06 6 4 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 28 E 2 I 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 KF 4 9 2 25 18 4 3 0 0 0 62 PK 6 I 8 7 /'! 11 0 0 I 2 0 -'/ I 50736 iJi TOT AL FOR: ROMINE op 51 39 114 92g'~l3 12 3 3 0 lj~\nJ ~ D 042 WASHNGTN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 14 18 22 26 3 4 I 0 0 89 02 4 17 12 31 25 4 2 I 0 0 0 92 03 4 17 17 25 26 4 0 0 2 0 0 91 04 2 19 8 19 16 I 0 2 I 0 67 05 3 26 12 27 10 5 2 0 0 84 06 4 18 27 20 19 I 2 2 3 0 0 92 i E I 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ~~/0 KF 4 12 8 30 22 4 4 2 0 1 0 83 _pK 1 8 ,\" 12 15.2.112 I 2 2 O Go 0 Ii, 53 TOTALFOR:WASHNGTN ~ 132 115 195 157~3 16 9 11 2 0 t,) 6.6,0. ., 043 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 14 17 16 19 0 0 0 69 02 3 17 14 16 20 0 0 0 0 69- 03 3 12 18 17 18 0 0 2 0 I 0 68 04 3 13 21 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 05 3 18 17 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 06 3 14 16 24 13 0 0 0 0 ~ ~i 69 KF 3 15 13 15 15 t 0 l 0 0 60 TOT AL FOR: WILLIAMS ~11103 116 123 125~ 0 0 5 4 1 2 / ~79 044 WILSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 26 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 3 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03 3 2 4 14 25 2 0 0 0 0 l 48 04 2 4 6 23 16 l 0 0 0 0 51 05 2 3 3 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 5 2 19 14 0 0 0 0 0 41 E 2 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 i~r KF 3 0 6 32 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 PK 3 1 5 5 C, 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 50]- 18 TOT AL FOR: WILSON ~:?,25 28 170 127~,, 7 4 0 0 0 J ,\n, 362 LRSD Information Services Department IO . . 02-Oct-97 ---- ---- -- - - -- WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 2 8 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 38 02 2 2 7 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 2 4 7 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 04 2 I 2 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 OS 2 6 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 06 I 6 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 2 6 10 5 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7/~ PK 6 ,~ 9 10 ii 8 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ~37. .3 4 TOT AL FOR: WOODRUFF ~\\ 33 48 111 90\n/ ' 1 0 0 0 0 d\" 284 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 13 6 26 24 2 0 0 0 0 72 02 4 10 4 32 14 I 0 0 0 0 62 03 3 9 5 20 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 56 04 4 4 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 4 6 19 20 I 0 0 0 0 0 so 06 6 4 12 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 E 0 0 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 KF 3 8 9 19 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 PK q 3 1 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;)~~ 16 117-- TOT AL FOR: MABEL EL q 57 42 156 143j-C\\ 7 2 0 0 0 0 ~ 407 047 TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 22 19 22 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 86 02 3 25 22 13 11 0 0 2 0 0 74 03 3 20 17 14 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 04 3 12 16 11 17 0 0 I 0 0 58 OS 3 25 15 IS 19 0 3 0 0 79 06 3 15 14 19 19 0 0 0 2 0 0 69 1t/f., KF 4\n\" 17 14 22 15 91 I 4 0 0 75 TOT AL FOR: TERRY 7 136 117 116 119(1' 1 3 5 13 0 l ~3511 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 16 26 16 23 0 1 I 0 0 0 83 02 3 10 25 22 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 66 03 3 17 24 19 9 0 0 0 0 71 04 3 18 18 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 OS 4 II 16 24 14 0 0 0 0 0 66 LRSD Information Services Department 11 -(\n) 0 -f /2 ~~l -::Pt-\u0026lt;~.,.,,(\"::\u0026gt; ~~5 .,/to ~1 7~/c\n~/ ?o ---1-i ~~,\ni_ /\n-0/ o/..3 /\n~7~ 6'-Y\no _t,,J~ //, -4(,ND I --vO 0 ..1// 9i)a ~ . /7~. /.7/1 19~7 /0~ 5~ I I... ~j ~ \"\\\\ (1'\nt~, ~,\n, 8, 'ti/ ~.r)\n~le,~ J -?, t/J.\n)p f/\nJ.Y ~~D 7? ~~7(~ 7~~ l,11JI J.c~O 1 30~ '10l -i/\n~~/ /19..80 ~ ~ /~cr:x) 70 c) \u0026amp; - -0 - /2 ------7 1/JIJ t~// c5, ?(Y~ $? I .:\n5:../ 6 7c7,,, /: /t I~ !\n?? 3,/f./ /a:J-/ ~\n21/ t\n7\n! ~( 3 //D 7, ~,_:\n.., .::?c-1 /qc::\n_J r\n,[{lo l\"c:,_ I -------------------------------------- AlEl nrolled Students~- ---- - 06 E KF TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH --------- 2 16 3 4 _J1 14 16 12 0 17 23 F 10s 142 134 19 0 0 0 14 po 106\nr 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 02-Oct-97 0 64 0 4 0 69 0 ~ 495 050 OTTERCR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: OTTER CR 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF 2 13 2 18 2 12 2 14 2 15 2 7 2 ~ 6 ,u 85 9 17 14 12 15 9 13 11 83 7 17 14 10 12 10 87 8 0 8 0 8 I 9 0 14 0 9 0 8 0 64 ,~, 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 47 49 50 54 49 43 ,\n.//, 1 36 1 ~ 328 051 WAKEFIEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF 3 3 2 2 3 8 2 I 2 2 3 4 I 3 .1\\ ..\u0026gt;\\ 21 4 22 3 23 3 25 0 18 3. 26 6 20 I 25 20 159 19 0 15 0 31 I 26 0 15 2 35 I 22 ')\"2 163~9 6 0 0 I 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 43 0 70 0 45 0 0 66 0 52 0 ,o 373 052 WATSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: WATSON 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF ffi( LRSD nformation Services Department [\n/u? .\n,,,c ., ~/ 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 I 3 2 I 43 40 I 2 3 32 26 7 2 2 31 24 32 21 I 0 23 18 I 4 4 33 20 0 6 3 32 32 0 lt O ~ 2 20 31 14 0 ~ 22 24 238 203 )\\~ 4 0 /0 0 (\n. 9, ~ f-:.::\u0026gt;-' Z .:?f\n)..., /~tt:.wi/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 65 0 72 0 50 0 46 (? 1 '/Q 0 61 \"l:\u0026gt; 0 73 0 CJ\"{J3~6 0 /., 493 :::?:,. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993 BUILDING CAPACITIES SCHOOL CAPACITY sr\nNIQR HTQH S~HQ.Q. LS CENTRAL 1891 JA FAIR 954 HALL 1291 MCCLELLAN 1199 PARKVIEW 1000 METROPOLITAN N/A SUBTOTAL: 6335 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE 868 DUNBAR 812 FOREST HEIGHTS 858 HENDERSON 907 MABLEVALE 614. MANN 850 PULASKI HEIGHTS 745 SOUTHWEST 737 SUBTOTAL: 6391 ~L~~l:!TARY SCHOOLS \\q BADGET 257\n~BALE 401 J?BASELINE 390 UBOOKER 656 \\~BRADY 467 :\"\n-I1 CARVER 613 JqcmcoT 558 3 , CLOVERDALE 492 J' DODD 328 /\\~,,_F,A IR PARK 351 j CREST PARK 399 ~ 'o FRANKLIN 544 ~i FULBRIGHT 5-4-0 ------ - ..._ ........... .  . ~--.c._~#...-.-.c.,,-:..\n~ . . _..,.,_~---- ..,  1\": !.  Note #1 Note #1 Note #2\nPLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT  E, .. ?U~nQT,AND 31 346 GEYER SPRINGS 328 J-1GIBBS 4 9 ISH (CLOSED) 353 0 33~ --J EFFERSON 492 ING 692 t-tL~MABLEVALE 515\nlo MCDERMOTT 517 33HEADOWCLIFF 465 3-/MITCHEL 346 s-r\noTTER CREEK 351 Ji PULASKI HEIGHTS 374 3C?R IGHTSELL 346 3\u0026amp;, ROCKEFELLER 425 ,H}, ROMINE :tf/ STEPHENS 487 298 4JTERRY 515 51 WAKEFIELD 492 tf\n\u0026gt;WASHlNGTON 939 J\n}-WATSON a -t-i 492 WESTERN HILLS 328 ~ WILLIAMS 517 WILSON 394 45'WOODRUFF 324 SUBTOTAL: 16,332 Notes: Notes reflect changes from p::-eviously established capacities. Note #1: Capacities established 1992 submitted to Federal Court. Note #2: Capacity change from 1992 Desegregation Plan due to additional portable building added. ~ Note #2 Note #2 Note #2 j / F.YI. Date: /..x-.5, -9 7 ar'pm  Gene o Horace rn/ Margie D Melissa fil\"' Skip a,/ Polly IY Linda Return to: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION [OOL DISTRICT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED iHUA, ET AL. iT, ET AL. 1997 OFFIOCFE PLAINTIFF LRSD' s AMi~~Tro MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INT ERVENO RS INTERVENORS ERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS r OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL E REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") for its Answers t Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and reduction of Documents states: TORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for f:lhomo\\kndlcyllnd'dao-jooh.- CORRECTECDO PY1 0/01/97 LRSD ENROU.MFtH on ICl,4Lo c I Ollf:R I, 199i COi.ii~I HIGH SCHOOLS l-1 rl9_7 w  o I TOlAL 13/ BLK 9E.~!_R(IL_ __ ,,_-_ 1'101~ 7Y5 49 _- .tii~f--=-~9% FAIR I 612 137 8  7511 81% l~ALL 11 - 561 I 179 50 1'117001-it% MCCIf :LLAN. - -j! -.7 9(}! - 121 - 24 ~ --935 - 843/o PARK'IEW 464 403 - 44  - 911~51% ALE SR HIGH , 61 0 0 6 100% s_u_~!OTA_L_ ---3534 154~ .JI~---i~1 __ .?I~ JUNIORH IGHS- '- - ---t--.+ - CLOVERDALE 552  36 34J::: 622 ~% DuIJsAR I 442 ,82 47 1 - nil 57% FORESTI I EIGHTS. - 452 - 170 ---18 / - ij.joJ 70% HENDERSON -, 624 83 -ff-:_:- 1ffi- 86% MABELVALE 380 1'19 7 5o5 506 75% MANN I 446 375 37  858 52% PULASKHI EIGHTS 4371 315 15 767 57% SOUTHWEST I 426 651 19  510 83% ALE JR. HIGH 10 0 01 10~-100% SliafoTAL 1 3769 1453 194 5416 69% - ----------!!- - . I --- l - -- -- et.F.MENTARY-  ----'- 1 -~1'--- BADGEIr 214 19. -- or:- 233-- 92% BALE ---, ~ 2 6 6 '5 7 1 7 38 1 26 - 362 73% BASELINE 18 v 323 83% BOOKER 11 308 2611 28  597 52% BRADY I 235 94 43 v 372 63% CARVER-----, 312 259 25 - 59~i CHICOT 370 121 46 - 537 69% CLOVERDALE ,,::_-469~ 30 -- . 13 V . Yl~ Jl2% DOUD 145 74 5 , 2241 65% FftJRPARK I 188 50 10 , 248 76% FOHESTP ARK 205 219 6 - 430 48% FRANKLIN ~--427 24 13 V 464 --927, FULBRIGITI ---240 -- 246 ___ l :-- 495- 43% GARLAND 1 253 3 15 - 271 93% GEYER SPRINGS 2371 66 13 316 75% GIBBS 161 133 17 - 311 52% JEFFERSON -- 227 2/9 7 ...,. 513 44% KING 354 279 25 - 658 --54~-\n- MABELVALE-- '- 299 __ 92 -- 161  - 407 - 73% MCDERMOTT 273 181 23 - 4 77 57% MEAOOWCLiFF 2_~ _ 57, 12 - 332 79% MITCHELL 223 91 10  242 92% OTTER CREEK '151 167 1of, -m 46% PULASKHI EIGHTS 254 - 193. ... 17 - 464 55% RIGHTSELL 234 9 6 - 249 94% ROCKEFELLER -~ 153 33 450 59% ROMINE 206 78 44 ~ 328 63% TERRY 7.35 243 33 -:: ..... 511 46% WAKEFIELD 322 ~2 -- im-373 86% WASHINGTON 352 2!~ --- 95 :: 660 53% WATSON 441 40 12  49:J U9% WESTERNH ILLS 222 91 21 315 ~ wILuAMs 24a rn ___ Jzl. 479 ~ WILSON 297 53 12  362 8?.% wo65RiJFF- '--201-----:,s -o-=--784---fi SUBT OTAL. 9362 4166 -688 14216- 65% I GRANDT OTAL 16665! 7164 1057 24886 67% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Amboy Elementary School 6002-050 K-05  White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Grade Totals M F M F M F M F K 52 14 8 15 15 0 0 0 0 01 68 20 6 10 29 2 0 0 1 02 78 19 16 20 21 2 0 0 0 03 68 18 13 22 15 0 0 0 0 04 71 21 15 13 22 0 0 0 0 05 63 13 20 .\".I. 12 17 .I 1 0 0 0 Totals 400 105 78 1 \" 92 119~ 5 0 0 1 Percentages 26.3% 19.5% 23.0% 29.8% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 45.8% 52.8% ~~io 1.3% 0.3% Grades 1-5 348 91 70 77 104 5 0 0 1 Percentages 26.1% 20.1% 22.1% 29.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 46.3% 52.0% 1.4% 0.3% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 ~ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NOV2 l 1997 OFFOICFE DESEGREMGAmTJIITOONR ING North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Belwood Elementary School 6002-053 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 19 2 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 35 8 8 11 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 20 5 1 4 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 23 5 2 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 18 4 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 7 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 6 3 0 _Q 2 1 ,,..,\u0026amp;.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"'\\... Totals 146 31 28.., 46 39\" 0 2 0 0 0 0 - Percentages 21.2% 19.2% 31.5% 26.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.4% 58.2% 6Y\u0026gt;7 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 127 29 20 39 37 0 2 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.8% 15.7% 30.7% 29.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.6% 59.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Boone Park Elementary School 6002-054 J-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F - M F M F M F  J 35 0 2 / 17 15 r 1 0 0 0 0 0 K 71 4 3 34 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 83 4 8 30 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 58 5 0 28 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 03 60 5 4 33 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 69 4 4 35 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 59 5 2 - 31 20 -t 0 1 0 0 0 0 /_ Totals 435 27 23\" 208 171-'' 4 2 0 0 0 0 ~ Percentages 6.2% 5.3% 47.8% 39.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 87.1% i1J. 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 329 23 18 157 126 3 2 0 0 0 0 Percentages 7.0% 5.5% 47.7% 38.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 86.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Crestwood Elementary School 6002-055 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 44 12 17 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 17 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 51 11 13 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 39 12 12 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 49 12 19 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 31 11 8 ~, 5 6 _c 0 1 0 0 0 0 I Totals 265 69 86 ,., 59 50 ,- 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 26.0% 32.5% 22.3% 18.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.5% 41.1% \u0026gt;J7I . 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 221 57 69 51 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 25.8% 31.2% 23.1% 19.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.0% 42.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Glenview Elementary School 6002-056 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 25 1 1 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 31 3 3 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 22 2 2 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 24 2 5 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 22 1 1 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 34 4 5 -ri 12 13 ,..,,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Totals 158 13 17' 69 59 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Percentages 8.2% 10.8% 43.7% 37.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% %17  0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 133 12 16 52 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 9.0% 12.0% 39.1% 39.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Indian Hills Elementarv School 6002-057 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 63 19 23 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 76 17 17 14 26 1 0 0 0 1 0 02 80 20 16 20 19 1 1 0 3 0 0 03 61 11 13 19 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 64 11 11 20 20 0 1 1 0 0 0 05 50 14 7 -' 11 18 _,.,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,r,. Totals 394 92 87,, 94 Iller 3 2 1 3 1 0 Percentages 23.4% 22.1% 23.9% 28.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 45.4% 52.0% a--]. 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% Grades 1-5 331 73 64 84 100 3 2 1 3 1 0 Percentages 22.1% 19.3% 25.4% 30.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 41.4% 55.6% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% North Little Rock Public Schools October l, 1997 Lakewood Elementarv School 6002-058 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 26 8 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 39 7 10 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 39 7 8 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 41 11 8 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 36 10 4 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 37 8 8 ~ 11 10 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 II\" Totals 218 51 43 '' 66 58 1v 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 23.4% 19.7% 30.3% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.1% 56.9% j77-\u0026gt; 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades l-5 192 43 38 60 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.4% 19.8% 31.3% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.2% 57.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Lynch Drive Elementary School 6002-060 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 66 9 19 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 58 3 8 24 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 73 11 9 26 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 71 13 7 27 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 75 10 12 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 60 8 12 ...\\. . 21 19 \"' 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Totals 403 54 67 I\" 145 136,::, 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 13.4% 16.6% 36.0% 33.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 69.7% 10? 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 337 45 48 127 116 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 13.4% 14.2% 37.7% 34.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.6% 72.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Meadow Park Elementary School 6002-061 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 23 3 8 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 21 4 2 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 34 3 7 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 40 2 8 14 14 0 0 1 1 0 0 04 34 5 8 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 7 2 _o 9 7 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,'!!I, Totals 177 24 35 ~ 60 56 I 0 0 1 1 - 0 0 Percentages 13.6% 19.8% 33.9% 31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 65.5% (,~\n. 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% Grades 1-5 154 21 27 51 53 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentages 13.6% 17.5% 33.1% 34.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 31.2% 67.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1 997 North Heii hts Elementary School 6002-063 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 72 20 22 10 16 3 0 1 0 0 0 01 90 22 18 18 25 3 4 0 0 0 0 02 71 13 18 24 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 03 75 22 10 22 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 04 81 18 18 18 18 5 4 0 0 0 0 05 84 15 26 .. ..~\n19 17 .. 3 4 0 0 0 0 4V Totals 473 110 112\"' 111 102 \u0026lt;II\" 20 17 1 0 0 0 , Percentages 23.3% 23.7% 23.5% 21.6% 4.2% 3.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.9% 45.0% ~7- 7.8% 0.2% 0.0% Grades 1-5 401 90 90 101 86 17 17 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.4% 22.4% 25.2% 21.4% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October I, 1997 Park Hill Elementary School 6002-064 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 40 10 13 9 7 0 I 0 0 0 0 01 44 10 10 17 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 02 43 9 12 12 9 0 I 0 0 0 0 03 41 14 7 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 40 10 6 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 I 05 37 11 7 ,,q 7 11 _, 0 0 0 0 1 0 ~ Totals 245 64 55 I 71 50 '\" 0 3 0 0 1 1 - Percentages 26.1% 22.4% 29.0% 20.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 48.6% 49.4% ..-/~1-1.2% 0.0% 0.8% Grades 1-5 205 54 42 62 43 0 2 0 0 1 I Percentages 26.3% 20.5% 30.2% 21.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 46.8% 51.2% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Pike View Elementary School 6002-065 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 12 10 19 18 0 1 1 0 0 0 01 71 16 11 23 18 1 0 1 1 0 0 02 67 14 14 24 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 03 49 14 11 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 42 12 9 8 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 05 46 11 15 .,.i.' 11 8 ,,.,C 1 0 0 0 0 0 ,, Totals 336 79 70 I 93 86 I 2 1 3 2 0 0 ... Percentages 23.5% 20.8% 27.7% 25.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 44.3% 53.3% S37 0.9% 1.5% 0.0% Grades 1-5 275 67 60 74 68 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percentages 24.4% 21.8% 26.9% 24.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 51.6% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Redwood Pre-School 6002-067 J-K White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Ami/Ats Grade Totals M F ., M Fm~.. M F M F M F .... J 108 5 6 ,, 52 43. 1 1 0 0 0 0 .., K 27 0 0 14 13 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Totals 135 5 6 II 66 56 lrT 1 1 0 0 0 0 C7 Percentages 3.7% 4.4% 48.9% 41.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 90.4% 107. 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Seventh Street Elementary School 6002-069 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 90 8 5 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 46 6 4 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 70 6 6 24 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 70 10 13 30 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 56 15 16 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 7 16 J' ~ 13 12 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Totals 380 52 60 n- 131 136,. 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percentages 13.7% 15.8% 34.5% 35.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.5% 70.3% 707. 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% Grades 1-5 290 44 55 92 98 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percentages 15.2% 19.0% 31.7% 33.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.1% 65.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL ELEMENTARY White - Black .n Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F ~ ,7 M F ..,,\" M F M F M F ,,-: Totals 4165 776 767 1 - 1311 1229\" 35 30 7 7 2 1 ~ Percentages 18.6% 18.4% 31.5% 29.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 37.0% 61.0% ~I 7. 1.6% 0.3% 0.1% Grade 1-5 3343 649 617 1027 978 30 27 5 7 2 1 Percentages 19.4% 18.5% 30.7% 29.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 37.9% 60.0% 1.7% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Central Sixth Grade School 6002-059 06-06 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 664 152 140 .c i)I 178 185 ,, 3 4 1 0 0 1 ,., Totals 664 152 140\n 178 185~- 3 4 1 0 0 l ., Percentages 22.9% 21.1% 26.8% 27.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 44.0% 54.7% .s5r 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 264 73 78 58 50 3 1 0 1 0 0 08 268 84 69 I 56 52 ' ~ 1 2 1 2 0 1 - Totals 532 157 147 }\" 114 10211' 4 3 1 3 0 1 I\" Percentages 29.5% 27.6% 21.4% 19.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% o.6% 0.0% 0.2% 57.1% 40.6% .\u0026gt;/11  1.3% 0.8% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 354 69 52 112 115 2 4 0 0 0 0 08 300 54 57 ~89 88 .I j 3 8 0 0 0 1 ,(/ Totals 654 123 109~ 201 203 ., 5 12 0 0 0 1 J w Percentages 18.8% 16.7% 30.7% 31.0% 0.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 35.5% 61.8% t,?-1 2.6% 0.0% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 195 38 34 59 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 142 25 25 43 46 1 0 1 1 0 0 09 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 ,cl 2 0 f, 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Totals 347 64 61 1, 107 1110' 2 0 1 1 0 0 ,, Percentages 18.4% 17.6% 30.8% 32.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 62.8% (i$7, 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% ' North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 North Little Rock High School-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 690 192 150 155 183 5 3 1 1 0 0 10 675 158 127 vt 180 197 6 5 1 0 0 1 -\" Totals 1365 350 277 (,o 335 380 ,  11 8 2 1 0 1 (7 Percentages 25.6% 20.3% 24.5% 27.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 45.9% 52.4% ~~7 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October I, 1997 North Little Rock High School-West Campus 6002-076 09-12 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 53 7 1 26 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 114 24 8 47 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 612 164 148 123 164 2 6 2 3 0 0 12 525 144 125 -::\\: 114 124 ,:\n~ 7 5 2 4 0 0 - '3 Totals 1304 339 282 IT 310 340\" 11 11 4 7 0 0~ I Percentages 26.0% 21.6% 23.8% 26.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 47.6% 49.8% :\n,\nJ/ o 1.7% 0.8% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Argenta Academy 6002-076 06-12 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 9 3 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 07 7 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 15 3 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 25 8 2 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 48 9 2 21 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 35 4 3 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 22 3 2 I 9 7 ' 0 1 0 0 0 0 I Totals 161 31 10 'T' 78 38 \"\"' 2 2 0 0 0 0 I Percentages 19.3% 6.2% 48.4% 23.6% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.5% 72.0% 7'\u0026gt;} 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL DISTRICT White ,_ Black ,J Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F,11 i ... M F e:,. , M F M F M F .\u0026lt;I) . Totals 9192 1992 1793' 2634 2588' 73 70 16 19 2 5 ,~ Percentages 21.7% 19.5% 28.7% 28.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 41.2% 56.8% 67? 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% Grade 1-5 8370 1865 1643 2350 2337 68 67 14 19 2 5 Percentages 22.3% 19.6% 28.1% 27.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 41.9% 56.0% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL SECONDARY White .l\"V Black .. -Y Hispanic Asian/PI Arnl/Als Grade Totals M F ~M M F 'l.l '!\u0026gt;\" M F M F M F ,D Totals 5027 1216 1026\" 1323 1359 38 40 9 12 0 4 Percentages 24.2% 20.4% 26.3% 27.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 44.6% 53.4% -5l7- 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 SUMMARY BY GRADE White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F ~ M F.,.( M F M F M F 2 Pre-School 143 5 8 ,, 69 58 \"' 2 1 0 0 0 0 - 3.5% 5.6% 48.3% 40.6% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 88.8% ~,. 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% Kindergarten 679 122 142 215 193 3 2 2 0 0 0 18.0% 20.9% 31.7% 28.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.9% 60.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 01 713 131 122 207 234 7 8 1 2 1 0 19.3% 18.0% 30.5% 34.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 37.3% 64.9% 2.2% 0.4% 0.1% 02 706 125 122 225 215 9 6 0 4 0 0 17.7% 17.3% 31.9% 30.5% 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 62.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.0% 03 662 139 113 231 170 4 2 2 1 0 0 21.0% 17.1% 34.9% 25.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 38.1% 60.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 04 657 133 125 192 194 5 5 2 0 0 1 20.2% 19.0% 29.2% 29.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 39.3% 58.8% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 05 599 118 135 170 164 5 6 0 0 1 0 19.7% 22.5% 28.4% 27.4% 0.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 42.2% 55.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 06 679 158 140 184 187 4 4 1 0 0 1 23.3% 20.6% 27.1% 27.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 43.9% 54.6% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 07 820 181 164 235 228 6 5 0 1 0 0 22.1% 20.0% 28.7% 27.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.1% 56.5% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 08 725 166 152 198 187 5 10 2 3 0 2 22.9% 21.0% 27.3% 25.8% 0.7% 1.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 43.9% 53.1% 2.1% 0.7% 0.3% 09 771 207 153 197 202 7 3 1 1 0 I 0 26.8% 19.8% 25.6% 26.2% 0.9% I 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% o.o I 0.0% 46.7% 51.8% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 110 I 841 192 I 138 248 I 248 7 I 6 1 I 0 0 I 1 I I 22.8% I 16.4% 29.5% I 29.5% o.8% I o.7% 0.1% I 0.0% 0.0% I 0.1% 39.2% 59.0% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% 111 I 648 168 I 152 138 I 177 2 I 6 2 I 3 0 I 0 I I 25.9% I 23.5% 21.3% 127.3% o.3% I o.9% o.3% I o.5% 0.0% I 0.0% 49.4% 48.6% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 112 I 549 147 I 121 125 I 131 7 I 6 2 I 4 0 I 0 I I 26.8% I 23.1% 22.8% I 23.9% 1.3% I 1.1% 0.4% I o.7% 0.0% I 0.0% 49.9% 46.6% 2.4% 1.1% 0.0% I District I 9192 1992 I 1793 26341 2588 73 I 70 16 I 19 21 5 I I 21.7% I 19.5% 28.7% 128.2% 0.8% I 0.8% 0.2% I 0.2% 0.0% I 0.1% 41.2% 56.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% I District I 8370 1865 I 1643 23501 2337 681 67 14 I 19 21 5 !Grades 1-12 I 22.3% I 19.6% 28.1% 127.9% o.8% I o.8% 0.2% I 0.2% 0.0% I 0.1% 41.9% 56.0% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA *60-02-050 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOO GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 52 22 30 R 01 68 29 39 02 78 37 41 mv 21 1997 03 68 31 37 OFFIOCFE 04 71 36 35 DESEGREMGOANTIITOONR ING 05 63 34 29 SCHOOL 400 189 211 TOTALS 47.3% 52.8% GRADES 348 167 181 01-05 48.0% 52.0%  PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-058 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :OUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 26 13 13 01 39 17 22 02 39 15 24 03 41 19 22 04 36 14 22 05 37 16 21 SCHOOL 218 94 124 TOTALS 43.1% 56.9% GRADES 192 81 111 01-05 42.2% 57.8% LEA #60-02-054 :ouNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 35 K 71 01 83 02 58 03 60 04 69 05 59 SCHOOL 435 TOTALS GRADES 329 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 3 32 7 64 13 70 8 50 9 51 8 61 8 51 56 379 12.9% 87.1% 46 283 14.0% 86.0% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-069 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEMENT GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 90 13 77 01 46 10 36 02 70 12 58 03 70 24 46 04 56 31 25 05 48 23 25 SCHOOL 380 113 267 TOTALS 29.7% 70.3% GRADES 290 100 190 01-05 34.5% 65.5% LEA #60-02-060 :OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 66 01 58 02 73 03 71 04 75 05 60 SCHOOL 403 TOTALS GRADES 337 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 28 38 12 46 20 53 20 51 22 53 20 40 122 281 30.3% 69.7% 94 243 27.9% 72.1% LEA 160-02-061 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 23 01 21 02 34 03 40 04 34 05 25 SCHOOL 177 TOTALS GRADES 154 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 11 12 6 15 10 24 12 28 13 21 9 16 61 116 34.5% 65.5% 50 104 32.5% 67.5% LEA i60-02-050 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 72 01 90 02 71 03 75 04 81 05 84 SCHOOL 473 TOTALS GRADES 401 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTA GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 46 26 47 43 37 34 37 38 45 36 48 36 260 213 55.0% 45.0% 214 187 53.4% 46.6% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-055 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 44 29 15 01 51 28 23 02 51 24 27 03 39 24 15 04 49 31 18 05 31 20 11 SCHOOL 265 156 109 TOTALS 58.9% 41.1% GRADES 221 127 94 01-05 57.5% 42.5% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-064 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 40 24 16 01 44 21 23 02 43 22 21 03 41 21 20 04 40 17 23 05 37 19 18 SCHOOL 245 124 121 TOTALS 50.6% 49.4% GRADES 205 100 105 01-05 48.8% 51. 2% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-065 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 61 24 37 01 71 30 41 02 67 29 38 03 49 25 24 04 42 22 20 05 46 27 19 SCHOOL 336 157 179 TOTALS 46.7% 53.3% GRADES 275 133 142 01-05 48.4% 51. 6% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-053 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :::ouNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCH GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 19 10 9 01 35 17 18 02 20 7 13 03 23 7 16 04 18 6 12 05 25 11 14 06 6 3 3 SCHOOL 146 61 85 TOTALS 41. 8% 58.2% GRADES 127 51 76 01-05 40.2% 59.8% LEA #60-02-056 -:'.OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 25 01 31 02 22 03 24 04 22 05 34 SCHOOL 158 TOTALS GRADES 133 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 2 23 6 25 4 18 7 17 2 20 9 25 30 128 19.0% 81.0% 28 105 21.1% 78.9% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-057 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTAR GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 63 42 21 01 76 36 40 02 80 41 39 03 61 25 36 04 64 24 40 05 50 21 29 SCHOOL 394 189 205 TOTALS 48.0% 52.0% GRADES 331 147 184 01-05 44.4% 55.6% LEA #60-02-067 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 108 K 27 SCHOOL 135 TOTALS GRADES 0 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCH GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 13 95 0 27 13 122 9.6% 90.4% 0 0 .0% .0% ELEMENTARY NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS ELEM 4165 1625 2540 WITH K 39.0% 61.0% ELEM 3343 1338 2005 01-05 40.0% 60.0% LEA #60-02-076 :ouNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 53 10 114 11 612 12 525 SCHOOL 1304 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 11-12 NON-BLACK BLACK 10 43 32 82 325 287 287 238 654 650 50.2% 49.8% LEA #60-02-075 2OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 10 690 675 SCHOOL 1365 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 09-10 NON-BLACK 352 298 650 47.6% BLACK 338 377 715 52.4% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-076 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :::OUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 7-12 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL 06 9 4 5 07 7 1 6 08 15 4 11 09 25 10 15 10 48 13 35 11 35 7 28 12 22 6 16 SCHOOL 161 45 116 TOTALS 28.0% 72.0% LEA #60-02-072 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 354 08 300 SCHOOL 654 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 127 123 250 38.2% BLACK 227 177 404 61. 8% LEA #60-02-070 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 264 08 268 SCHOOL 532 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 156 160 316 59.4% BLACK 108 108 216 40.6% LEA #60-02-077 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 195 08 142 09 3 10 4 11 1 12 2 SCHOOL 347 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK BLACK 73 122 53 89 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 2 129 218 37.2% 62.8% LEA #60-02-059 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 664 SCHOOL 664 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CENTRAL 6TH GRADE CENT NON-BLACK 301 301 45.3% BLACK 363 363 54.7% GRADE SPAN: 06 SECONDARY TOTALS SEC 5027 NON-BLACK 2345 46.6% BLACK 2682 53.4% DISTRICT NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS 9192 3970 5222 43.2% 56.8% W/0 8370 3683 4687 GR K\u0026amp;J 44.0% 56.0% NCOIB) T IBII LIITTILJEJ E(O)CIBC:1 F1IJIB3CILCI IC CIB (I0 )(0)I L~ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET December 5, 1997 Memo To: Mellisa Guiden, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: School Building Capacities Enclosed is a copy of North Little Rock School District Building Capacities Report. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK. AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 STEP 1- 1997-98 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONL Y--ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED Identify each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K 2 K 1 Special X18=108 X 20 = 40 X 2 = 2 I.  STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity I. - AMBOY ELEMENTARY (with double portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 K 10 1-3, 3/4 6 4-5 4 Special 1 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 230 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 495 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations) = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 489 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 440 CURRENT CAPACITY - 440 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity AMBOY ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 6 4 K 1, 3 /4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 449 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations) = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 443 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 399 CURRENT CAPACITY - 399 STEP.1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 1 4 2 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 20 X23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 =40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 202 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 1997-98 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 196 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 176 CURRENT CAPACITY= 176 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 1 1 1 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X20 = 20 X 23 = 23 X 25 = 25 X 8 =40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 108 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1 02 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 92 CURRENT CAPACITY= 92 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 9 6 6 3 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 80 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 48 X 23 = 69 1997-98 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 554 (Pre-School (2 rooms) and computer lab not included in calculations.) Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 548 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 493 CURRENT CAPACITY - 493 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (with double portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 6 3 4 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 138 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 305 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 299 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 269 CURRENT CAPACITY - 269 ------ ----- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Buildlng Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 5 3 3 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 24 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 27 4 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 268 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 241 CURRENT CAPACITY - 241 1997-98 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. I I 2 K X20 = 40 I 3 1-3,3/4 X23= 69 2 4-5 X25 = 50 I 6 Special X 8= 48 I 2 Special X23 = 46 I I STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 253 I STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 I (Computer lab not counted) I I STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical I Capacity\" = 247 I STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 222 I I CURRENT CAPACITY - 222 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity IND/AN HILLS ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 K X20= 60 I 11 1-3 X 23 = 253 I 4 4-5 X 25 = 100 I 1 Ortho/Special X23 = 23 I 7 Special/Othro X 8= 56 I STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 492 I I STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 I I STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical I Capacity\" = 486 I STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 437 I I CURRENT CAPACITY - 437 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 5 3 5 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 293 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 287 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 258 CURRENT CAPACITY - 258 -------- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify eag_h room by use and capacity. 4 9 6 7 4 K, K-1 1, 2, 3, (3,4) 4, 5 Special Ed Special X 20 = 80 X23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 56 X23 = 92 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 585 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included in calculations.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 579 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 521 CURRENT CAPACITY - 521 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 6 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resource X 20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 230 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 224 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 202 CURRENT CAPACITY - 202 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 5 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resourc:e X20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 40 STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 222 STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 216 STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 194 CURRENT CAPACITY - 194 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 11 6 2 6 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 253 X 25 = 150 X 23 = 46 X 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 577 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 571 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 514 CURRENT CAPACITY= 514 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 K, K-1 10 1-3, 3/4 6 4-5 5 Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 230 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 500 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 494 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 445 CURRENT CAPACITY= 445 I ,\u0026amp;./ f,. w STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PARK HILL ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 6 3 5 1 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 138 X 25= 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 316 Special Adjustments - Speech -6= -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 310 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 279 CURRENT CAPACITY - 279 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 8 4 5 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 184 X 25 = 100 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 407 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 401 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 361 CURRENT CAPACITY - 361 --------------------------- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 5 K X 20 = 100 8 1-3 X 23 = 184 4 4-5 X 25 = 100 6 Special X 8 = 48 2 Special X23 = 46 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 478 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included also 4 Speciality classrooms not counted) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 472 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 425 CURRENT CAPACITY - 425 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 37 rooms-A102, A108, A109, A111, A112, G1, G2, P1, P2, P3, P4, 101, 103, 105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,200,201,202,203,204, 2058, 207,208,209,210,211,212,213, 214@25 = 925 8-Resource-A 110, A 104A, A 1048, PS, 102, 102A, 205A, 205C @ 8=64 (Not counted 115) Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 989 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 983 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 836 CURRENT CAPACITY - 836 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 33 rooms-A102, A108, A109, A111, A112, G1, G2, 101,103,105,106,107,108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 2058, 207, 208, 209, 210,211,212,213, 214@25 = 825 7-Resource-A110, A104A, A1048, 102, 102A, 205A, 205C@8=56 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 881 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 875 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 7 44 CURRENT CAPACITY - 7 44 ... .I/ ,~ ' '1 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (with portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 28 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,202,203,204,206,207,209,210,211,212,213,214 215, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 700 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 200A, 2008, 208, 215 @ 8 = 24 Rooms 101 and Portable SAC are used for pull out programs not considered - 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 769 STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-12), Choir 1/2 (-13), 405 only (-21) = -46 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 723 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 615 CURRENT CAPACITY - 615 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (without portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 27 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110,111,202,203,204,206,207,209,210,211,212,213,214,215, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 675 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 200A, 2008, 208@ 8 = 24 Rooms 101 and 107 are used for pull out programs not considered - O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 7 44 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-12), Choir 1/2 (-13), 405 only (-21) = -46 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 698 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 593 CURRENT CAPACITY - 593 STEP 1 - 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, oi: curriculum. 28 regular rooms - FA 1, F A2., Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, G8, P4, 103, 122, 123,124,125,126,127,129,130,132,134,136,221,222,223,224, 226, 227, 229, P1 @25 = 700 11 Special Education room - C1, G3, G4,G5, L 1, 104, 128, P3, 225, 228, 231 @ 8 = 88 Rooms 102 (computer lab), Speech and P2 (SAC) are used for pull out programs not considered. = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 788 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -49 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 739 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\"= 628 CURRENT CAPACITY - 628 ---------- 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (without portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 26 regular rooms - FA1, FA2, Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, GS, 103, 121, 122, 123, 124,125,126,127,129,130,132,134,136,221,222,223,224,226, 227, 229, @ 25 = 650 10 Special Education r.ooms - C1, G3, G4,G5, L 1,104,128,225,228,231 @8 = 80 Rooms 102 (computer lab) and Speech are used for pull out programs not considered. = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 730 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -49 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\"= 681 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 579 CURRENT CAPACITY - 579 STEP 1- 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity ROSE CITY MIDDLE ( without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 19regularrooms-105, S1, S2, S3, 106,109,110,111,112,115, 116, Art, HE1, HE2, Gym 1, Gym 2, FA, THE, LAB@ 25 = 475 11 Special Education rooms - 100,102, 103, 104, 108, 114, 113, 117, 118,119, Shop@8 = 88 Rooms 101, 107 are used for pull out programs not considered = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 563 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -Room 116 1/2 (-12), HE2 1/2 (-13) = -25 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 538 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 457 CURRENT CAPACITY -457 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 7 -12 School Building Capacity ARGENTA ACADEMY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 16 X 8 = 128 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 128 Special Adjustments - Program still evolving. Adaptable. Does not count seats unless full time assignment possible. Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 128 Multiply by 100% to determine \"Capacity\" = 128 CURRENT CAPACITY - 128 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (with portable) (112 for Jr. High) 1997-98 Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 60 regular rooms - Stage, 501, 502, 504, 5058, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,112,113,115,116,117,118,200,202,204,205, 206,207,208,209,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219, 220,221,222,223,224,225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5, LR1, 60@25 = 1500 Reading rooms - P1, 203 @ 15 = 30 9 Special Education rooms -102A, 1028, 102C, 1020, 114A, 1148, LR, 210, 201@ 8 = 72 Room 104, P2, and P3 is used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1602 Special Adjustments - 202 (-8), 501 (-12) = -20 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1597 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1357 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1357 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 678 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1278 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 639 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity 1997-98 NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (without portable) (112 for Jr. High) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 58 regular rooms - Stage, 501, 502, 504, 5058, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,112,113,115,116,117,118,200,201, 205,206,207, 208,209,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219, 220,221,222,223,224,225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5 @ 25 = 1450 Reading rooms - 203 @ 15 = 15 9 Special Education rooms - LR, 102A, 1028, 102C, 102D, 114A, 1148, 201, 210@8 = 72 Room 104 is used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1537 Special Adjustments - 202 (-8), 501 (-12) = -20 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1517 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1289 CURRENT CAPACITY -1289 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 644 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\"= 1214 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 607 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 11-12 School Building Capacity 1997-98 NLRHS - WEST CAMPUS (without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 50, 54, 55, 56,101,109,111,112,113,114,115,117,118,200,201,202,203, 204,205A, 206,210, 212,213A, 214,217,218,222,302,304, 305A, 306, 308,311,403,404,406,407,408,409,410,413,414,416,417,510, 511, 512, G1, G2, G3, 600, 601, 603, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, stage---- 60 X 25 = 1500 21, 22, 23----3 X 15 = 45 207, 412----2 X 10 = 20 208,209,215,216,215,219,220,400,401,419,611, G4----12 X 8 = 96 602---1 X 5 = 5 11 2--- 1 X 2 = 2 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1668 Special Adjustments - none Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1668 Multiply by 80% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1334 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1334 ----- NOV-21-F9R7I 1 0:13A M PULASCKOSI CHOOLS Ft-'lNXO 4. 900483 P. 02 - a: - -.- . , OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENTR EPORT ., (Revised 10-28-97) % w-mE FVC':C HISHIN!C NIDN' P. :fSLAi'.'D J:M.ihl\"'ES\u0026lt;J}{) SCHOOL EJiS GIHS IDS Grn.S KJJS GIRS B:lIS GIRE KhS GIH.S 1DrAL Adkins 88 '\",t 7 6 70 ,11 4 7 l 1 d' 283 -f' Arnold Drive 139 ~'\\]59 41 i6 44 2 5 l \u0026lt;l 391 ~ Baker 124 Pf26 35 (,~ 30 l I 316 ~Bates 1f'I ~'?,132 -'I 466 b4 111 88 131 2 2 Bayou Meta 289 ~?96 7 '\"' 9 6 3 l 2 l 13 614 3 Cato 211 .,/Or 9 s 62 11~ 54 3: 2 2 1 529 ~d\" Clinton i\"!f70 Ji~ ~I 174 183 199 9 4 3 4 1 74 7 ~I College Station 78 15179 73 ,~~ 51 2 l 1 4 t 289 ~3 Crystal Hill 202 16179 179 Jl,~186 l .1 .. 1 .3 749 ! ~ Dupree 137 ) I.1le2\u0026gt;9 so '11 41 3 2 4 3 1 J3 370 l~-5 Fuller Elem. 68 1~4 122 ,~\\1s 2 2 .Jj I 293 ~ Harris 64 ,~, 57 68 ,~1 79 4 3 l ~ 276  SB J'ville Elem. .,o, ~~, 147 l Ir ~ 167 143 126 ~ 4 l 3 2 592 Landmark 1~\n).- ~ ol:\\ I -131 121 109 100 l 4 6 2 I\u0026gt; 15 Lawson ~lo3 ..110 0 138 20 20 281 t4 Oak Grove Elem. li6 3~161 42 40 48 2 1 l 1 431 ~' Oakbrooke 190 ~!56 57 '\" 54 2 2 2 I l 3 l ,, 468 ~ Pine Forest 317.0 q5. ,1 i 208 52 43 7 3 4 3 490 19 Pinewood ~1q J(p\u0026lt; i ,~ 139 140 80 89 3 1 2 4 1 l 460 ~ Robinson Elem. 160 ~ 10\"6 148 43 \"\" 51 l I 403 ~3 (/l 34 ~p 23 0 I Scott 33 27 1171(3 Sherwood 151\n/.~3 132 57 CJ'l 40 1 I 381~ Sylvan Hills Elem. 167 ~f{l 130 59 ,,~ 53 2 1 l 1 41311 Taylor 132 ~129 89 ,5~ 66 l I 417.3'7 Tolleson 188 3.1\\1 159 65 ,~o 55 3 11 5 4 3 1 ~, 494~/ 1,o~~ 3.~~\\ ,i~ TOTAL ELEM. 13,645 3,383 1,864 1,757 55 47 23 33 17 B 10,832~3 NOV-21-F9R7I 1 0:1 3 AM PULASCKOSI CHOOLS FAXN O4, 900483 P. 01  '4 ... ,, OCTOBER 1, 1997ENROLLMENT REPORT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/ P. rsu,Nr AM. IND.' ESKIM) SCHOOL OOYS GIRLS BOYS GTRLS OOYS GIRJ.,:::\n1:!0Y!::i GIRLS BOYS c..\n1RU:i ~ !,'l ~193 13 Fuller Jr. High 282 185 188 4 4 4 l J'ville Jr, High ~~is #01 1! 245 146 161 6 3 4 2 J'ville Middle 233 ..,r, 244 127 ~130 1 2 2 1 1 l J'ville High 353 !~9- ~,\u0026gt;I 17 L. :) 167 147 3 4 6 4 Mills High ~~I ~77 1 215 176 189 2 l 5 l North Pulaski ~ 1 99\n,JJCt92 ,~ 302 114 2 7 2 1 1 l 1,,1 ,~., Northwood ~ 344 fl 73 92 97 4 6 9 3 2 l Oak Grove \u0026lt;J.I ~ioi I 1!\u0026gt; 355 306 99 105 5 1 2 6 1 Rob. Jr, High 180 ~f43 67 ,~lt 69 Rob, High 145 ~is3 79 ,~\"\u0026gt; 43 l 1 ~ l S. Hills Jr. High (P.f\n6L9 ~ 324 282 128 2 ~ l l S. Hills High ~~4 _\n)-II ,, 299 110 101 5 3 2 1 TOTAL SEC, l,,I05 ~-tt5o (~1 3,277 2 828 1,506 l 444 30 39 29 26 5 8 DIST. TOTAL 6,922 6,211 3,370 3,201 85.,- 86....- 52....- ~~9 22 ..... 15.....- - pa (NOTE: Students atter.ding the Alternative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) ------------- - 2 - q ! TO!'ALI 861 775 I 741 ~ 979 760 821 831 ~ ~ ~ X, 880\" a ol ~'l 459~ 423 871 301 785 oli l 1 q:\ni ~ 20,024 ~~1 I FAXN O.4 900483 P. 01 OCTOBER ('lfff: '3tud1:: ~ ,:,r:i1:1g thio Alt1,:rnc,:1ve Lear, 1:1~:.r C 0 n .. e.:- a_ S.:. 1nc',,d!\" :r. r:e tot ls of '-h.\u0026lt;!ll' :.orr1e s,~t:ci..,.l,) F~XN O,4 900483 P. 02 ij SCHOOL I /--11.lkl'~S 1t----- ! ArnrJlo Drive 't-= I Rr1ker OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :42P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS .. ' ' . FAXN O5. 014900483 DATE: TO: FROM: .,, j ' ... Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/ P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-490-2000 FAX 490-0483 October 22, 1997 Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Little Rock Free Press Jacksonville Patriot North Pulaski Leader Sherwood Voice Norlh Little Rock Times Maumelle Monitor Drop Zone Arkansas Times Arkansas State Press KAAK-TV-Channel 4 KATV-TV-Channel 7 KKYK-TV-Channel 22 KLRT-TV~Channel 16 KTHV-TV-Channel 11 KARN Radio KSYG Radio Associated Press J. R. Huie, Arkansas PubHc School Week Jim Burgett, Board of Education Arlyne Cherven, Board of Education Mildred Tatum, Board of Education Mack McAlister, Board of Education Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joy Springer, Walker Law Firm, Joshua lntervenors PACT Ron Standridge, Information Services Specialist 490-2000 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (including transmittal page) P. 01/03 OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :43P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS FAXt~ O5. 014900483 P. 02/C3 OCTOBER 1, 199i ENROLLC\"IENT REPORT (10/22/97) SCHOOL \\AJ-ITIE BI.A._'1( HI...Sffi'ITC !:BPN/ P. Th'IA\\D A\"'!.I NY ES\\..u'\"\"-0 8JtS GIH\"B EIJx'S GIRT:.S 8JYS GL.\nLS ID1S GIRLS , .3JyS C-JRS R,T\nl.L ii ll Adkins 88 76 70 4i 1 l 283 :1 Arnold Drive 139 159 41 44 2 5 1 391 I Baker ' 124 126 35 30 1 316 '. Bates I 111 88 J.31 132 2 2 4 6 6 I I Bayou Meta 289 296 7 9 6 3 1 2 l 614 1 Cato 211 195 62 54 :, 3 2 2 529 II Clinton 174 170 183 199 9 4 3 4 l 74 7 I! .\\ College Station 78 79 73 51 2 l 1 4 289 ii Crystal Hill 201 179 179 186 l l 1 748 :i Dupree 137 129 50 41 3 2 4 3 l 3 70 1! Fuller Elem. 68 83 122 115 2 2 3 0 ~ Iii  ,t. ,1 I Harris 641 57 68 79 4 3 l ? - - 11 - IO :I J'ville Elem. I 11 147 160 142 126 l 4 l 3 2 1 s s 7 !I I ,, I I ,I Lar.dmark 131 121 109 100 j_ 462 Ii I Lawson 138 103 20 20 I I 2 s 1 Ii Oak Grove Elem. 11 176 161 42 48 2 1 1 431 i! Oakbrooke 190 156 57 54 2 2 2 l 3 1 466 ii Ptne Forest 208 170 52 43 7 3 4 3 490 !I i' Pinewood 139 140 80 89 3 l 2 4 l l 4 60 il I Robinson Elem. 160 148 43 51 l 403 II Scott ,, 33 34 27 23 117 11 Sherwood l. 51 132 57 40, 1 I 381 Sylvan Hills Elem. 167 130 59 :-)~\" .11 2 l l 413 I Taylor I 132 129 88 66 1 416 Tolleson 188 159 65 55 3 11 5 4 3 1 494 TOTAL ELEM. 3,644 3,380 1,862 1,753 55 47 23 33 l7 8 10,824 OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :44P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS FAXN O5. 014900483 P. 03/03 OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENT REPORT w\"HITE BLACK HISPA:.JIC 1\\SIAN/ P. ISLANT' AM. IND. / ESKIMO..,_ SCHOOL .t:'OYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLti tlOY~ GIRLS EOYS I GlRLti Fuller Jr. High 282 185 186 193 4 4 4 1 J'ville Jr. High 245 208 146 161 6 3 4 2 J'vifle Middle 230 244 123 130 2 2 l l 1 J'ville High 350 291 167 147 3 4 6 4 Mills High 215 176  188 177 2 1 5 l ~Jorth Pulaski 301 299 114 92 2 7 2 l 1 1 Northwood 346 276 90 97 4 6 9 3 2 l Oak Grove 355 306 99 105 5 1 2 6 l Rob. Jr. High _180 140 66 69 Rob. High 144 153 78 43 1 l 1 S. Hills Jr. High 323 283 128 129 2 4 1 1 I S. Hills High 299 264 llO 101 5 3 2 l TOTAL SEC. 3,272 2,825 1,495 1,444 30 39 29 26 5 8 DIST. TOTAL 6,916 6,205 3,357 3,199 85 86 52 30 22 16 (NOTE: Students attending the Alternative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) - 2 - TOfAL 859 775 734 97? 765 820 834 880 455 421 873 785 C'l\n7\u0026lt; 19,997  ( ,,\u0026gt;.. ..,.- ,, ,_ LEJ\\,tt +----- -+ Enrull Fl.If- IL_ H-IRC!LLMENT f:.'l SCl--10iJL i=\"Of\n:ti - SCHUCiL CHO ICE DY CHG ICE -- ADE FormU Fin 09-00-(HO R/5'2 Law 20 - U_s_ C 1221F-l US DepRrtment a~ Educ~tion F APD6 FU92 +- --------- --- ----- --- ------------ ----------------------------------------------+NUMB ER iASIAN/P(,C. 1Ai1 !NOIAr~ i of' i iHSFi,rHC ! ifISr-'/1i\\ilC j HISPANIC [ ISLANDER l1-iLASr\":lir~ !CLASSES I. - -- ------------- ---------------------------------------------- f----- i Bogs fGir}s18 oysJAirl519o y s i Gi r} ~ I Bo~ Si Gi r] S l Boys f Girl~ f t --- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ---------- -----------------------+---- - ---- ----- --------------- - ----+ r ., L I ANMUAI. SC:IIOOL REPOHT :! ,~ LEl\\11 : 60030GIQ - P\\Jf' IL ENHDLLMFNT n-: ~.c, ICJOL nmM   Uc tn h Pr 1, - SCIIUUL CHOICE: IJY CHOICE - J?97 LD = g . Count'l : PUU\\SIU .~ j~ 'f Scltool . PIIU\\SlO COUNTY :,-~rade Sp\n,n ... __ _ ___ _ __\n I li- 1 Iv: Ii \u0026lt;  :1- fl dtr-1l o/--  j, _ _  .-1'1DE :orrnlL Fi.n_ 09_-00=010.JU.92- ____ _ La~ 20 - U.S. C 122lE-l ---------- -----------. - ----- IJS Department of E\u0026lt;.lu~\n,tion _FAP06 R/9\nl ___ __ ___ -- _ --- ., -- - - - -- -- ---- --- ------- ----- - ---- ---- -- ----- -- ---- - -----+NUMBER I l~HITE NOT I IlLACI\\ NOT I ___ , .i-ll SPA~HC i  .Hl~PAr~rc_ I ill SPAN [:.,_..J i.SLAl~DER... JI\\LASKAN--I..CL..SSES- - - ------7-- --- ---- Grade + ------------------------------------------------------ -+-- -- Tot~ l IBo~srGirlslBoyslGiris!Do~slGarlslfio~slGirlslBu~slGirlsl IASiAN/PAC. JAM INDIAN I oF - _+-._ -+ ___ t--------------- ------. --- . -- - - - - -. ----- ---=c. - -- - -=-,.. --=--- --------------------- i=:nrol l. ii-I 181 I ol 41 4! JI l I l I I I 1 +----+ 1--------------------------------- - ci :z: :x: \u0026lt;I: LL. en .....I 0 C) C=\u0026gt; en C) \u0026lt;..:\u0026gt; :::,.c: en \u0026lt;I: .....I ::::\u0026gt; 0.... :E: 0.... (Y) \"1\" ,..., = 0:: LL. rcn I -i ....- ~ 0J I \u0026gt; C) :z: 0 -  - f\nUtUDL t:flU IC 1-: HV c,1u1c1=: -  I.EAi! oouao,e ~ f,Vl:.' f o,mft r i\" or1-ou () 10 fl/92 a, Countu L.aw 20 - U.5.C J?21F-1 == ~ I S~hool us Dep\u0026lt;1rtment r,f E:dut:,.tion .-, tirade Sp\n,n ._(!Q.,, FAf'D6 IU92 I- . :::_I - CL J. +------------------------------------------------------+NUMBER I I WHITE NOTI 0LACI~ NOTI f ASl\n\\N/f'AC. 1AM INDIAN I Df : I IIISPANIC I HISP/\\NlC I 1-!lSF'hNlC ' . ISLANDER IALASl'.AN lCLASSES Gr\n,de -+--------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ Total 1Boys1Girls1Bo~~Girls1Bo~s1Gi~1sl0o~~Girlsi0a~sGirlsl -  Pre-~i~di,r!la-rten Enrol l ...+,.- - --+ +---- ---- -- - -- -- ------ -- ----- ----- -- -- -- -- -- ---------- --+- -- - 721 ! 12t 21 I In 2.9_1 11 I I I I 1 I 4. 0 \"' +----+ 1------------------- ---------- ------ -------- e-\n-, ,. ' - 9'?,\n1\nY \u0026lt;:0 == e'' 1 == I CD = ci I :z: -- :x: \u0026lt;J: 4 LL. t  U) --l C\u0026gt; C\u0026gt; 4 :r C\u0026gt; U) C\u0026gt; t C\u0026gt; -~ { U) \u0026lt;J: --l - :=, CL (. -- ::c o.. (i N =-- \u0026lt;=:0  -n::: LL.  r--- CD I -  N I \u0026gt; 0 :z:  ( -- -- -- -- - - --  ./ LEA# flN~IUAL SCHOOL RE.PORT 6003002 PU~JL ENttOLLMENT UY SCHOUL tUNM - Uc~ubP1 1, ,~,. SCHOIJL CHOICE Il\"\u0026gt;' CHOICE - AOE Formtt Fin 09-00-010 R/92 0.:? -\n-~-_\n:~cc\n:..~:..n:..:o...c!c..1'--'------~~-.+-E\u0026lt;E+-+--4-~+-+-----------\"\"~'-'::..:w:..D......=c\nc::'-a-~-t\"\"'~'-'-~!/ o !~ ~! ~~--c-\"!-,-=:o-t:---n. -------------------------------------1  , Grade Span FAPD6 R /9-\n:!. +------------------------------------ ________ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+_~~IU~M.B~~E=R~--------------------I I ~J~UTE NOi I ULhCI-'. NOTI I ASIAN/PAC. IA~l INOJAN I o~   I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDEH I ALASI-IAN JCLA5SES qr.a cJe --- ------ - -- ------~----- -------------_-_--:-:,..-,..-----=-----_----_,.-._.--__--_-+__-_ -_--------------------------l Total IOoyslGirlslOn~s1Glrlslllo~slCirl~IDo~s1Girls1BoyslGirlsl +---+ +------ --- ------ ----------- --------------~-------------+--- P_r~e---\"~i_n_d_e_r-~g~a..= _nr~ t__ E_n~r_D_l~l-_1 5~3~1 1_ _ 1_2~1_ _ t 2 I 11 I 17 i 1 I +----I-- 1 - -- -- -------------------- ---- --- ----------- -------------- ---\" :\n,~\ni I ----------- -------------\u0026lt; .. cry co == == = c:5 :z: :x: \u0026lt;C LL U) -.I 0 0 = 0 U) 0 0 ::,c U) \u0026lt;C -.I = 0... :.:= 0... = cry = a:: LL r-= I N I \u0026gt; 0 :z:   6003012 Count Sctiool Grade Span ~  ,, 1 L L,.1\\.1.JLL.J 1L1.J ~ U , :Jt.HUUI_ ! UHM - Uc t ob e 1 l ~ 199 / SCHOOL CHOICE IlY CHOlCE - Ant: Forn,rt Fin 09-00-010 R/92 LdU! 20 - U S. C l2~I:-1 US Oepart.ment of Edu~c~a:-:\nt-,~.o-=-n------------------------------------FAPD6 R/92 +--- _________________________________ ---------------+~~u_MBER ____ _ H-------------------------,:--1:--:~7-cHITE NUfl l.lLACI'. NflTJ IASIAN/PAC. 1AM IN0II\\N I of ------------- 1 HIGPANIC I HISf'ANlt. I HI~,PANIC I IGLI\\N0ER IALASJ.\u0026lt;.AN !CLASSES \" ~ ,, ,\", ,. ,, :...., ,, i)  \" ~r: ., Grade Total +----+ +-. --------- - ---- ------------------ -- ------------------+---- 19o ~~I G i Pl 1B ay I Girls I Doy s I Girls! Boy ~s~l~C~li~-,s-~. ,~O~u-~~-.~~--or~~l-.s~~I--------------------------~ -~- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -- ---------- - -- --- ---- ----- ---- -- --+- -- - Pre-Ki!_!! erg a r_t_.,_n_ _ E_n_r_o_l_l_*___f 3 _6 _1___ _.'.!J_ __ 7_1_ _! 3 r l 2 I I I_ ___ I _ 1 __ r 2. _ g__ ________ _ I------------ --- ---- --- ------ - -------- ---- ------ - - 1\\ a~ o K Gt Gr Gr Gr. = 0.. -.:::I\" (Y) = ~ LL. r-- CD I ~ I \u0026gt; 0 :z: /\\NtJUIIL SCHOOL HEPDRT LEA# Count!J 6003028 School Grade Span PUP l L ENflfJLLMFN ,- ltY SCI IOUL. ruHM - Oct nt, i.1 l, l 'I'} T rn:HCJDL CHOfCE UY CHOICC - ADE form Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S. C 1221-l US Department of Education FAPD6 l\u0026lt;/92 \"-4----------------1------------+_-_-_-_-_----------------------------------------------- ----+NUMUER I ~!HITE NTI DLACI', N  l l H1'.\nIAN/PAC. 11\"\\M INDI,,N I ~F-----------------------1 1 HISPANIC I HISPANIC J HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES Grade +-----------------------------------------------:::--------,...-::-:-----:---_+:_-_-_-_- ____________________ ---Total IBoyslGirls!Oo~slGirlslOoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslDouslGirlsl +-- -- + +- --- ----- -------- - -- --- ------ ---- --- ---- - ----- - - -- -- --~---- ,...._. __ P_r~e~-_~\" Kn d erg a r_t,,__:.e.::_lc .. ...cE=-n:..:.:..r-=o:...:)____,1_, :_r_,.\n___,.:...r.~:.'-1-'4-'--''l7'-~--1\"\".-.2,_0Il 71 10 I I I l t I I 4. 0  ... ,. .., \" - G G1 H., Pe lax II +------.. r ----------------- --- -------- ------------------------------+ Cho\nrP-lHf 1 ~~ i7 6 - \u0026gt;1.7. DnJ/ 1/ 97 ~~~bs ~ 7671 Co. Phone~ -r 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAST DlxoN ROAD LrITLER OCKA, RKANSAS 72206 (501) 490-2000 Date: Time: To: .. From: Number of Pages (including cover sheet): ---=2r---~--- Message \\. Posr OmCE Box 8601 Lmu: ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 -D.E . C.-.0 3-W97E 0D2 :47P M PULASCKOIS CHOOLS FAXN O.4 900483 P. 02 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 1 a, 1 997 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr-./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL\u0026amp; Fuller . Jackso-nville North Jacksonvme South Northwood Robinson (.2-rooms devlded) Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills .EI..EMENTARV SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan HIiis Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 '780 900 93S 506 998 ~.OOL CAPACITY 945 BOO BOO 964 486 12S 925 SCHOOL CAPACl'l'V 370 420 330 768 660 576 833 340 820 465 526 S25 785 SGS 325 476 500 5S6 523 450 280 460 456 4S0 S70 PCSSD Ten Year Enrollment Comparison School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 -White- 611 607 669 621 598 518 329 331 310 297 - - ~ - - - Other 10 8 8 7 10 5 4 11 4 ~ - - - - - - Total 736 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 413 f- - - % Blk 17 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 27 I Taylor Elem Black 112 107 ~13] 112 108 122 141 149 165 115 -- - - White 329 346 337 306 308 264 266 270 230 261 - - - -- - -- - ---- -- Other 2 I 5 4 2 2 I 2 I - - -- -- Total 441 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 417 t--- - ,...... c- - % Blk 25 24 28 26 26 31 34 35 42 37 Tolleson Elem Black 84 83 126 137 136 127 124 I 15 128 120 - - -- White - 457 442 426 418 425 405 374 429 402 347 - - - - - Other 27 - 14 111- 8 0 I 0 0 27 -- - - - Total 541 552 - 566 566 569 532 499 544 530 494 - - -f- - % Blk 16 15 22 24 24 24 25 21 24 24 Suh Total - Elem Black 3,231 3,201 3,134 3,111 3,471 3,436 3,642 3,726 3,693 3,621 White J - -- 9,022 8,729. 8,774 8,679 8,824 7,992 7,752 7,715 7,443 7,028 + Other 125 92 89 115 75 147 121 141 183 Total 12,253 12,055 ___g,_o1o1,:8~7 9 r 12,410t 11,503 __! 1,541 11,562 11,277 t - t---- 10,832 $ Blk 26 27 26 26 28 30 32 32 33 33 Alternative - Sec. Black I l 16 17 16 16 22 21 -,_ -- t f----- Oponod for 1992-93 school White - 50 48 39 31 26- 27 yoar. f Other I - 0 0 0 0 I 0 661 - Total 65 *55 *47 *49 48 + % Blk 24 26 29 34 45 44 Fuller Jr. Black 375 398t 404 411 4251 410 424 ~~t 384 381 (includes a specialty t White 452 t 462 428 440 497 j 485 446 467 program) Other 5 5 12 13 9 13 - 13 Total 827 865 837 863 935 9 918 883 843 861 ' - % Blk 45 46 48 48 45 43 46 49 46 44 I Jacksonville Jr. North Black 128 142j 181 172 184 182 j 195 201 244 t 257 Re-organized h.:ginning White 439 463 534 444 458 401 414 434 399 477 with 1997-98: became a middk school: indudcd Other 10 15 10 12 II IO 0 10 7 grades 6-8. Total 567t 6151 730 626 j 654 594 619 635 t 653 i 741 t - % Blk 23 23 25 27 28 31 32 32 37 35 Jacksonville Jr. South Black 174 166 156 180 202 202 186 181 I 200 f 307 ' 1 White 486 444 420 403 381 355 338 323 318 453 Other 10-'-- 10 1 17 19 9 10 8 11 1 15 --- I rl //,-r .e\nJ., ('::\u0026gt; y (:J,v .:fl/~- p37- /~/~ ('.t\u0026gt;,,J I\"- 0 --%~\n ~l(\u0026lt;:.-f 77-01 LITTLE ROCK District LEA Number FAPD NO. 38 1.9.9h.91!. SCHOOL YEAR 10/23/97 Qrtr Ending Date 11/21/97 Date Submitted ~Q=r=t=r-\\=umb=-e-r~_REC~~~a~dent M. to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE. REPORT, K12 ADT - ADA - ADM SEP 11 1998 TELEPHONE NUMBER_324::2.QQ0_ OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGOANTIIOTOHR J!m This report is due within fiftren (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark.Code Ann. 6-18-213). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and o-e copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than 40 and no more than 50 days. I  1 ~jg.( n columns 2 thcu 14 should Days ~ to me nearest whole number in Qrtr C. Resident pupils sent t9 :Jther district(s) under .\"M to 1'l\" transfers List District s LEO.# North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Pulaski County Special P-4 D. Total C of columns 12, 3, 14. These ! ,. I *T 3,810 2,673 will be used for State Ecualization Aid purposes 7. E. Non-Resident pupils rec::ived from other district(s) under \"M to for' transfers List District/sl ~ North Little Rock I 45 j Pulaski County Special I 45 i \nPulaski County Special P-4 I 45 ! H. Number of kindergarten pupls enrolled this quarter' I I I 1 I A I .:\nI KINDEiRGART~N I f\"\\e:i- in/\\ Days I 10Absent I Total Total *NT Col 2+3 T+NT 3,810 168 2,673 98 90 I 90 I 7 I 1,524 1 1,524 I 62 I 1,625 I 1,625 I 95 I Full-Time.~4~_4_ _ f\nI 7 I 0 I n 1t\\ I 11 I p i n I ,a I GRADES 1 -12 COMBl['JED TOTAL ADM Days in Attendance Days GRADES K-12 Total l *I\\IT_-, 7otal Absent Total ADT ADA I ADM Col 4+5 Columns Total Col 9+10 Col 2+7 Col 4+9 Col 4+5+ ..: Col 1 *T 7+8 T+NT .o Col,1 .oCol 1 .oCol 1 9+10...:Col 1 I I I 4,009 I 4,009 278 I 100 93 1 100 88 I~ -4Maa-! ~, 1\n'!M- ...,440---1 ..1.-=- 62 I I I tit/IC./ l/81CI ,Z//0 /117 . //.55 2 I I 1,612 I 1,612 ! 111 I 38\ni 38 I 40 35 I I 15,751 I 15,751 i 633 I 364 ! 384 I 399 38 I I I i I I I Half-time _____ _ Additional instructions on back FIN-09-00-005 5/91 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 1 a, 1 997 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson (2-rooms devlded) Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Melo Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 125 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 768 660 576 833 340 820 465 526 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570\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_1671","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School board members","Joshua Intervenors","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1671"],"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":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFiCE OF DESEGREGATiOiu t,10.'JITORINJ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") states: 1. This court has expressed the view that modifications of LRSD' s Desegregation Plan might be appropriate. The court has properly recognized that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications, but has provided expert testimony concerning potential areas for modification. The court further assisted the plan modification process by providing LRSD a period of time during which the district could  concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD has prepared a modified plan for the purpose of providing improved education and desegregation. LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and :Education Plan is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was developed in accordance with the plan amendment process. All of the parties to this case received early drafts of the plan and had the opportunity to make suggestions concerning the plan. LRSD amended the plan in response to suggestions made by various parties. In addition, the Joshua Intervenors were specifically asked whether they bad any ideas for improving the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua did not make any suggestions for plan modifications. Although much of the contact soliciting responses from other parties was made by telephone, the correspondence which reflects the distribution of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and our solicitation of responses from the other parties is attached as Exhibit B to this motion. 3. On September 18, 1997 the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to present it to the district court for approval. The comments of the board members, attached as Exhibit C, show that they gave serious consideration to the plan and that they understand the important commitment they have made to work for the success of the plan if it is approved by the district court. Representatives of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools expressed to the board their strong support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized in the recent cases of Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri y. Jenkins that the district court's end purpose in a desegregation case is not only to remedy the violation to the extent practicable, but also to restore state and local authorities to control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a means by which this court can 2 accomplish both the maximum practicable desegregation within LRSD and the restoration of local control to the LRSD Board of Directors and the citizens of Little Rock. 5. LRSD's current desegregation plan was designed to operate for a period of six years. It is too detailed, too complex and too rigid to provide LRSD the greatest possibility for long term desegregation. The primary architects of the old plan are no longer with the district. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan retains the core desegregation commitments found in the old plan, but is premised on the belief that a solid education program provides the best foundation for long term desegregation. 6. The new plan also provides the flexibility necessary for LRSD to adapt to changing educational and demographic conditions. LRSD has more freedom under the new plan to adjust the means by which it seeks to reach its desegregation and education goals without unnecessary court involvemenL Under the present plan, every detail concerning implementation of the plan is a part of the plan itself and cannot be changed without involving the court. 7. This court previously found that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD asks the court to continue the temporary hiatus from monitoring during the court's consideration of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. As part of the effort to allow the parties to focus on the development of modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, LRSD withdrew its motion for reconsideration of this court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The court granted LRSD a period of time to and including September 30, 1997 within which to refile its motion 3 for reconsideration. LRSD asks that that deadline be extended until a reasonable time following this court's final determination with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9. This Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation And Education Plan should not be construed as a waiver of the positions expressed in the Motion to E.nd Federal Court Jurisdiction. 10. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD moves for an order approving its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and, during the pendency of this motion, extending this court's December 27, 1997 Order with respect to monitoring and with respect to LRSD's right to refile its motion to reconsider the court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Ir. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~(?_-~~ ~C. Fendley, Jr. ' Bar No. 92182 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~e.~fJ C.F~ 5 I. Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan September 18, 1997 Prior A~reements and Orders. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Lillie Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: A. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); B. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; C. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; D. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, E. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing paragraphs A. through D. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. II. Obligations. A. LRSD shall use its expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution and provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools and to ensu_re that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD; B. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to recruitment practices and reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified AfricanAmerican applicants, designed to ensure that LRSD hires qualified African-Americans in EXHIBIT A proportion to their percentage in the relevant labor market; C. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified African-American candidates, designed to ensure that LRSD promotes qualified African-Americans in proportion to their percentage of the pool of candidates eligible for promotion; D. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of AfricanAmerican certified personnel in the district as a whole; E. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure to the extent practicable that the certified personnel at one race, African-American schools (2. 90% African-American) is comparable with the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees; F. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable; G. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education; H. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline; I. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African- 2 Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program; J. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section V. of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; K. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students; L. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools; M. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities; N. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services; 0. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination; and, P. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. III. Student Assignments. A. Attendance Zones. Before the 1998-99 school year, LRSD attendance zones shall 3 be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in subparagraph 2. below; 2. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African-American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African- American students. 3. High Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. B. Voluntar:y Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 4 sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (2.. 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 4. Employees' Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; and, 5 7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. C. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: 1. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; 2. King High Intensity Learning Program; 3. Washington Math Science Program; 4. Henderson Health Science Program; 5. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; 6. Central International Studies Program; and, 7. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. D. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. E. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, Garland Elementary School shall be closed. F. Modification Standard; During the term of this Revised Desegregation and 6 Education Plan, LRSD shall not recommend additional modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of any additional schools unless: 1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable; or, 2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. G. Racial Balance. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education 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. IV. lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: A. PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; B. LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools; 7 C. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School; D. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; E. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; F. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, G. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. V. Student Achievement. A. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. B. Reading/Language Arts. 1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page; 8 b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; 1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; J. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; and, k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four and six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students 9 will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction; d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; and, g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom. 3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six2 through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently to make meaning in all subjects areas every day as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners: b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula; c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on 2LRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also included here since it will be a transition year into middle school. 10 reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students and, where practical, assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers; e. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. C. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation; 2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; 3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention; and, 4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. D. Funding. LRSD shall continue to provide additional funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools in accordance with the current formula as described 11 in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. E. Alternative Education. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. F. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. VI. Teacher Assignments. A. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year and for the term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reserves the right to reassign teachers and/or prohibit teacher transfers as reasonably necessary to ensure: 1. that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of African-American certified personnel in the district as a whole; and, 2. that to the extent practicable the certified personnel at one race, African- American schools (2.. 90% African-American) is comparable w~th the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees. B. Reasonably Necessary. Reassigning and/or prohibiting the transfer of a teacher shall not be reasonably necessary where the desegrative impact would be substantially outweighed by the educational benefits of allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. 12 VII. LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: A. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; B. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent; C. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees; D. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; E. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution, including an employee hotline; F. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for the failure to report noncompliance; and, G. 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. VIII. Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: A. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the Office of 13 Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. B. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modification. C. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. D. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. IX. Continuing Jurisdiction. A. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall effect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the exception of the Pooling Agreement. B. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 1. The party shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the LRSD 14 Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: a. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan at issue; b. the names of all students involved, if any; c. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any; d. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue; and, e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 2. The written notice 1s intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the parry so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within 30 days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district court's designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall 15 be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with - this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. XI. Transition. The 1997-98 school year shall be a transition year in preparation for implementation of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. XII. Unitarv Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 16 FRIDAY, ELDRED GE \u0026 CLARK 1411SCH(L H. FIIIOAY (11221114} WILLIAM H. IUTTON , , .A . .IAM(S W . WOOIIE IYIION M. EIS(MAN . .lllll . , P'.A . .10 D. IELL. P' .A . A l'ARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDlfALS AND l'ROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW  C . ECHOLS . ,. . A . SA. IUTTllllY , ,. .A . ElllllCl S . UIISEllllY , l\".A . LAllllZEUllllE, P' .A . OSCAII E. OAVl8 , .IA ., , . A . JAMES C . CLAAl , JA .. l\".A . THOMAS, . LEGGETT, l\" .A . JOHN O[W[Y WATSON, P' .A . ,AUL I . IENHAM Ill , l\" .A. LAIIIIY W. IUllll , fl . A . A. WYCI.LIFF NISl[T , Jl't ., fl . A. JAMES EOWAl'IO HA.lllll'IIS, l\" . A . J . l'HILLII\" MALCOM , l\" .A . JAME  M. SIMl'SON, l\" .A . JAMES M. SAXTON , , .A . J . SHErH[l'IO l'IUIIELL Ill , fl . A. DONALD H. IACON . l\" .A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT11 . ,. .A . WALTER A . l\"AULSON II , l\" .A . IAIIIIIY E. COl\"LIN , l\" .A . lllllCHAIIO 0 . TAYLOR , P' .A . JOIEl'H I . HURST, Jfl . , fl .A . [LIZAIETH IIOll[N MUflllllAY , , . A . CHfllSTO,HEl't HELLER , , . A . LAUllllA HENSLEY SMtTH , , . A . IIOIUIT I . SHAF[llll , fl .A . WILLIAM M. GIIIFFIN Ill , fl.A. MICHAELS . MOORE , l\" .A . DIANE 9 . MACl.[Y , , .A. WAL TOI M. EIEL Il l , l\" .A . I.EVIN A . CIIASS , l\" . A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JII ., l\" .A . John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3-413 TELEPHONE 501-378-2011 FAX NO . 501-378-21\u003c47 June 5, 1997 Re: Little Rock School District Work Teams Dear John "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"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","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"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/1678"],"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":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R 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 EDGAR .J . TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1673","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"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/1673"],"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":["135 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FRIDAY , ELDREDGE\u0026: CLARK H(IUCH(L H FRIDAY ( 1117 - tlI WllLIAW H tUTTON . r A JAM(I W WOO\"[ IYIIIIOH M (ll(MAN. JIii . ,. A JO( 0 IILL. ,. A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIV IOUAL5 ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC ' A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C . (CHOlt , ,. A J 4M(I A IUTT,.Y , ,. A . FIIUQ(IIIIIClt  . Ullll(IIIY , f' A . H f L.41UL\" ,. A  All  DAVIS, JIii . f' A (8 C CLAfllt. Jl4 , f' A MAI,. LEOOETT. ,. A H Q[W(Y WATIION , f' A . it4Ul I . l(NHAM Ill. f' A l Al'lftY W 8Ul41C8 , r A. 4 WYCS:L!FF Hl81T J l4 .. ,. A J AM(! 0 WAl40 H411111!1, r A J l\"tHlL l r MALCOM , I\" A J ,t,M(!I M SIMrSOH,,. A . J A.M(!I M S AXTON , r A .J 5H(,.H(l4 O jlfUSS(lL Ill. f' A OQ H,t,LO M IACON , f' A . WILL IAM THOMAS 8AXTUt . r A . WAlf11 4 ,.AUl.8ON II, ,. A . IAIIIIIIY (. COf'llH, t' .A .IIICHAltO 0 . TA.YL014 . ,. A .J OIH'H I HUlll9T , JII . f' A . HIZA8(TH lll081N WUIIJ,.AY . ,. A . CHltllTO,.IHIIII H(ll.11 . ,. A L AUlllA H(NIH(Y SMITH , ,. A . lt08(11T S SHAF(ft , f A . WIL LI AM ltol 0141FFIH Ill. ,. , A . M ICH AEL 5 . M0014( . f' A . DIAM( S WACS:(Y . f A WAL TEii M (l(l Ill . 1' A l(VIN A CR ASI . ,. A WI LLIAM A . WAOO(LL. JIit  f' A , Mr. Michael E. United States Gans Court U.S. Court \u0026 Custom 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 8UILO INO 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKA ... SAS n:o 1- l4tl TELEPHONE 50t - J7e-:o, I FAX ~O. 501 -l7 S- 214 7 September 8, 1997 of Appeals House 9 COTT .J l ,t,HC,t,I T ., \u0026 M -l A Y L( ,:0 11tt[Y  4 ~ O l(ltf I l(A.CW .1 111 J l( ( llltQWN ., 4 .J AW(I C 14C(II .J Iit  \u0026 M,t,IUIY 4 U OHT  4 ICOf T H ru c,c . ,- 4 .JOH N CL A'l\"\"OH Jl4HOOL,.\"'f OU Y ,t,l fO H W40( . , 4 it'I IC[ .:. 0Aflt0H(II ., 4. fO H I A ,- .10 H8 . !' .A Q ,t,V IO O Wll!IOH ,- 4 .J(FF .. (Y M WOO ..  . ,. 4 A\"\"O\"(W \" TU llfloj[Jt , ., .A Q ,t,VIO W U IIA.F . ,. A C All l A G i,.Al,..HOU\" JOH M C ;:(HOLE Y J \" A. Lll90 N !l lLI.VCS JO NA.MN C '10OSE VL7 II ,:HIIISTO r't-tEllt L AW SO -\" Gll(OO IIY O \"AYLOII TO NY L. WILC O X F\" AH C. HICS:WAM l (TTY; O(MOIIY IAIIIAll4 .J .IIAHO J A.W(I WI !Ml TH CUFFOIIJO W r'L U WC[-OAHIEl l \"l(lltllt lHG ~;: .. 4 LLISO H J :o,nfWH~ TOCO 4 a 1111 [LLE H W ,J W(HS HELEfrH \"II ~AYOEII J ASCH I . \"t(HOIIE-, 9UIAH )rif CHll.O ~9 o, c:uH W I LLIAM J 5W ITH 8 S ClAAl Wllll4W L. ... EAIIY ,  A WIL LI AM L. 4T TO M . II  4 {50 I 370  5C~ Re: Court of Appeals No. 97-1794, 97-1855 , 97-2394 and 97-2406 (Consolidated) Dear Mr. Gans: Brief CJH/k Enc. cc: I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock in the above-referenced matter. School \\..,. Christopher Heller All Counsel Dist:::-ic-:'s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al .ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al Nos. 97-1794EALR, 97-1855EALR, 97-2394EALR and 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK 400 w. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT TllLZ o:, COll'l'D'l'S I. Th Diatriot Court Did ot Rely Upon Diaputed xaterial :raota ii . . l . . \"   6 II. Th Diatriot Court correctly :rollowed Recent Precedent III. Other Iaauea ltaiaed By AD And Intervenor Do ot warrant aeveraal CONCLUSION i 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!'ULS 01' \u0026U'l'BOIU'!'XU DuPree v. Allla School Dist. No. 30 279 Ark. S.W. 2d 90 (1983) .... Jenkins v. Missouri 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468 (8th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . 18 . 1 LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996 ...... 5,9,10,16 LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) 18 ii I I BTA'l'DDl'I' OP ~ CASB I Th s1tt1g1nt AsJr1uaent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), collectively the \"Districts,\" brought this case to enforce the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case settlement Agreement. For the second time, this Court has been asked to interpret those parts of the Settlement Agreement which protect the Districts from the loss of State funding for programs which were funded at the tiae of the settlement and from retaliatory action by the State because of the settlement. Two separate and distinct coponents of the Settlement Agreement are at issue in this appeal. First, because of the relatively small amount of the financial settlement in this case, 1 the State of Arkansas agreed to continue to fund all of the programs for which the Districts received state funding at the time of the settlement: 1The Settlement Agreement requires the State of Arkansas to pay to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD a total of nearly one hundred thirty million dollars, including a twenty aillion dollar loan to LRSD. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 110-124. By comparison, the State of Missouri has paid the Kansas City School District approximately two hundred fifty million dollars for restoration of the district's physical facilities and approximately nine hundred fifty aillion dollars for educational and other prograJ1s. Jenkins y, Missouri. 1997 u.s. App. LEXIS 21468 at *22- *23 (8th Cir. 1997). This Court recently approved an agreement by which Missouri will be released from any further obligation upon the payment to the Kansas City School District of an additional three hundred twenty aillion dollars over three years . .lg. at *l. The Kansas City School District has fewer students than the Districts in this case. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II.E continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any paYJlent described elsewhere in this agreeaent, the State will continue to pay the following costs:      (6) The State' share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. ADE Appx. Vol.l, pp. 92-93. It is undisputed that the Districts are now required to fund certain programs, including teacher retirement and health insurance, which were funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the settlement agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p.385. The second provision of the Settleaent Agreement at issue in this case prohibits the state from retaliating against the Districts because of the aettleaent: II.L Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, p. 98. 2 2This section of the Settlement Agreement also prohibits legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, but creates an exception for fair and rational adjustaents to the funding formula which have general applicability even if those adjustaents reduce the proportion of state aid to any of the Districts. The Districts have not claied that the State's new funding formula has had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to desegregate. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Th J'Undinq roraul Before 1995, the State bore the entire burden of funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs for all Arkansas school districts. Direct state funding of teacher retirement and health insurance was discontinued by Act 1194 of 1995. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. Act 1194 also changed the State's aethod of appropriating funds for teacher retirement, health insurance and other programs fro a line it81l appropriation to a general appropriation. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. School districts are now required to pay the total cost of these programs. undisputed ract1 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Teacher retirement and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to continue to pay its share of any and all programs for which the Districts received State funding at the tiae of the Settlement Agreeaent. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 92-93. One hundred thirty aillion dollars was appropriated for teacher retirement for the 1995-96 school year (ADE Appx. p. 387- 88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45) and before the new funding scheme was adopted, the Arkansas Department of Education requested $134,500.00 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year (ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 387-88). Nearly forty-three million dollars was budgeted for \"public school employee insurance\" for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol 3, p. 352. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The state adopted a new funding formula, Act 917 of 1995, to take effect at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 321-50. A related law, Act 1194 of 1995, requires that school districts fund their own teacher retirement and health insurance programs beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ADE Brief, p. 7; ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. The new funding laws contain no specific appropriation for teacher retirement or health insurance. Most State funding under the new State funding system is distributed on a per ADM basis as equalized by the relative wealth of the funded district. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 376. Distributing State funds on an equalized basis aeans pursuant to a method that takes into account a district's local revenue and which gives aore State funds to poorer districts than richer districts. ADE Brief, p. 6. other xatt1r1 In its statement of the case, PCSSD has addressed and clarified several other matters contained in the ADE and Intervenor briefs. LRSD adopts PCSSD's position with respect to those matters. 8omRY OJ' UCl1JIID'l' The undisputed facts in the record are sufficient to uphold the district court's grant of swaary judgment. The district court's finding that funds which in past years were appropriated specifically for teacher retirement and health insurance are now included within a larger general appropriation is a logical 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I conclusion based on the undisputed evidence and not an imperaiasible resolution of a disputed fact. ADE's contention that there exists a dispute as to whether its new funding formula distributes funds on a~ per-student basis as opposed to an equalized per-student basis is also incorrect. Both district court opinions at issue here clearly show the district court's understanding that funds are distributed on a equalized per-student basis as the State contends. This case is governed by this Court's decision with respect to the workers' compensation program. LR.SD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). The actions of the State at issue here are very similar to the actions the State took to discontinue the State funded workers' copensation program and then to distribute workers' compensation funding on a per-student basis. The State's effort to redistribute teacher retirement and health insurance program funds on an equalized per student basis, rather than a basis which bears any rational relationship to the nwnber of employees in a school district or to the cost of those programs, should be rejected. The distribution of funds on an equalized per-student basis results in LRSD receiving State funding for a much smaller percentage of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs than the percentage received by other districts outside Pulaski County. Thia result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreeaent was eant to prevent. ,Ig. at 1018. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UGUJODl'l' I. Th Di  t.riot Court Di4 IIOt ly Upon Di pute4 Material J'aot The Arkansas Department of Education contends that the district court ignored or resolved two factual issues which \"were central and essential to the Districts' claims.\" ADE Brief, p. 14. ADE described the \"two key disputed factual issues\" as follows: First, that there is \"an identifiable amount of dollars distributed as Equalization Funding that are 'ear-marked' to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance matching\"; and second, that \"these identifiable and ear-marked 'retirement' and 'health insurance' funds are now being distributed on a pure per-student3 basis\" as opposed to an equalized per-student basis. ADE Brief, p. 16. There is, in fact, no issue at all with regard to the second \"factual dispute\" described by ADE. Both district court opinions below clearly adopted ADE's position. In its order granting summary judgment on the teacher retirement issue, the district court found that the State's new funding scheme \"distributes funds on a per-ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" ADE Add. p. 9 (emphasis supplied). In its opinion granting SWllllary judgment on the health insurance issue, the district court held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based 3ADE uses the terms \"per-ADM basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 16) and \"per-student basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 14). The terms are roughly equivalent. ADM means average daily membership. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling Districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Add. p. 17 (emphasis supplied). ADE's contention that there exists in this case some dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes funds on a \"pure per-student basis, as opposed to an equalized per student basis,\" is simply wrong. If there ever was a dispute, it has been resolved in ADE'\u0026 favor. The State's contention that there is a material dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes certain funds that are \"ear-marked\" for teacher retirement and health insurance is also insubstantial. Teacher retireaent and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State at the tiae of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. There were specific appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. p. 387-88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45. Act 1194 of 1995 discontinued itemized State funding for teacher retireaent and health insurance beginning with the 1996-97 chool year. Finally, overall State funding for Arkanaaa public schools is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year by an amount which exceeds the total 1995-96 State payments for teacher retirement and health insurance. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. These established facts are sufficient to support the district court's finding that \"it is only logical to conclude that sums 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteaa for distribution to the Districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000.00 more than it was at the tiae of the Lake View decision.' ADE Add. p. 7. The state is contending that if the Districts cannot find a line item appropriation for teacher retirement and health insurance, then those programs, which have been funded by the state for decades, are not funded under the new school formula. The district court reached the only logical conclusion. Funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is contained in a large, unitemized appropriation under the new funding formula, and those funds are distributed on an equalized per-student basis rather than a basis which bears soae relation to the number of employees or actual costs. 4Even the intervenor\u0026 seem to see the logic of the district court's conclusion. In describing the change from the old program funding systell to the new student funding system, they say: The money is there but the requirement to pend a specific amount on employee health insurance, for example, is gone. Intervenor\u0026' Brief, p. 20 (emphasis supplied). The Intervenor\u0026 go on to say that our argwaent that the Settlement Agreement has been violated with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding ignores the fact that the funds are still provided  Intervenors' Brief, p. 21. 8 I I II. Th Pitrict \u0026r BntitlO To emunnn Judgment A A Matter I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Of Lay Thia case is governed by the terms of the settlement Agreement. In deciding the eaning of the terms in the Settlement Agreement, and their application to the facts in this case, the district court carefully followed the oat recent precedent established by this Court. As a result, the district court reached the correct conclusion under the law of this case. The precedent followed by the district court was established in LRSD y, Pesso, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). In that case, this court determined that State funding of workers' compensation was a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and held that funding the Districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state violates the Settlement Agreement . .lg. at 1017. Although the State added a slightly different twist in its effort to redistribute funding for the teacher retir .. ent and health insurance prograJU1, the facts are close enough to the workers' compensation case to warrant the same result. In the workers' compensation case, the districts argued that payment of workers' compensation costs was a \"program\" for which they received \"State funding\" at the time of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD y, Pesso. 83 F.3d at 1013, 1017 (8th cir. 1996). This Court agreed, but defined the \"program\" as \"equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school diatricts.\"5 .lg. 5NLR.so will argue that programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance which were funded by the State at the time of the settlement cannot be discontinued even by a change in State funding 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I at 1018. This court concluded that \"the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" l.s1- The State argues that the teacher retirement and health insurance programs have been eliminated for every district in the State and, because the \"change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" lg. However, aa with the worker' compensation case, there is more to the story. To eaae the transition fro a State funded to a district funded workers' compensation program, the State disbursed \"seed oney\" which paid about one-half of the workers' compensation expense statewide but only about one-third of the expense for the settling Districts. The disparity arose because the State used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. l.sl- This Court held that the distribution of workers' compensation \"seed money\" violated the settlement: Thia result is precisely what the antiretaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no oent that the State reached this result in a aathematically consistent anner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. which is determined to be fair, rational, and generally applicable. LRSD agrees with that argument. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In thia case, the legialature ha said that beginning with the 1996-97 school year funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is a district, rather than a State, responsibility. The state has also moved from a line item appropriation which shows specific funding for health insurance and teacher retirement to a general appropriation of funds to be distributed, for the most part, on an equalized per-student basis. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 317-366. Statewide, the amount of money which flows through the public school fund is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. ADE argues that because none of the aoney in the expanded public school fund is \"ear-aarked\" for teacher retirement or health insurance, this case does not fit within this Court's ruling which required fair distribution of workers' compensation seed money. ADE Brief, p. 19-22. All the State has really done is to strip away the labels from the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The funding for those prograas has been shifted from a line item appropriation to a general appropriation. Funds for teacher retirement and health insurance are now combined with other funds to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis as \"equalization funding.\" ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 352. The State is playing a shell gaae, contending that if the Districts cannot find the pea, it does not exist. The district court was not fooled. It was clear to the district court that \"what used to be funded as a line item was 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for State equalization funding.w ADE Ad. pp. 8-9. Simple logic dictates wthat sums that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteas for distribution to the districts ust be component of [the new equalization) fund .... w ADE Ad., p.7. This Court should affira the di trict court. If the State can avoid responsibility for continued funding of the teacher retirement and health insurance programs simply by moving the funds into a general appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding and this Court's decision concerning workers' compensation seed aoney will have been rendered meaningless. This is not a case where the State has treated all Arkansas school districts the same with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The State has changed the way it distributes funding for those prograas in a way that favors districts outside Pulaski County. Instead of simply paying the actual costs of those programs statewide, the State has elected to distribute on an equalized per-student basis the funds which would have gone to pay for the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The impact of the State's distribution of teacher retirement funds according to the number of students rather than the number 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of teachers in LR.SD can be easily shown.' The State budgeted $130,000,000.00 to pay teacher retirement statewide for the 1995- 96 fiscal year. ADE Appx. Vol., 3, p. 352. The average daily membership for the State for the 1995-96 school year was 443,516 students. A per student distribution of those retirement funds would yield $293.11 per student. Distribution of that amount based on LRSD's average daily aeabership of 22,385 students would result in a state teacher retireaent payaent of $6,561,267.00. This is only about two-thirds of the aaount actually paid by the State to LR.SD for the 1995-96 school year when the calculation was done on a per-teacher rather than per-student basis. The State appropriation of $130,000,000.00 for the 1995-96 school year should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the teacher retirement program statewide. Before the establishment of the new funding program, ADE sought an appropriation of $134,500,000.00 to fund the statewide teacher retirement program for the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx., Vol. 3, pp. 387-88. That amount also should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the statewide teacher retirement program. The result of the state aoving teacher retirement funds into a general appropriation and distributing those funds on an 'we understand that ADE uses an equalized per-student distribution rather than a pure per-student distribution. Largely because its aillage rate is the fifth highest in the state (ADE Appx., Vol. 4, p. 583), LR.SD is a relatively rich school district for the purposes of the new funding formula. Accordingly, LR.SD would actually receive less funding on an equalized per-student basis than is shown in this example. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I equalized per-student basis is that LRSD will receive two-thirds or less of its teacher retirement costs while the average funding level statewide exceeds one hundred percent of teacher retirement costs. The results are the same for employee health insurance. The estimated statewide health insurance contribution for the 1996-97 school year is $42,815,000.00. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245 and Vol. 3, p. 352. This money is distributed through the new funding formula on an equalized per-student basis which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for employee health insurance. As a result, the State paid 109.95 percent of the cost of employee health insurance statewide excluding Pulaski County. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245. The average funding in the Pulaski county school districts is 71.39 percent. LRSD receives only 53.41 percent of its cost of employee health insurance payments. The district court correctly held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Ad., p. 17. III. other 11,v IAi IY N\u003eI  xntervenor1 Do 1ot warrant lYral ADE and the Intervenor\u0026 have raised several other issues, none of which warrants reversal of the district court opinions. Both appellants contend that the new funding formula is 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beneficial to the Pulaski County School districts since they received aor State funding this year than they did last year. The Intervenor\u0026 completely misstate the District' claim: The Districts allege that the total funding is less under the new funding formula than under the prior funding foraula. Intervenor Brief, p. 8. In fact, the Districts argued that they receive less than they would haye received had the same amount of money been distributed for the 1996-97 school year under the old Act 34 formula instead of the new Act 917 formula. Intervenor Appx., p. 68. The Intervenor\u0026 seem to think that the district court resolved a conflict between the Districts' position that they would have received a greater amount of funding for the 1996-97 school year had the available funds been distributed under the old Act 34 formula and ADE' position that the Districts received more State aid this year than last year. Intervenor Brief, pp. 8- 9. There is no conflict. The district court accepted PCSSD's position \"that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new foraula than it would haye been under the old.\" ADE Ad., p. 12. ADE's exhibit which purports to show that the Pulaski County districts will receive more State funding for the 1996-97 school year than they did for the 1995-96 school year (Intervenor Appx., p. 170) is not in conflict with PCSSD's position that it would have received aore money for 1996-97 under Act 34 than it does under the new funding scheme. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADE seems to admit that any increase received by the Pulaski county districts for the 1996-97 school year was proportionately smaller than increases received by other Arkansas school districts (ADE Brief, p. 25), but argues that the settling districts are \"winners\" under the new formula so their increased state aid \"should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them.\" ADE Brief, p. 24. First of all, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding of existing programs does not require a finding of discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation, only a discriminatory impact. The workers' compensation issue was decided by this Court without any discussion of ADE'a intent. LRSD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). Second, a simple hypothetical shows the flaw in ADE's reasoning. Assume that a large amount of money was added to the public school fund and that ADE intentionally devised a formula to minimize the amount of aoney that would go to the Pulaski County achool districts. Ass\\llle also that as a result education funding doubled statewide under a formula which increased funding for the Pulaski County school districts by only one percent. Would the Pulaski County school districts be precluded from claiming a violation of the Settlement Agreement simply because the small increase in their funding made them \"winners\"? The Intervenor\u0026 claim that the Pulaski County districts are seeking \"to divert millions of dollars from students outside of 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County districts.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. That contention is completely unsupported and is absolutely untrue. The state's 1994-95 expenditure for public schools was only forty-eight percent of the total net State general revenues. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 324. The state's practice has been to transfer funds from general revenues to the public school fund in order to pay the costs associated with the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 359-60. The Pulaski County districts did not ask the district court to divert any money from districts outside Pulaski County. There is no reason that the funds necessary for the State to meet its settlement obligations should come from the public school fund rather than from general revenues. The Intervenors argue that the Districts do not care about \"equal treatment\" of students and are seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement \"simply because they believe they need more money.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. They are apparently forgetting that the Settlement Agreement provides a remedy for years of state imposed segregation. Had the state adopted a policy of equal treatment rather than segregation decades ago, we would not have this lawsuit today. The State cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Settl-ent Agreement simply by contending the Arkansas Constitution requires equal treatment. The response to that ar(JUllent is found in Judge Arnold's concurrence in a previous appeal in this case: The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, ubstantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the state, DuPree Y, Alma School Dist. No, 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 s.w. 2d 90 (1983), and with a statute iapl8lllenting thi opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann. SS 80-850.10 - 80-850.22. Thia argwaent is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. ART. VI. , cl. 2 , the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. LRSD y, PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404, 437 n. 1. (8th Cir. 1985) (Arnold, J. concurring). The Intervenor\u0026 point out, correctly, that funds paid to the Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in determining the appropriateness of public school funding under state law. Intervenor' Brief, p. 16. Nothing in state or federal law requires that uch fund be included in any calculation to determine the equity of a state school funding scheme. Inexplicably, however, the Intervenor\u0026 go on to argue that \"(t)he State funding syst8Jll will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which will result from the district court's order.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 17. This argument is simply wrong and is in conflict with the position of the Intervenors, taken on the previous page of their brief, that funds paid by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in the calculation of the federal range ratio. 18 I I I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1669","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula","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)","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-02"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula"],"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/1669"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript 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 RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 SEP 3 1997 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS omc OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORIN6INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PCSSD SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA The PCSSD for its motion states: INTERVENORS 1. As a result of the change from Act 34 to Act 917, including the overall funding increases which accompanied Act - 917, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 in State aid this past year as compared to what it would have received had Act 34 continued in existence at the higher appropriation levels. In contrast, the average increase in State aid per district was 12.64% under Act 917. 2. The case law, the orders of this Court, and the Settlement Agreement prohibit this disparity. 3. This Court should order that the State aid received by the PCSSD this past school year be increased to the state average increase of 12.64%, an increase of $6,496,896. 4. In the alternative, this Court should award the PCSSD the $5.5 million it lost when one compares Act 34 outcomes to Act 917 outcomes. # 5. This motion is accompanied by an updated Affidavit of Dr. Donald Stewart, together with accompanying exhibits, additional exhibits, and by a memorandum brief. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material facts and orders of this Court. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it be funded for the previous year at the level of the State average or, in the alternative, that it be awarded the sums it lost when Act 917 replaced Act 34, for its costs, attorneys' fees and all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By-;n_.xJ_~ M .... ~~= Jones I}o/ (76060) At~for Pcpn 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September J- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J : j hsl 0S0 . 030 umuel Jn 3 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTL!:MENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) EXHIBIT I .L - K. District Budgets The Districts may  utilize the-  receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or .th is settlement. The State will enact - no legislation which has a substantia~ adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages _due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The - motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 98 10 fN TI-IE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR rnE EIGHTI-1 CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLANTS V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES Nos. 97-1794EALR. 97-1855EALR. 97-2394EALRand 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OPENING BRIEF I WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General By: TIMOlHY G. GAUGER Arkansas Bar No. 95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l ( 50 l) 682-2007 EXHIBIT Finally, and most important, the changes in funding of teacher retirement and health insurance matching differ significantly from the workers' compensation issue in that, unlike-the change in workers' compensation funding (which involved a change in only one discrete aspect of the funding scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme unchanged) the district court had before it a wholesale change in the funding scheme, in effect an entirely new funding system designed from scratch. ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit At the very minimum, the fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 24 'llnitea States Court of ~ppeafs for tk 'Eigl,,tli Circuit NO. 97-1794 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL APPELLANT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge ~ppe{{ant's tJJrie,f JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR. #66040 THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Attorney for Appellant 111 School Districts EXHIBIT I 3 THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AS A MATIER OF LAW The Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment challenges that portion of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Districts receive more state aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Greene Declaration, App. 170. By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.4 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"Fair - and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability . . . \". Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement March, 1997, Add. 18, the Districts suggest, by implication, such an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. Du Pree and lake View. 4 DuPree v. Alma, 65 l S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 ( 1983). App. 172 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SC~OOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs of the PCSSD. Attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit is information I received from the Arkansas Department of Education which permitted me to compare total state aid received by each school district in - 1995-96 to total state aid they received for 1996-97. From this information, I was able to prepare Exhibit 11 B11 which demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net increase in State aid this year of only 1.12 percent. This compares to a state total of 12.09 percent increase per district which percentage rises to 12.64 percent when the PCSSD State aid is subtracted from the state-wide totals. Attached as Exhibit \"C\" is a letter the PCSSD received from Mr. Kunkel, Coordinator for Local Fiscal Services requesting the return of growth funding in the amount of $81,165. As requested, this sum of money has been returned by the PCSSD to the State and the PCSSD will receive no growth funding for 1996-97. However, were loss funding still in place, the PCSSD would be eligible for loss funding for the 1996-97 school year. Exhibit 11 0 11 is the latest printout received by the PCSSD from EXHIBIT I 4 - the State. The total sum set forth was adjusted by the State to reflect the overpayment of che $81,165. I certify.that che calculations set forth in these various exhibits were e1~her directly performed by the Arkansas Department of Education or were calculaced from databases furnished to me by the Arkansas Department of Education. It is entirely possible chat some of the State aid levels for some of the districts reflected in Exhibit \"A\" may have changed since the State furnished its dacabase to the PCSSD. However, for purposes of the present analysis and claim, the PCSSD believes that the calculations and conclusions set forth in the various exhibics are reasonably accurate. If, however, the Arkansas Department of Education desires that the PCSSD utilize updated information, the - PCSSD will be more chan willing to comply as soon as such information is furnished to it from the Arkansas Department of Education. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI day SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN of A-U,,4 ,-r-, 1997. J My ComIT\\ission Expires: .: JZ\u003c.,-'Ulf; ;_') -~ QC k-l I --- TO before me, a notary public, this2Y NotarPublic 2 -1.,. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 I LEA i COUNTY 101,AHKANSAS 102 AHKANSAS 104 1 ARKANSAS 105 ARKANSAS 201 ASHLEY 202 ASHLE'Y 20JASHLEY 302 BAXTF.R 30:1 RAXTER 304 RAXTF.R 401 RENTON 402 RENTON 40:1 DENTON 404 BENION 405 BENTON 406 BENTON 407 BENTON 501 BOONE 502 BOONE 503 BOONE 504 BOONE 505 BOONE 506 AOONE 601 BRADLEY fi02 BRADLEY 701 CALHOUN 801 CARROLL R02 CARROLL R03 CARRO~L 901 CHICOT 'l02 CHICOT 903 CHICOT 1002 CLARK ! 1003 CLARK 1101 C:I AY I 1104 CIAY I 110fi CLAY 1701 CLEnllRNE DISTRICT OE'WITT GILLE'Tl STlllTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK RENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON RERRYVILLE FIIHEKA SPRINGS /\u003c,HErN FOREST I1irRMOTT IEIIIJORA 11 AKFSIOE AHKAl\u003eElPHIA c;uRDON lr.ORNING PI\u003c;r.0TT I !CLAY COUNTY !coNr.ono AOM FOR I 1995-1996 JQ 1,278 94 287. 10 2,268 54 288 83 2,760 47 283 86 1,812 03 60640 3,845 95 500 22 5,107 53 553 15 1,147 53 1,284 30 8,656 66 2,510 38 910 51 474 74 820 99 2,894 62 385 11 863 22 404 14 607 37 1,763 43 917 27 1,562 17 1108 31 1,232 84 1,012 81 935 13 1,220 59 2,407 09 R93111 1.2:10 2R 1,001 97 736 R6 473 16 AOMFOR 1996-1997 I I NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE ' CHANGE 1st Q 1,2:12 17 285 22 2,211 .18 280 02 2,720 43 299.19 1,777 53 619 65 3,898 14 518.94 5.444 47 589 99 1,144 64 1,30560 9,375 04 2,594 68 946 35 50802 808 48 2,81554 372 62 89981 384 671 594 09 1,756 02 901 031 1,590 96 8011351 1.23996 : 1,002 761 915 21 1 1,163 43 2,442 37 I 918 351 1.248 49 1 1,039 74 I 72995, 468 )CJ (46771 (1 BR (57 36 (8 81 (4004 15 33 (34 50 13 25 52 19 18 72 33694 36 84 (2 89 21 .30 718 38 84 30 35 84 33 28 (12 51 (7908 (12 49 36 59 (19 47 (13 28 (7 41 (16 24 28 79 0 04 7 12 (1005 (19 92 (57 16 35 28 24 54 1R 21 37 77 (f, 91 (4 77 .3 66%1 -065% -2 53% -3 05% -1.45% 5.40% -1 .90% 219% 1.36% 3 74% 660% 666% -025% 166% 8 30% J 36% 3 94% 701% -152% -2 .73% -3 24% 4.24% -4 .82% -219% -042% -1 77% 164% 000% 0 58% -099% -2 13% .4 68% 1 47% 2 75% 1 48% :i 77% 0 94% -101% TOTAL 1995-1996 STATE AID S:J .041.llfi5 1 $610,743 S5.055.029 $886.831 $6,293,054 $881,650 $5,552.298 $1,830,298 S7.724.759 S1 .437 .262 $9,575,525 S1.525.271 S2, 157,190 S2, 174,171 $19,498,428 $6,005,872 S2.765,315 S1 .542.232 $2,638,593 $6,575,634 $1 ,265.575 $2,543.767 $1,202,421 $1 ,672,214 $4 ,941 ,446 $1,993,857 S4 ,223,025 $546,953 $3,611.2151 S3.272.036 S2.76R,6:l8 I $3 ,364,464 $6,019,989 $2,291 ,087 S3. 133.616 $:\u003e, 769.~\u003e46 s2.096. :100 $ 1,49:1 ,6761 TOT. SELECT. 1996-97 AID 12-27-96 S2.9138.74!l : S735.795I $5,6:15,639 $840,659 $7 ,015.296 $915,885 S5.309,8116 $1 ,915,093 $8,699,379 $1 ,463,375 $12,814,870 $1 ,642,592 $2,696.660 S2,716.828 $24,269.301 S7,207, 164 S3,254,057 Sl ,742,722 S2,757,022 S6,662,071 S1 .181,713 S2,931, 110 Sl.100,367 Sl ,675,076 S5,174,627 S2.077,037 S4,270,083 S850.028 $3,719.161 $3,150.098 S2,724,351 S3,413.368 S6,430,653 S2,540,432 S3.407.51l6 $:J, 117,026 $2,135,236 $1 ,532,464 ADO. BASE FUNDING $~,A .ll91 , so 1 S230.360 S2,195 S176.954 $8,954 S151 ,191 so so $32,806 so so S184,411 so so so S40,470 S75,857 S265,098 so S122,656 so S24.500 S200,713 S26,465 S173,331 I S26,6531 S157,437 $102,722 $8,631 $66,162 so $23,556 S91 ,651 S104 ,682I $65,2131 S:17 ,663 GROWTH FACILITY FUNDING so: S16,661 I' so so so so so S6,227 so so S235,001 so S37.266 S46,518 S192,472 S39,737 S55,653 S19,573 S18,502 so so S13,446 so so so S14,122 so $17,293 so so so so so so so so so $8, 1171 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 rJ ~ FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 101 ARKANSAS DEWITT $68.436 $15.772 S:l .131 .648 $119.71131 295% 102 ARKANSAS GILLETT $80.642 S3.468 Sfl36.566 $225.82:lj 36911% 104 ARKANSAS STlJTTGART $51.458 $5.917.457 S862.428 17 06% 105 ARKANSAS HlJMPHREY S802 so S643.6r\u003e6 (S43.175 -4117%1 201 ASHLEY CROSSETT S94.658 S7.286.908 S993.854 J 15 79% I 202 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL S1.253 S17.171 S14 .704 S957.967 S76.317 ; 866%1 203 ASHLEY HAMBURG S93.117 S77 .814 S5.632.008 S79.710J 1 44%1 302 RAXTER COTTER S48.873 S1.970.193 S139.895; 7 64% 303 RAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME S530 S60.805 S8.760.714 Sl .035.955I 13 41% 304 RAXTER NORFORK $-48,651 S36,349 S1,581 ,181 S143.9191 1001% 401 BENTON RENTONVILLE S101,882 S13,151 ,753 $3.576,2281 37 35% 402 RENTON DECATUR $20,593 $1 ,663,185 $137,9141 904% 403 BENTON GENTRY S32,257 S2.766,205 S609,015 28 23% 404 BENTON GRAVETTE S31,613 S1 ,586 S2,980,956 $806,785 37 11% 405 BENTON ROGERS S205.440 S24.667.213 S5. 168,785 26.51% 406 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS S140,034 $7,386,935 S1,381,063 2300% 407 BENTON PEA RIDGE S64, 108 SJ,373,818 S608,503 2200% 501 BOONE ALPENA S42,062 S25,930 $1,870,757 $328,525 21 30%1 502 BOONE RERGMAN S35.430 S63.764 S2,950,595 $312,002 1162% 503 BOONE HARRISON $46,396 $6,973,565 $397,931 605% 504 BOONE OMAHA $45.434 S32,278 $1,259,425 ($6,150 -0.49% 505 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS S12.890 S66.271 SJ. 146,375 $602,608 23.69% 506 ROONE LEAD HILL S30,805 S21,523 $1,152,695 ($49.726 -4 14% 601 ARADLEY HERMITAGE $62,907 $23,748 $1.786,231 $114,0171 682% 602 BRADLEY WARREN S32.799 S60.540 SS,466,679 $527,233 1067% 701 CALHOUN !HAMPTON $31,065 S12,271 $2,162,960 $169,103 848% 801 CARROLL IRFRRYVILLE S43.871 $79,194 $4,566.479 $343,454 813% 802 CARRO~L jrtJREKA SPRINGS S8.985 so S904,959 $356,006 6545% 803 CARROLL \\\u003c;IIEEN FOREST S37.485 S108,936 S4.023.01!l $405,604 1122% 901 CHICOT 1 nERMOTT $26,518 $85,433 S3.364.771 $92,735 2 83% I 902 CHICOT !FlJllORA S64.716 S34.381 $2,832.079 $63,441 2 29% .. I 903 CHICOT IL AKESIDE S58.856I S102,935 S3.641,321 $256,857 7 59% i 1002 CLARK IAIIKADELPHIA $25,051 SB8,711 S6,544,415 $524,426 8 71% I 1003 CLARK lc;uRDON S9,365 S53,902 $2,627,255 $336,166 1101 14 67% CLAY C:ORNING $26.772 $3,526,009 S392,393 12 52% 1104 CLAY PIGGOTT $23,729 S3.245,437 S475,891 17 18% 1106 CLAY CLAY COUNTY S12,924 I S42,447 $2,255,820 $159,520 761% 1201 CLEBURNE CONCORD S22,99ol $26,768 S1,628,002 S134,326 899% - - COMPARISON or lOTAL STATE AID l()fl!J-96 TO 1996-97 FILE. 96T097 WK4 ((') ~ ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADD. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1991 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT 30 1sI a STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING 1202 CLEAUHNE l1tERER SPRINGS 1.47078 1,536 52 65 74 4 47% , S:I.0ll0 .91ill S:l .fl1'l.Dll so $27.4:18 1203 CLERIJRNE I ' Sl ,9:12.717 S:17 .564 ' S13.27'l QUITMAN 631 .81 626 82 (4 99 -079% Sl ,830.0551 1204 CLERIIRNE WESl SH)E 51809 547 .44 29 35 567% S964,458 ' S 1,233,844 so S14 ,844I 1205 CLEOURNE WILBURN 194 03 219 37 25.34 13 06% S700,645 S712,880 S31,281 sol 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 351 37 338.20 (13 17 .3 75% S919,711 S888.531 S6.660 sol 1303 CLEVELAND RISON 674 04 658.43 (15.61 -2 32% S2. 108. 141 S2.043,272 S54 .513 so 1304 CLEVELAND WOODLAWN 50698 517 64 10.66 2.10% Sl ,536.283 Sl ,794.266 S74 ,759 S21,619 1401 COLUMBIA EMERSON 407 .21 398.07 (914 -2.24% S559,099 S557.478 so so 1402 COLUMRIA MAGNOLIA 3.135 87 3,139.38 3 51 011% S7 ,495.865 S8.658.396 S276.956 so 1403 COLUMBIA MCNEIL 329.63 324.71 (4 92 -1.49% Sl .057,953 S974,465 S28.688 so 1404 COLUMAIA TAYLOR 30940 284.92 (24 .48 .7 91% S786,832 S730,722 so S10,361 1406 COLUMAIA WALDO 535 42 523 33 (12.09 -2 26% Sl,685.013 Sl .645.579 S30. 159 so 1407 COLUMBIA WALKER 244 .18 24687 269 110% S825.379 S805.851 so S2.870 1503 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 413 33 403 96 (9.37 -2 27% Sl .381,667 Sl.337.212 S45.167 SB,718 1505 CONWAY WONOERVIEW 480 38 491 04 1066 2 22% Sl.492.467 Sl ,624,610 S37 ,603 S18.617 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO 2,638 42 2,663 91 2549 097% S7. 116,952 S7,493, 193 S259,518 so 1601 CRAIGHEAD BAY 617 32 649 35 32 03 519% Sl ,896,161 S2,092,589 S62,491 so 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 1,428 36 1,515 03 86 67 607% S4 .094,071 S .773,608 S184.145 S21 .463 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 937 21 99688 5967 6 37% S2.866.614 S3.230.607 S109.517 S22.197 1605 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND GEN 91166 894111 (16 85 -1 85% S2.579,779 S2,610.054 S76,029 S10,644 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 4,700 51 4,733 68 33 17 071%1 SI0,021,324 S11.322,739 S181 ,0JJ S51 .856 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,076 87 2.147 OJ 70 16 J 38% $4 ,517,292 S5.271.245I S237,969 S52.102 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEYVIEW 1,060 47 1,11602 55 55 524% S2.835,001 S3.516.569 S187,903 S63.758 1611 CRAIGHEAl1 1 RIVERSIDE 821 92 846 54 24 62 300% S2,481,685 S2.645.855; S58.842 so 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA 2,622 32 2.64104 1 18 72 071% S8.511 ,288 S8,957,302 $340,832 S61,158 1702 CRAWFORl1 ' r.EOARVILLE 847 08 889 77 42 69 504% S3,041 ,769 $3,032,572 S46.935 sol 1703 CRAWFORD M()UNTAINOURG 789 96 829 601 39 64 ' 502% S2,677.202 $2,727,452 $44 ,8311 so 1704 CRAWFO,~D ' MIii flERRY 47:1 23 495 13 21 ool 4 63% Sl ,442.:192 Sl ,645,334 S51 .020 S12.612! 1705 CRAWF'oRD VI\\N flllHFN 5.00'l 96 5.131 03 , 121 071 2 42% S14 .433.8:J6 S15,814,880 S516,736 S71.779 ; 11101 CRITTENDEN Clll\\WI OROSVII IE 408 11 :160 251 (47 86 -11 7:1% $1 ,255.364 1 $949,652 $0 so ., I 1802 CRITTENDEN rllHLE 919 17 922 97 3 80 0 41% S2,940,458 $12.053 so I $2,711 ,485, 1803 CRITTENI IFN WFST MEMPHIS 5,979 29 5,958 04 (21 25 -036% $17.007.315 i $18,381,695 $542,658 so 1804 CRITTENDEN MI\\HION 2,859 21 , 2,868 07 8 80 0 31% $8,166,542 S8.826.606 S270.345 S25,272 : 1805 CRITTENOEN TURRELL 462 26 465 74 J 48 0 75% Sl ,558.612 Sl ,496,608 S:18.414 S0 i 1901 !CROSS ;CROSS COUNTY 777 92 733 78 1 (44 14 -567% S2.101 . 192 Sl ,927.532 so S6.733 1 1903,CROSS ' PARKIN 563 67 549 32 (14 35 -2 55% Sl .680,802 Sl ,643,5031 S10,695 so, 1905 CROSS 1 wYNNE 2.8:19 60 2.838 84 I (0 76 -003% Sll .090.531 1 $8,8411.356 S286.813 soi 2001 jOALLAS \\cARTHAGE 198 68 187 281 (11 40 -5 74% S471 .501 S457,611 so S5.234 , - - - -:r COMPARISON or TOTAL S rA TE AID 1995 96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96T097 WK4 FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. I 1202 iCLEBlJRNE HEBER SPRINGS $55.502, S3.902.07R 1 $821 .110, 2665% 1203 ,CLERIJRNE OlllTMAN $30,666 $7,807 $2,022.053  $191 ,998 1049% 1204 CLEAIJRNE WEST SIDE $53,804 $1 ,652 $1,304 .144 1 $339.6861 35 22% , 12051CLERIJRNE WILBURN $61 ,289 $14 ,506 $3,193 $823.149 $122,504 1 17 48%1 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND $41 ,413 so S936.604 $16,8931 184% 1303 , CLEVELAN[) RISON S55,996 S59,892 $2,213.673 S 105,532 501%1 1304 \\CLF.VF.LAND WOODLAWN S34 ,381 S41 ,809 Sl .966,834 S4 30,551 28 03%1 S16,9971 I 1401 COLIIMAIA EMERSON S18,618 so $576,096 3 04%1 1402 I COLI IMBIA MAGNOLIA S59.266 $8.994.6181 S 1,498. 753! 1999%1 I 1403 1COUJMRIA !MCNEIL S12,379 so Sl ,015,5321 ($4 2.421 -4 01%1 1404 ICOlllMRIA TAYLOR $22.142 S7.652 so $770,877 , ($15.955_ -2 03%1 1406 COLlJMRIA WALDO S5.626 S16,490 Sl ,697.854 S12.841 0 76% 1407 COllJMRIA WALKER S5,888 S9.895 S35,636 S860.140 S34.761 4 21%1 1~,03 CONWAY NEMOVISTA S37,715 $46,919 $1 ,475,731 S94 ,064 681% j 1505 CONWAY WONlJERVIEW S59,230 S22,379 $1.762.439 S269,972 1809% 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO $26.843 S142,261 $7,921,815 $804,863 1131% 1601 CRAIGHEAD RAY S3,812 $59,807 $2,218.699 S322.538 17.01% 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE S72.084 $113,321 $5.164 ,624 Sl .070.553 2615% 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAN[) $13,971 , S76,951 $3,453,243 S586,629 20 46% 1605 CRAIGHEAD RUFFALO ISLAND CEN S20.736 $2,717,463 $137,684 534% 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO S86,973 $11,642,601 $1 ,621,277 1618% 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON $55,304 $5,616,620 $1 ,099,328 24 34% 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW $2,477 $59,322 $3,830.029 $995.028 3510% 1613 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE $39,301 $2.743,998 $262,313 1057% 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA $581 ,542 $9,940,834 $1 ,429,546 16.80% 1702 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE $44,387 $25,9231 $54,410 $3,204 ,227 $162.458 5 34% 1703 CRAWFORO MOUNTAINBURG $58,698 : $111 ,549 $2,942.530 $265.328 991%1 1704 CRAWFO~O MllLBERRY I ' S37,307 $1 ,746.273 $303,881 21 07%, $27 ,7561 1705 CRAWf:ORD VANRUREN $445,044 $16,848,439 $2,414.603 16 73%1 I 1801 CRITTENDEN !CRAWFORDSVILLE $16,137 so $993,545 ($261,819 -2066% .. I 1802 CRITTENDEN ;FARLE I $26.092 S2.978.603 $267,118 985%  I 1803 CRITTENOEN WEST MEMPHIS $161 .569 S1 9.085,9 22 $2,078,607 12 22%1 I 1804 CRITTENDEN ' MARION I I $214,276 $9.336,499 $1 ,169,957 14 :l:1%1 11105 CRITTENDEN TURRELL S60.165 $1.595, 187 $36,575 2 35%1 1901 ( ROSS I CROSS COUNTY $69,11 21 $14 .512 $2.017,889 ($83,303 .3 96%1 1903 ;CROSS f'ARKIN I $1 .654.1981 1WYNNE I so ($26,604 -158%1 1905,CROSS $174 ,205 $9,309.374 $1 ,218.843 2001 OALLAS \\r:ARTIIAGE $199,509 1 $2,627 1507%1 S6fi5. IR1 $193,680 41 08% COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 \\0 0... ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA I COUNTY DISTRICT ]Q 1st a -1 70\"J STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I 2002 [)Al I AS ' SJ .ll8J.90'l S4 .0114 .2 71 1 S1fi9.1118 so / FORDYCE 1,377 81 1.)5443 (23 311 2003 OALLAS SPARKMAN 333.65 316 16 (17 49 -5 24% S907.5361 S828.2114 so 1 so 1 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY 162.72 169 29 6 57 4 04% S156.603  $118.263 sol S23.689 2102 OF.SHA DEL TA SPECIAL 305 82 286 14 (1968 -644% $812,468 $668.098 soi so 2104 DESHA DUMAS 2.126 29 2,088 59 (37.70 -1.77% $6,604 ,223 S6,528.573 $196.515 so 2105 OESHA MCGEHEE 1,459 23 1,431 .35 (27 88 -191% $4 ,232.312 S4 ,520.753 $119.703 so 2202 DREW r\u003eREW CENTRAL 1.176 66 1,210 20 33 54 2 85% S3.579.087 S3.629,443 $47 ,591 so 2203 DRF.W MONTICELLO 2.137 57 2,128.17 (9.40 -0.44% $6,173.807 S6,707.646 S82.688 S50,857 2301 FA\\JLKNER CONWAY 7,141 52 7.365 57 224 05 3.14% S18.063,372 S20,290.719 so so 2303 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 2,015 78 2,082.74 6696 3.32% S6.497 ,965 S7, 128.424 S190.242 S57.428 2304 FA\\JLKNER GUY-PERKINS 271 .96 291 90 1994 7.33% S884.028 S997,906 so S12.834 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 815.11 861 .46 46.35 5.69% S2,607, 185 S2.852,496 S99,563 S22,781 2306 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA 346 72 364 99 18.27 5 27% S1 .053.849 S1.155.81J S26.152 S2.834 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA 2,024.48 2,166 28 141 .80 7 00% S6,962.519 S7.619,846 S13.976 S70,726 2401 FRANKLIN AL TIIS -OENNING 278 88 278 08 (080 -029% S687.461 S678.552 so S3,550 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 804 07 794 06 (10.01 -1 24% S2,304.242 S2.500.026 S34 .0J0 S21 ,992 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE 590 22 593 52 J JO 056% S1 ,558.842 S1 .659.994 S65,085 S16,49J 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK 1,515 45 1,561 54 46 09 J 04% SJ,913.415 S4 .400.107 S114 ,560 so 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 272.16 279 751 7 57 2 78% S793,468 $818,827 so S11 , 14J 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING 506 71 489 29 (17 42 .J 44% $1 ,697,554 Sl .563,435 $30.7591 so 2502 FULTON SALEM 767 56 754 661 (12 92 -1 68% $2,333.839 S2.348, 127 $55,2481 so 2503 FULTON VIOLA 457.36 466 45 909 199% Sl ,383,916 Sl ,416.903 S46.3271 so 2601 GARLANO CUTTER-MORNING ST 53668 563 14 26 46 4 93% S1 ,533.986 Sl,702.629 S32.7861 so ?602 GARLANO FOUNTAIN LAKE 1.108 61 1,120 11 1 11 50 1 04% S603, 141 Sl .247.271 1 soi S50,682 2fi03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 3.437 66 3.327 15 (110 51 -3 21% S6.688.675 S6,938,622 sol S32.216 2f\u003e04 GARLAND 1 .IESSIEVILLE 638 69 690 39 51 70 809% S379,899 S546,451 so so 2fi05 GARLAND I AKE HAMIL TON 3.353 24 3.471 02 117 78 3 51% S9.168,774 St0.559,526 S169.892 SS0.965 2f,()6 GARLAND 11 AKESIDE 2.330 98 2.433 74 102 76 4 41% SS.0116.106 S6.510.4CM so S70.792 2607 GARLA~b I MOI /Nl AIN PINE 651 76 696 19 44 43 6 82% S 1,790.5731 S2.077,428 S73.2?5 Sl9,074 2703 GRANT ' l 'OYFN 404 03 443 101 39 07 967% Sl ,439.850  S1,599,382 so S15,036 7705 GRANT , s ,trmDAN 3,72006 3,811 27 91 21 2 45% S 10,262.59 11; S11 .807.650 S4 22.7461 S77 ,375 2801 GREENE I \u003eELAPLAINE 304 98 296 951 (8 OJ -2 63% S924.048 Sl.022,272 S23.952 1' S29,357 21103 GREENE \\MAnMADUKE 695 90 701 9111 6 08 0 87% S2.11l 1.4117 I S2.381 ,055 s 110.2r,4 $36,728 21107 GREENE !' ;RF.ENE CTY TECHNIC 2,412 98 2.429 11 16 13 067% $7.076,230 S7,795.716 S299,907 $59.046 21106 GREENE NE ARKANSAS 2.720 46 2.781 61 1 61 15 2 25% $7 ,477,732 S7 ,813,828 S 103,726 so 2901 HEMPSTEAD RLEVINS 530 54 556 75 26 21 4 94% S 1.5118.980 Sl.728,237 so so 2903 ,HEMPSTEAD HOPE 3.143 55 3.109 78 (33 77 -1 07% S8.728.936 S9, 176.445 S309.298 so 2905 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 28660 266 54 1 (20 06 .7 00% Sllll5.494 S728.559 so so - - - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96TO97 WK4 ..) a.. FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CIIANGE CHANGE LEA 1 COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 2002 ! OAI LAS ,FORDYCE $45.697 $8fl.909 $4 .JAfl.G!ll $504.7AA 1:100% $7 .9951 ' 2003 j OALI AS 'SPARKMAN $14 .334 $46.696 $897.30'1 ($10.227 -113% 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY $58.890 $0 $200.842 $44 .239 28 25% i 2102 Dr-SHA DELTA SPECIAL $35.143 $34.341 $2.358 S739.940 ($72.52fl -8 93%1 2104 DESHA DUMAS $124.930 $6.850.018 $245.7951 3 72% 2105 OF.SHA MCGEHEE $130.606 $4.771.062 $538.750 , 12 73%1 2202 DREW DREW CENTRAL $86.641 S63, 181 S3.826,856 S247.769: 692%1 2203 OREW MONTICELLO S11 .008 S142.668 S6.994,867 S821 .060 13 30% 2]01 FAIILKNER CONWAY S392,437 S20.683. 156 S2.619.784 14 50% , 2303 FAllLKNFR GREENBRIER $14 ,039 S263.174 $7,653.307 S1 .155.342 j 11 7fl I 2304 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS $19,746 S4 ,657 Sl ,035.143 S151 .1151 17 09 ! 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER S62.713 S3,037,553 $430.368 1651% 2]06 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA $34,329 so S1 ,219.128 $165,279 1568% 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA $13,862 S330.229 $8,048.639 $1 ,086,120 1560% 2401 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING S1,817 S8,328 $692,247 $4,766 069% 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON S31, 136 $2,587,186 $282,944 12 28% 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE $36.925 $21,811 $1 ,800,308 $241.466 1549 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK S12.843 S89,227 $4,616,737 $703,322 17 97% 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW S13.499 S19,280 $2.930 $865,679 $72,191 910 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING $17 ,500 $30.925 $18.090 $1 .660,709 ($36.845 -2 17% 2502 FULTON SALEM $57.941 $76.728 $2,538.044 $204,205 8 75% 2503 FULTON VIOLA S66.193 S14 .007 $1,543.430 $159,514 11 .53% 2601 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING ST $3,426 $35.886 $1 ,774,727 $240,741 1569% 2602 GARLAND FOlJNTAIN LAKE S2.885 so $1,300,838 $497,697 61 97% 2fi0] GARLAND HOT SPRINGS I $15.915 $6,986,753 $298,078 4 46% 7604 GARLAND I.IESSIEVILLE S43.519 so $589,970 $210,071 55 30% 2605 GARLAND LAKE HAMIL TON S32.791 S218.597 S11 ,031 ,771 $1,862,997 20 32% 2606 GARLAND LAKFSIDE S68.542 $6.649,7:18 S1 ,563,632 30 74 2607 GARLAr-:ID MOlJNT AIN PINE S36,304 S41 ,398 S2.247.429 S456,856 25 51% 2703 GRANT POYEN $73,962 S15,930 so S1.704 .310 $264,460 18 37% 2705 GRANT SHFRIOAN S109.399 S247,550I S12,664 ,720 $2,402,129 23 41 2801 GREENE IDELAPtAINE S 14.953 SfiR.756 so S1,159,290 $235,242 25 46%1 2803 GREENE 1MARMADUKE S24,987 S51 ,2221 S2,604 ,256 $422,769 1938%1 2807 GREENE ;\u003c;REENE CTY TECHNIC $53,012 S175,666 S8,:J83.347 $1 ,307,117 11147%1 2fl0R GREFNE IN E ARKANSAS S97.750 S8,015.304 S537,572 7 19%1 2901IHEMPSTEAO ,1LEVINS $39.444 S15,468 S1,78J.149 S194.169 12 22% 2903 HEMPSTEAD IHOPE $]1 ,0131 S201 ,4fl0 S9,6R7 .2231 S958,287 10 9fl I 7905 HEMPSTEAD \\SARATOGA S58.203 i S6,97R Sll24 ,7~,3 . (S60,741 -6fl6% ! - - I. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 ci.. ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT JQ hlQ STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I I 2906 HrMf'SlEAO Sf'RING HILL 412 94 451 31 38 37 9 29%1 S1.J1Ul33 Sl .534.083 S 14.6201 S4 48111 3001 HOI SPRING OISMARCK 903.40 943 59 40 19 4 45% S2.703.39'l $3.045.087, S 161l.073 S19,0801 3002 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 961 .08 983 79 22 71 2 36% S3.043.974 S3,422.231 Sl 1,706 S43,799 3003 IIOT SPRING MAGNET COVE 677 77 723 38 45 61 6.73% S1 .644.850 S2,035.675 so S20.283 I 3004 HOT Sf'RING MALVERN 2,722 49 2,653 75 (68.74 -2 52% S7.605,392 S7 ,796.149 S255.556 3005 HOT SPRING OUACHITA 40997 381 .77 (28.20 -6 88% Sl ,267,543 S1.217.545 S17.777 $4,65so7l 3102 HOWARD ll)IERKS 60801 627.89 19.88 3.27% Sl.473.910 Sl ,719.922 S18,321 so 3104 HOWARD MINERAL SPGS 535.46 531 65 (3 81 -0.71% S 1.673.781 Sl,737,894 so sol 3105 HOWARO NASHVILLE 1,837.78 1,841 .52 3.74 0 20% S4 ,897,393 S5.335.245 S148,958 so 3106 HOWARO UMf'IRE 112 94 108 55 (4 39 -3 89% S277,089 S211 .505 so so 3201 INDEPENDEN BATESVILLE 2.282 37 2.249 88 (32 49 -1 42% S5.676.270 S6.172.829 S167,481 so 3202 INOEPENOEN CORD-CHARLOTTE 28941 292 88 3 47 1 20% S920.774 S929.268 S20.874 so 3203 INDEPENDEN CUSHMAN 36540 388 50 23 10 6 32% S1.448,487 Sl ,355.848 S3.080 S6,649 3206 INOEPENDEN NEWARK 751 43 747 74 (3 69 -049% S575.930 so S27.187 so 3209 INDEPENOEN SOUTH SIDE 1,379 42 1,363 53 (1589 -115% S5,068, 173 S4,598.882 S92, 188 so 3210 INDEPENDEN SULPHUR ROCK 282 90 295 10 12 20 4 31% S479,934 S573.817 so S7 ,882 3211 INDEPENDEN MIDLAND 673 72 683 72 1000 148% S2.448.494 S2,286.734 S64 .637 so 3301 IZARD C:AUCOROCK 503 85 513 35 9 50 1 89% S1 ,607,127 S1 ,662.308 so S18.6591 3302 IZARD MELBOURNE 545 12 538 45 (667 -1 22% Sl,525,610 Sl ,534.140 S24 ,156 so, 3303 IZARO MOUNT PLEASANT 280 41 301 65 21 24 7 57% S897,039 S923,852 S10,376 so' 3306 IZARO IZARO COl INTY 622 41 66206 3965 6 37% S1.68J,788 Sl,841 ,655 S48.567 so 3403 JACKSON NEWPORT 2,12039 2,087 41 (32 98 -1.56% S5,850,617 S5,574.888 S7 .138 sol 3404 JACKSON SWIFTON 260 45 264 05 360 1 38% S681,928 S820.616, so S11.185j 3405 /.IACKSON .IACKSON COUNTY 663 60 66064 (2 96 -0 45% Sl.714,539 S1,736,JOO S60.970 so, 3501 JEFFERSON AL THEIMER UNIFIED 724 92 715 31 (9 61 -1 33% S2,0J0,959 Sl,946.189 so  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1672","title":"Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1672"],"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":["26 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release four-year-old seats; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, two orders; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript 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 v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORma INTERvENoRs INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE FOUR-YEAR OLD SEATS For its motion to release four-year old seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD has encouraged parents to register their children for four-year old seats during the regular registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 is a partial list of those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the information contained in LRSD's quarterly program planning and budget documents, status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although most of the schools with four-year old programs have racially balanced programs with no vacancies, seats are available in some four-year old programs and no white students are - on the waiting lists for those programs. The vacancies are shown on Exhibit 2 attached to this motion, which is titled \"1997-98 FourYear Old Applications.\" LRSD seeks permission to fill the vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting lists. 4. LRSD endeavored to register as many new white students as possible in its four-year old programs. Most of those programs are racially balanced. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant four-year old program seats for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~:~ Christo:~------ Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release FourYear Old Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 - August 25, 1997 To: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment From: Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Efforts For Four-Year-Old Seats January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. January 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting, resulting in a number of west Little Rock parents applying for four-year-old programs and kindergarten. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. 6 Mailed registration packets to: 7 10 13-14 14 14 16 16-17 16 17 18 21 21 24 27 27 28 30 31 135 Childcare Centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Gave presentation to HIPPY staff Taped promo for Channel 11, \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through Alliance for Our Public Schools Presented at Early Childhood meeting Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jackson. Mailed 400 brochures to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Participated in Saturday Mall show Registration begins through Jan. 31 . Provided information to Christ Temple Church Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Assist Rainey Realty Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Open House, Elementary Area . Participate in Arkansas Legislative Day on Education with PT A Assist Mc eil Smith Realtors February 3 Evening presentation to network of Executive Women 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty EXHIBIT 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 19 20 21 24 24 March 3 4 4 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 April Report to Biracial Committee Parent Involvement meeting Work with CARE office Attend Saturday, Title 1 Parent Involvement program Report to Early Childhood board on 4-year-old registration HIPPY board meeting Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children 's Hospital Meet with PCS SD PT A parents Work with McKay Realty Meet with Janet Jones Realty Meet with NLR PT A parents Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mail assignment letters Report to Biracial Committee Assist Howell Realtors Assembly for Success Assisted Grobmyer Realty Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow, new relocation specialist for RPM Realty Worked with Barbara Sumpter, new relocation specialist for Entergy Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting. 1 Kids Count meeting 8 Early Childhood Advocacy Committee 8 PTA Council, Dunbar 8 Meeting at Clinton Elementary 9 Work with Fair Park parents on recruitment 14 Kids Count meeting 15 Four-year-old assignments mailed 15 Worked with Fair Park parents on recruitment May Worked with !!!illlY parents who did not get into 4-year-old program offering assistance and information to best serve those students. 15 PT A Council Gibbs 15 Mailed letters to all parents of white 4-year-old students who did not get into a school of their choice, offering seats in schools with vacancies June 4 Report to Biracial Committee 5 Arranged for and provided program for mid-west Little Rock parents meeting at Books A Million in the evening - 16 July 2 3 7 8 15 16 23 Gained approval to purchase ad in Kids Directory and provided copy emphasizing Incentive schools and four-year-old program Full page ad purchased to run full month in Kids Directory Prepared Four-Year-Old flyer Met with Hispanic organization informing them of programs offered Mailed letters to white PCS SD parents who did not get into program at King or Rockefeller offering other schools with vacancies Notified Communications to prepare \"Check In\" flyers and posters Arranged tour of Rightsell for PCS SD white parents, enrolling 4. Wrote article about school programs for Central Hispanic Newsletter Mailed information letters and flyers to: 68 Childcare centers 33 Community leaders 86 Churches 29 Kids Count Coalition meeting, announced white seats available in program 30 Displayed \"Check In\" posters throughout the city in grocery stores, etc. August 1 Worked with Parents for Public Schools in providing information for Parent Connection hotline We continue to accept applications for P4 program and process and assign all that we can in schools that have vacancies. All white students are advised as to openings that may be available at this time and toured if not convinced. Forms were sent to all schools with P4 so they could FAX in any drops they might find as people checkin. Vacancies are then filled from the waiting lists according to the race of the child who is not coming this year. Sheet1 1997-98 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS NAME OF SCHOOL ENROLLED WAITING LIST BL NBL TOTAL CAPACITY VACANCIE~ %BLACK BL NBL Badgett 18 2 20 36 16 90% 8 0 Bale 18 18 36 36 0 50% 58 4 Baseline 18 9 27 36 9 67% 86 0 Brady 9 9 18 18 0 50% 91 36 Chicot 18 18 36 36 0 50% 72 3 Cloverdale 18 7 25 36 11 72% 88 0 Fair Park 18 18 36 36 0 50% 50 20 Franklin 36 21 57 72 15 50% 82 0 Garland 9 2 11 18 7 82% 42 0 Geyer Springs 18 18 36 36 0 50% 82 5 Martin L. King 36 36 72 72 0 50% 260 52 Mabelvale 9 9 18 18 0 50% 52 4 Mitchell 9 3 12 18 6 75% 71 0 Rightsell 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 0 Rockefeller 27 27 54 54 0 50% 140 20 Romine 18 18 36 36 0 50% 92 7 Washington 27 27 54 54 0 50% 104 7 Watson 18 4 22 36 14 82% 52 0 Wilson 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 4 Woodruff 18 18 36 36 0 50% 27 10 *Clinton 25 0 25 25 0 100% 15 0 *Crystal Hill 32 0 32 32 0 100% 36 0 TOTAL 417 282 699 777 78 1648 172 *denote Pulaski Countv Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 1997 EASTERN DIST~~CT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for August, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 29, 1997 Based on the information available at July 31, 1997, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 97/98, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-86JtECE.1\\fED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1997 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA Introduction The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") recently filed - its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the consolidated appeals concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. In the concluding paragraphs of that brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the ADE contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 ADE App. Br. at p. 24, attached to motion as Exhibit 2. [Emphasis supplied.] 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". Agreement at~ L, page 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 1. 1 Contrary to the ADE's assertion that the PCSSD was a ''winner\", and as it will demonstrate below, the PCSSD lost over $5,000,000 this past year because of the new funding system. The ADE also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic) equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors are equally blunt in their argument to the Court of Appeals: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. App. Br. at p. 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 3. The PCSSD accepts the challenge of the ADE and the 111 school districts to scrutinize the effect of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate that the new funding system as a whole is unfair to the PCSSD and violates the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court. 2 Effects of the New System The PCSSD has now obtained updated information from the Arkansas Department of Education which demonstrates precisely how all major categories of State aid were distributed for the 1996- 97 school year. This document, attached to the Stewart Affidavit as Exhibit \"A\", compares all major categories of total State aid from the 1995-96 fiscal year to the 1996-97 fiscal year. 2 Stewart Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4. This comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net growth in State aid of 1.12% this past year as compared to the previous year. Overall, however, the average increase in State aid per school district for this past year was 12.09% before adjustment is made for the PCSSD. When the PCSSD is removed from the calculation, the average overall state increase becomes 12.64%. The Case Law and the Settlement Agreement Prohibit this Disparity As this Court observed in its order of April 22, 1997 regarding health insurance: The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, \"so long as the change is, in the words of the settlement agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'\" . . . . \"So long as the change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Order, pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted) [Emphasis supplied.] 2This Exhibit A is essentially an updated version of the - analysis accepted by the District Court on February 18, 1997. 3 In commenting further upon the disparity that actually resulted from the funding system, this Court quoted the Court of Appeals' conclusion that: This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than the other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Order, p. 4. (Citation omitted). The Disparity Is Immense Of the 111 Intervening School Districts, over one-half have 1996-97 State aid outcomes which are right at or which greatly exceed the state average of a 12.09% increase. 3 As drawn from Exhibit A to Dr. Stewart's Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4, they are as follows: District Fountain Lake Alread Carthage Bentonville Gillett Biggers-Reyno Greenland Yellville-Summit Leslie Junction City Nettleton White Hall Valley Springs Greenwood Increase Over 1995-96 61.97 51. 42 41.08 37.35 36.98 35.75 29.45 27.94 27.12 24.45 24.34 24. 04 23.69 23.34 3Anticipating that the Intervenors may once again make their Parade Magazine argument concerning \"averages\", it should be observed that the Blevins School District, one of the Intervenors, had a statistical increase which is right at the state average and that the Magazine District experienced a State aid increase almost precisely that of the state average when the PCSSD is removed from the calculation. See, infra, p. 5. 4 - - Beebe 22.81 Greene County Technical 18.47 Lavaca 18.30 Ashdown 18.25 Wonderview 18.09 Ozark 17.97 Weiner 17.38 Glen Rose 17.11 Guy-Perkins 17.09 Stuttgart 17.06 Manila 17.03 Alma 16.80 Van Buren 16.73 Mayflower 16.51 Jonesboro 16.18 Pocahontas 16.10 Centerpoint 16.08 Crossett 15.79 Cutter-Morning Star 15.69 County Line 15.49 Winslow 15.30 Oden 14.48 Marion 14.33 Batesville 14.01 Rural Special 13 .44 Wickes 13. 33 Marshall 13. 05 Waldron 13. 02 McGehee 12.73 Magazine 12.67 Smackover 12.34 West Fork 12.32 Charleston 12.28 Blevins 12.22 Booneville 11. 90 So. Conway Co. 11. 31 Green Forest 11. 22 Bryant 10.98 Prairie Grove 10.69 Searcy 10. 52 4 Pulaski County Special 1. 26 4This group of intervening districts is 90.71 white at the elementary level and 91.07 white at the secondary level. See Exhibit 5 attached to motion. 5 Fiscal Crisis Relief Funding The Court will further see from an examination of Exhibit \"A\" that many districts, including many of the intervening districts, received fiscal crisis relief funding as well as fiscal crisis relief funding for transportation. On January 22, 1997, the PCSSD sought an enlargement of time from the State to submit its application for fiscal crisis relief funding. See Exhibit \"8\". The State has distributed all $10,000,000 appropriated for fiscal crisis relief funding for this school year. The PCSSD received no response to its application for an enlargement of time. In the Court's order of February 18, 1997 dealing with separate funding issues, this Court stated the following: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996- 97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. The figures that this Court found persuasive were that the PCSSD would receive $3,462,880 less in 1996-97 under Act 917 than it would have received had Act 34 remained the law. The difference became $4,479,527 if the State added more money to the Act 34 formula. See PCSSD brief dated November 18, 1996 at pp. - 3-4 and Exhibit \"A\" to that brief. 6 When the PCSSD prepared these estimates last November, it assumed initially that only $56,000,000 would be added to the equalization formula. That resulted in the decrease of $3,462,880. The decrease of $4,479,527 resulted from the PCSSD assumption, made then, that $80,000,000 might be added to the formula. In fact, with final figures now available, $142,672,000 was in fact added to the formula or available for distribution to school districts. Had Act 34 been in existence, the State would have used approximately $9,911,000 of that increased amount to fund increases in teacher retirement and health insurance, leaving $132,760,638 available for distribution through the Act 34 formula. See Stewart Affidavit5 , attached to motion as Exhibit 4. Utilizing the actual new money that was added to the formula after controlling for teacher retirement and health insurance increases, and utilizing the same methodology that the PCSSD used in Exhibit \"A\" from last November, the PCSSD calculates its actual loss for 1996-97 to be $5,631,491. That is, if Act 34 had remained in operation for this past school year, and utilizing the actual addition to the formula of $132,760,636, the PCSSD lost over $5,600,000 under Act 917 as compared to Act 34. 5This is essentially the same affidavit and calculations, now updated, which the District Court found persuasive on February 18, 1997. To the extent necessary, the PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material and undisputed facts, prior affidavits, and the prior findings of this Court. 7 At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. The State has represented to the Court of Appeals that: [t]he three Districts emerged from the change in the funding system unscathed. In fact, from a state aid perspective the three Districts benefited from the passage of Act 917 when compared to 1995-96, the last year of operation of the old Act 34 system ... For 1996-97 PCSSD received approximately $700,000 more in state aid than it did for the 1995-96 school year. ADE App. Br. at pp. 8-9, attached to motion as Exhibit 6. The fashion in which the State compared aid outcomes for 1995-96 against 1996-97 is meaningless. What must be compared, as the PCSSD has done supra, are aid outcomes comparing 1996-97 State aid under Act 917 versus Act 34 utilizing 1996-97 funding levels for each Act. Thus, the State's boast that PCSSD benefited to the extent of $700,000 becomes picayunish when the proper analysis is made. The District Court has already rejected the $700,000 claim by the State, see Order dated February 18, 1997 at p. 12, attached to motion as Exhibit 7 and, since the calculation by the State was made in December, 1996, it included the $81,000 in growth funding that the State later took away from the PCSSD as we point out infra at page 9. Further, in the same order, in the context of considering the teacher retirement issue, this Court held: Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\", 8 however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Throughout these proceedings, the State and Intervenors have consistently argued that the changes in State aid should be viewed as a whole, not piecemeal. They have also argued that when the entire system is considered, the Pulaski County school districts fare better under the new system than under the old. With the fiscal year now ended, the PCSSD can conclusively demonstrate that the State's argument, as to the PCSSD, is simply wrong. As observed above, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 under the new system as compared to the old. It trails in the wake of more than one-half of the intervening school districts, was not considered for the fiscal crisis relief funding or extra transportation aid that was lavished upon the wealthy Newark School District (indeed its application for an extension of the deadline was not even acknowledged), and is basically being penalized because it votes one of the highest millages in the state, thus reducing its State aid entitlement under the new scheme. In contrast, Newark, which is either the wealthiest or second wealthiest district in the State, received additional base funding, fiscal crisis relief funding and extra transportation funding. (See Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 to motion at pp. 7 and 8. It qualified for this State aid because it only levies local taxes of approximately one-half those voted in the PCSSD. How can it plausibly be argued by the State that the adjustments it - has made to the formula are \"fair and rational\", at least to the 9 - extent they affect the PCSSD, a relatively poor district, so negatively? The State Revoked the PCSSD Growth Funding Earlier this year, the PCSSD unsuccessfully sought to persuade this Court, via motion for summary judgment, . to restore loss funding. In its response dated February 10, 1997, the State jabbed the PCSSD's claim for the restoration of loss funding stating: in a crowning bid of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the \"reinstatement\" of loss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. The State did pay growth funding to the PCSSD for a period of time, but then revoked it. Despite the rhetorical theatrics of the State noted above, the State did on June 13, 1997 request return of the $81,000 it had paid the PCSSD as \"growth funding\". See Exhibit C attached to motion as Exhibit 4. The PCSSD immediately complied and returned the money. Once again, while not sought directly by this motion, the PCSSD ended the year where it has been for the last several years, a candidate for loss funding with no loss funding available. As a relatively poor school district, should not the PCSSD reasonably expect to be treated at least as well as the average school district in Arkansas, especially when the \"average\" school district has none of the extra commitments and expenditures that the PCSSD has, as repeatedly pointed out by this Court? 10 Conclusion The Intervening Districts have, of course, intervened to protect their gains at the Court of Appeals level and seek intervention again to protect their gains in light of the latest order of this Court. The PCSSD is a relatively poor district when compared to all other school districts in the state of Arkansas. It asks only to be brought up to the state-wide average, i.e., that it be funded to the same degree, as the average school district in Arkansas fared under the new formula. This adjustment will not totally ameliorate for the PCSSD's high special education costs, its loss of loss funding, cuts in residential treatment aid, etc., but it will lend some equity to a situation that is inequitable on its - face, a situation which violates the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court requiring that the Arkansas Department of Education correct its 1996-97 overall State-aid to obtain the result of the same average increase as experienced by the average school district in Arkansas, or, in the alternative, for the sums it would have received in 1996-97 under Act 34. 11 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 2-, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J ,J hslOS0.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANsPI LED Or-FlCE OF A WESTERN DIVISION u.s. DISTRICT ccuRTnE~tGREGATION MONITORING W E.A.STE;;N CISTRICT ARK.A:'L ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 51997 PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;;;:;::;-;O:E;P;\". CELEoRiKi PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HAVE SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion arises out of the alleged \"misfeasance and malfeasance of the [Southwest Junior High School) principal, Dr. Walter Marchalek (sic).\" Joshua's Motion, 1 1. Dr. Marshaleck' s competency to perform his duti es is an individual personnel matter. Consistent with this Court's past practice, LRSD respectfully requests that it be permitted to address this matter in accordance with its own internal processes. See Order filed Jan. 23, 1997, Docket No. 2915, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be dismissed without a hearing. 2. LRSD admits that late summer changes in Southwest's master schedule resulted in approximately 80 registered students not having a schedule on the first day of classes. To accommodate these students, Dr. Marshaleck planned to provide hand-written schedules to these students upon arrival. This effort was slowed by the illness of Southwest's registrar who missed the first three days of school. Southwest's attendance secretary was also absent the first day of school due to illness. The effort was further complicated by the arrival of approximately 60 students not previously registered to attend Southwest. These students also needed schedules. Students without schedules were supervised in the cafeteria without incident. Every effort was made, including 16-hour workdays, to provide all students with schedules as quickly as possible. All Southwest students had schedules and were attending class by August 27, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 3. LRSD denies that \"numerous\" students were \"misassigned\" by Dr. Marshaleck. LRSD admits that one special education student was erroneously assigned to a gifted and talented class as a result - of a data entry error. First priority was given to students with no schedules. As soon as all students had schedules, work began on correcting scheduling errors. The special education student's schedule was corrected on August 28, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 4. LRSD admits the allegation set forth in paragraph 3 of Joshua's Motion. Individualized education plans are only prepared for special education students. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Joshua's Motion. 2 6. LRSD admits that one student was slightly injured during an altercation with another student which occurred while a teacher left a class unattended. This was against LRSD policy and appropriate action has been taken in response to this incident. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 7. LRSD admits that students without schedules were not receiving instruction. LRSD denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Joshua's Motion. The teaching staff at Southwest has been asked to make every effort to ensure that students who were assigned to class late do not fall behind. 8. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Joshua's Motion. 9. LRSD admits that it was aware of the scheduling problem at Southwest. LRSD believes it responded appropriately by making additional personnel available to assist Southwest, and the problem has now been resolved. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 10. LRSD denies the allegations  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_113","title":"Memos received","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":["1997-09","1997-10","1997-11","1997-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Memos received"],"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/113"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["memorandums"],"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     ADE Memos - Received 9-17-97 To Provide Financial Incentives for National Baord Certification of Teachers Public Hearing Transfers of Students/Relations with other Schools Petition for Transfer of Students Special Education Programs Special Education Program Approval and Required Data Collection Relations with Election Authorities Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Research/ Administrator Reports Title I, ESEA Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution Tuition/ Administration of Nonresident Students Tuition Agreement Form Special Education Programs Public Hearing: Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation  Arkansas Young Writer's Award Winners Celebration of Young Readers and Writers Banquet  Curriculum Development, Adoption and Review Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682--i-P.\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: ACC-98-023 Page: 1 of 4 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Subject: To Provide Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers Regulatory Authority: Act 1225 of 1997 Contact Person: Skip Hibblen, Coordinator Professional Licensure Index Code: GCFC Phone No: (501) 682-4342 The 1997 Arkansas Act 1225 outlined procedures for the Arkansas Department of Education to provide financial incentives for National Board's certification of teachers. The attached rules and regulations have been approved by the State Board of Education at it's September 8, 1997 meeting and have been properly filed. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chalnnan-WILLIAM B. FISHER, ParacoaW  VluChainnan- LUKE GORDY, Van Bun,n Memben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., FJ Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXOr., Arkadelphia JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttle Rock  ANITA YATES, BaatonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer I ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS To Provide for Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations to Provide for Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Act 1225 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth regulations to provide for financial incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers. - 3.00 Definitions 3.01 NBPTS: National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. 4.00 Eligibility Requirements 4.01 Application shall be made to the Office of Teacher Education and Licensure for petition of state funding. Components of the application shall include: a) proof of possession of a valid Arkansas teaching license, b) proof of three (3) or more years of teaching experience in an Arkansas public school, and c) proof of formal application to the NBPTS. 4.02 Shall NOT have previously received state funding for participation in any area in the NBPTS program. 4.03 Applications will be funded on a \"first-come, first serve\" basis. 5.00 Payment of fees 5.01 Shall apply only to the extent that funds are appropriated to the Department of Education. 5.02 The Department of Education shall pay one-half() of the NBPTS participation fee. 5.03 Other assistance, if determined to be necessary by the Department of Education, may include substitute pay for a maximum of three (3) days of approved paid leave for teacher participating in the NBPTS program. Repayment of Moneys 6.01 Repayment of state moneys for the NBPTS participation fee is required if recipient: (a) does not complete the certification process, or (b) after completing the certification does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous school years. 6.02 Repayment of moneys is not required due to: (a) death or disability of teacher, or - (b) other extenuating circumstances as may be recognized by the State Board of Education. ACT 1225 OF 1997 \"AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ( .. NBPTS\") was established in 1987 as an independent nonprofit organization to establish high and rigorous standards for teachers\nto develop and operate a national voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards\nand advance related education reforms for the purpose_of improving student learning in the United States. In order to apply for the NBPTS certification process, the NBPTS requires teachers to have three (3) years or more of teaching experience, to have graduated from an accredited college or university. and to possess a valid state teaching license. A teacher may become NBPTS certified by successfully completing a year-long  certification process in which the teacher must develop a portfolio of student work and videotapes of teaching and learning activities for NBPTS review. participate in the NBPTS assessment center simulation exercises, and successfully pass an examination testing content knowledge. SECTION 2. (a) The State Department of Education shall pay one-half (1/2) of the NBPTS participation fee and provide, if determined to be necessary by the State Department of Education, substitute pay for a maximum of three (3) days of approved paid leave for teachers participating in .the NBPTS program. A teacher shall have completed at least three (3) years teaching in the Arkansas public school system before applying for NBPTS assistance under this act, and shall not have previously received state funding for participation in any certification area in the NBPTS program. (b) A teacher who receives state moneys for the NBPTS participation fee, but who does not complete the certification process or who becomes certified buf does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous schoo~years after receiving the NBPTS certification, shall repay the state the amount it contributed to the NBPTS participation fee. (1) Repayment of moneys contributed by the state are not required if the teacher does not complete the NBPTS certification process or does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous school years after completing the certification process due to the death or disability of the teacher or other-extenuating circumstances as may be recognized by the State Board of Education. (c) Provisions of this act shall apply only to-the extent that funds are app~ated to the Department of Education to pay for these provisions. SECTION 3. Codification aause SECTION 4. Severability aause SECTION S. Repealing aause Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK AR KAN ~A~ 722ul - l 07 l  ( ~Ul J h~~ --l~ 75 RAYMOND SIMON. Director NO: FIN-98-115 Page: 1 0f 1 Date: September 11. 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Other Educational Agencies Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Public Hearing Index Code: BEE Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Funding to Isolated School Districts Proposed Rules and Regulations Related_to General Facilities Funding Proposed Rules and Regulations Related to Growth Facilities Funding Proposed Rules and Regulations Related to Student Growth Funding Proposed Revisions to the Rules and Regulations Governing Special Education Expenditure Requirements Regulatory Authority: Act 1307 of 1997 Section 2 (17) (28), Act 1318 of 1997, Acts 197 and 1194 of 1995, Ark_ Code Ann.  6-20-303 as amended by Act 1307 of 1997 Contact Person: John Kunkel Diane Sydoriak Phone No: 682-4258 Phone No: 682-4221 NOTICE: The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Finance and Administration, will hold a public hearing on Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Criteria Used to Identify and Distribute Funding to Isolated School Districts\nGrowth Facilities Funding\nStudent Grow1h Funding\nand Proposed Revisions to the Rules and Regulations Governing Special Education Expenditure Requirements. The public hearing will be held Tuesday, September 30, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in the auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building, #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas. Copies of the proposed rules and regulations are attached. Written comments from the public will be accepted until Monday, October 13, l 997 _ Those comments should be sent to: John Kunkel. Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 STATt\nBOARD OF F:DIJCATION : f'halnnan - WILLIAM ll t\"JSHER, Paraiould  Vke Chairman LI 1,.t I_. RI)\\ I  ,, u,,,en M\u0026lt;mben: EDWIN 8. ALDERSON, ,JR., El Dorado  CARLE RAl:GETT, Roin  JoNELL CALDWELL, llryant  MARThA IJl\u0026gt;,.U.\"\\, Arkot1p1u .JAMES McLARTY 111, Nowport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~h  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR.. Texarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Littl\u0026lt; Rock  ANITA YATES, S.ntonW An Equal Opportunity Employ\u0026lt;r 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Isolated Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of funding to Isolated School Districts in accordance with Act 1381 of 1997 and Ark~sas Code Annotated  6-20-303 (17) as amended by Section 2 (17) of Act 1307 of 1997. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (1995 Supp.). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to establish criteria by which a school district may choose the basis for calculation of the district's isolated funding and to establish a isolated funding factor. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Isolated Funding - The state financial aid provided to local school districts with an average daily membership of less than three hundred fifty (350) from funds made available for that purpose. 3.02 Isolated Funding Factor - A factor calculated by dividing the isolated funding by the total amount qualifying school districts would be eligible to receive based on the calculation of aid as defined by law. 4.00 Selection of Method of Calculation 4.01 School districts with an ADM of less than 350 will not be required to apply for isolated funding as established by Arkansas Code Annotated  6-20-303 (17) as amended by Section 2 (17) of Act 1307 of 1997. 4.02 School districts which may elect to qualify for isolated funding as provided in Act 1318 of 1997 shall apply to the Department of Education. 5.00 Application for Aid 5.01 School districts applications to qualify for isolated funding, in accordance with Act 1318 of 1997, shall be on forms provided by the Arkansas Department of Education. 5.02 Applications to qualify for isolated funding are due by May 15, preceding the school - year for which Isolated Funding is to be provided. 5.03 The Department of Education shall review all applications for isolated status to determine compliance with all eligibility criteria. 6.00 Funding Distribution 6.01 Isolated funding shall be calculated as defined by law. 6.02 Funds shall be distributed by multiplying each qualifying school district's isolated funding by the Isolated Funding Factor. 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of General Facility Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of General Facility Funding. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-301 et seq. (Supp. 1995). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to provide the calculation for distribution of General Facility Funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Average Daily Membership (ADM) - The total number of days attended plus the total number of days absent by students in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12) during the first three quarters of the previous school year, divided by the number of school days actually taught in the school district during that period of time I rounded up to the nearest hundredth. 3.02 Base Local Revenue Per Student - The revenue per student to which the state equalizes calculated by taking the sum of the total available State aid for State Equalization Funding per student and ninety-eight (98%) of the base millage times the total state assessed valuation, and seventy-five (75%) of miscellaneous funds collected in the previous year, divided by the total state ADM. 3.03 General Facility Funding -The amount of funds budgeted by the State Board in any specified year provided to qualifying school districts for the purchase of school buses, furniture, equipment, computer software or renovation or repairs of existing facilities. 3.04 General Facility Funding Factor - The amount of funding per Average Daily Membership (ADM) not to exceed a rate established by the State Board of Education. 3.05 Local Revenue Per Student-In each year, ninety-eight percent (98%) of the amount of revenue available, whether or not collected, in a local school district, solely from the levy of the uniform rate of tax, plus seventy-five percent (75%) of the average miscellaneous funds collected in the previous five (5) years or previous year 4.00 3.05 Local Revenue Per Student (Continued) whichever is less divided by the average daily membership of such local school district for the previous year. 3.06 Miscellaneous Funds - Those funds received by a local school district from federal forest reserves, federal grazing rights, federal mineral rights, federal impact aid, federal flood control, wildlife refuge funds, severance taxes, funds received by the district in lieu of taxes, and local sales and use tax dedicated to education pursuant to 26-74-201 et seq., 26-74-301 et seq.,  26-75-301 et seq., and 14-164-301 et seq .. 3.07 Qualifying School Districts - The school districts having a Department of Education approved facilities needs assessment justification. 3.08 State Equalization Funding Per Student - The amount of state financial aid per ADM provided to each local school district calculated by subtracting the Local Revenue Per Student from the Base Local Revenue Per Student. 3.09 State Wealth Index - The result of one ( 1) minus the ratio of local revenue per student divided by state equalization funding per student. Calculation 4.01 For districts qualifying for general facility funding, multiply the Average Daily Membership (ADM) times the product of the state wealth index and the general facility funding factor. 4.02 One calculation to determine the distribution of general facility funding shall be made each school year. No adjustments in general facility funding will be made during that specified year. 4.03 Local districts whose local revenue per student is above the state equalization funding per student shall not be eligible for general facilities funding. 5.00 Funds Carried Forward 5.01 Funds may be carried forward but shall remain restricted to purchases defined in Section 3.03. - - 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Growth Facility Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education regulations governing the distribution o! Growth Facility Funding. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (Supp. 1995) 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to provide the calculation for distribution of Growth Facility Funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Growth Facility Funding - The amount budgeted by the State Board of Education to be provided to qualifying school districts in any specified year for capital outlay which means for the acquisition of land or a school site, construction of new school facilities and bond payments for the same purposes. 3.02 Growth Facility Funding Factor - The amount of funding per Average Daily Membership (ADM) growth sufficient to expend the funds budgeted by the State Board of Education in any specified year for those Districts who qualify as defined by Section 3.06. 3.03 Average Daily Membership (ADM)- The total number of days attended plus the total number of days absent by students in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12) during the first three quarters of the previous school year, divided by the number of school days actually taught in the school district during that period of time/ rounded up to the nearest hundredth. 3.04 Average Daily Membership Growth (ADMG)-The difference between the ADM for the previous year and the ADM for first quarter of the current year. 3.05 State Average ADM Growth- The difference between the total previous year ADM for all school districts and the ADM for all school districts for the first quarter of the current year. 3.06 Qualifying School Districts - The school districts whose ADM growth exceeds the state average ADM growth and which have a Department of Education approved facilities needs assessment justification. 4.00 Calculation 4.01 For districts qualifying for growth facility funding, multiply the Average Daily Membership Growth (ADMG) times the ratio of total funds available for allocation divided by the total increase in student's in those local school districts eligible for growth facilities funding. 5.00 Funds Carried Forward 5.01 Funds may be carried forward but shall remain restricted to purchases defined in Section 3.01. 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Student Growth Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of Student Growth Funding. 1.02 These regulations are epacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (1995 Supp.). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to establish criteria by which the State Department of Education will distribute student growth funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.0 Student Growth Funding - The amount of state financial aid provided to each local school district from the funds made available for that purpose. 4.00 Calculation 4.01 Student Growth Funds shall be calculated as the base local revenue per student multiplies by eighty hundredths (.80) times the increase, if any, in such local school district's average daily membership for the first two quarters of the current year over the local school district's average daily membership for the previous year. 5.00 Funding Distribution 5.01 By December 30th of each year the Department of Education shall distribute seventy five percent (75%) of student growth funds to districts calculated on the increase in the first quarter average daily membership in the current year over the local school district's average daily membership for the previous year. 5.02 Upon completion of the calculation of each local school district's average daily membership for the first two quarters of the current year, the Department of Education shall distribute the balance of student growth funding.  5.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS SPECIAL EDUCATION 5.01 CALCULATmG TIIE EXPENDITURE FOR SERVICES ON BEIM:LF OF STUDENTS 1.vITII DISABILITIES 5.01.1 BASIC EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT TO BENEFIT SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS 5.01.1.1 The flfflOttnt to be e'll:pended fur serviees ttn:d sttpports thttt direedy ttn:d indireed, benefit stttdents eYalttttted as speeial edttetttion students in aeeordttn:ee with e'll:isting federal ttt1:d state lttVvs ttn:d Department of Edttetttion regttltttions is ealettlttted as fulloN: A. Caleulttte a three ,ear a.erage pereentttge not to e'll:eeed hvelve and one half (12.5%), based on the three (3) im:meditttely preeeding Deeember 1 eottnts of students in speeial edttetttion (in the distriet)\nand B. Mttltiply the three year a. erage pereentage not to e'll:eeed tv, el  e ttn:d one half (12.5%) time the aterage dail) membership (of the distriet) and mttltiply the resttlt times sil\u0026lt;ty futtr httndredths (.64) times the Base Loeal Reventte Per Student. 5.01 ~ CALCULATING THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT FOR eN BEHALF OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS 5.01.r:-1 The minimum budgeted expenditure per capita on behalf of special education students must be equal to the expenditure requirement for the most recent fiscal year for which information is available, consistent with maintenance of effort requirements under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 5.01 .2.2 For loeal edttetttion ageneies v.'hose ealettltttion is greater thttn: the most reeent fiseal , ear fur v,hieh infurmation is a'vailable, the loeal edttetttion agene, mttst bttdget the inereased fl:fflottnt or five pereent (5%) more than the most reeent foeal year fur v,'hieh infurmtttion is !l\"tailable, .vhiehe .'er is the lesser amottnt. Any loeal edttetttion ageney may ehoose te e}ff'end more than the mini:mttm reei:ttired e'll:penditure. 5.01.2.3 ror local cth1cation a!!\ncncics v hosc calculation in 5.01.l is less than the c\u0026gt;tpcnditurc in most recent fiscal )CM fer v hich information is a.ailablc, the local education agcnc) must bttdget an amottnt eqttal to the e\u0026gt;tpenditttres of the most recent fiscal year fur v hieh information is a.ailable throttgh any combination of state and local funds. 5.02 ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES 5.02.1 MEETING THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5 .02.1.1 Any expense incurred by a local education agency as a result of providing special education and related services to eligible individuals with disabilities may be budgeted and counted as meeting the expenditure requirement. 5.02.1.2 Maintenance and operating costs of a district may be charged as special education expenses on a pro-rated basis consistent with the instructions for completing the consolidated state and federal application for the use of funds under the IDEA. 5.02.1.3 Costs for building and/or upgrading facilities for special education services may be charged as special education expenses on a pro-rated basis consistent with the instructions for completing the consolidated state and federal application for the use of funds under the IDEA. 5.02.1.4 A local education agency may count for purposes of meeting the minimum expenditure any expenditures for services/supports which benefit students with disabilities including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: A. Broad-based staff development activities which provide staff with skills and knowledge that will improve instruction for all children. B. Instructional materials and supplies, including technology, which will enhance the learning environment and improve instruction for all children. C. Trained instructional paraprofessionals to increase the ability of the teacher to address the diverse learning and behavioral needs of all students within the classroom or other instructional setting. D. Specialized staff, such as school psychology specialists and licensed social workers, to increase access to specialized services that may be needed to meet the diverse learning and behavioral needs of all students within a building or district.  .. E. Specialized services for students with diverse learning and behavioral needs who may not be identified as eligible students under the IDEA. F. Special Education and related services to eligible students with disabilities, ages 3 to 5 ( or kindergarten), may be counted to meet the minimum expenditure requirement. G. Pre-referral interventions for students not yet identified as eligible students with disabilities under the IDEA. H. Services for students who are qualified under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but who are not eligible under the IDEA. I. Services and support for students exiting special education services who are no longer receiving services in accordance with an IEP. 5.03 PROVISION FOR WAIVER 5.03.1 Distriets may ela:im a.n e,teeptien frem the htel.e a:nd ene ha:lfpereent (12.5%) bttsed en the three yea:r tt. erage Deeember 1 ehild em:mts if the distriet ettn pretide deeumenttttien thttt (1) the distriet htts high gro1tth in the distriet inelttding tt gre wth in the nttmber ef students reeei ving speeittl edttetttien serviees, er (2) the tt't erttge dttily membership ef the distriet is se sma:H thttt ttsing the 12.5% ettp .. ill athersely ttffeet the distriet's bttdget for speeittl edttetttien servtees. 5.03.2 A eemmittee ..-ill retiew the requests for wa:iver a.nd make reeem:menda:tiens te the Arka.nsa:s Depttr..ment ef Edttetttien for ttetien. 5:-B4 WAIVER OF STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES FOR COMPLIANCE 5.03 WITH FEDERAL NONSUPPLANT 5:-B4:+ Local education agency applications for federal funds under the IDEA must meet 5.03.1 the nonsupplanting requirements in 34 Cede ef Federttl Regttltttiens 300.230. the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA. 1997). 5.04.2 Alleua:nee is mttde in 34 CFR 300.230(b)(I) ttnd (ii) for: 5.03.2 Section 613(a)(2)(B) of the 1997 IDEA states: a local educational agency may reduce the level of expenditures where such reduction is attributable to: Al the voluntary departure. by retirement or otherwise. or departure for just cause. of special education personnel: ID decrease in the emollment of children with disabilities: Q the termination of the oblii:ation of the ai:ency. consistent with this part. to provide a proi:ram or special education to a particular child with a disability that is an exceptionally costly program, as determined by the State educational agency, because the child: ill has left the jurisdiction of the agency: QU has reached the age at which the obligation of the agency to provide a free appropriate public education to the child has terminated: or illD no longer needs such program of special education: or ID the termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the construction of school facilities. A. deereases in enrollment of children nith disabilities, ftnd B. ustmlly large amounts offttnds expended fer such long term pUi'f'OScs as the acquisition of equipment and the construction of school facilities. 5. 04 .3 Additional allo .vftnec Wt ill be considered fer high costs associated .v-ith stttdcnts in residential or other high cost placements that arc no longer rcceirting such scniccs from the local education agency n'ftich inctHTed the costs the prc1tious year. 5-:G4:4 To qualify for an allowance under 5.05.2(B) 5.03.2(0) a district must incur the i.0.3..J. cost within a single year rather than amortize the cost against the district's required expenditure as is currently provided within the consolidated application for the use of state and federal funds for special education. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 Sl ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. AR KANSAS 72201 -1071 (~OJ ) M,~--1-1 75 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-117 Page: I of~ Date: September 11 , 1997 Forward Copies To: Type of Memo: Regulatory Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Response Required By: Those Affected Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Transfers of Students/Relations with other Schools Petition for Transfer of Students Index Code: LB Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-316, 6-18-317, and 6-18-318 Contact Person: Sheri Davis Phone No: 682-4258 Enclosed is a Petition for Transfer of Students form. You may make copies of this form for your use or request copies from the Department of Education when necessary. In compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-3 I 6, please make note of the following: I. Forms for use in transferring children from one (I) school district to another shall be provided by the Department of Education. Please use the attached form\nit supersedes all other transfer forms. Old forms will no longer be accepted. It is necessary for all signatures and effective dates to be completed before approval. 2. After the petition has been approved by the board of directors of the resident school district and the board of directors of the receiving district, copies of transfers shall be filed by the receiving district with the office of the county clerk, with the administrative offices of the respective school districts, and with the Department of Education. 3. This legal transfer of a student from one ( 1) district to another places the responsibility for the education of the student on the receiving district and permits the recei\\'ing district to count these children in a\\'erage daily membership for state aid purposes. Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317 states: \"(a) Boards of director of local school districts arc prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (I) Where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation-related court order or has ever been under such a court STATE BOARD ot EDl'C'ATION: C'halnnan WILLIAM U t'ISHt'.R, Paraio.W  Vkt Chairman Ll'KF. GORD\\ , Van Bunn l\\.ltmMn: EDWJ!lt B. ALDERSO!I, JR., EJ Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocrn  JoNUJ CAl.DWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXO'-, .\\rkadelplua .JAMES Mel.ARTY Ill, !'icwport  BETTY PlCKETT, Conway  RIC'HARD \u0026lt;. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSO!'i, JR., Tuarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES, BaltonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer Director's Communication No. FIN-98-117 September 11, 1997 Page 2 of2 order\nand (2) The transfer in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order.\" The transfer form is accompanied by an affidavit on the reverse side of the form. Each member of both boards must sign the affidavit stating that the transfer does not violate the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Any district not currently under a desegregation-related court order but which has been under such a court order in the past may apply to the State Board of Education for a waiver of the prohibition set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-318. PETITION FOR TRANSFER OF STUDENTS - STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF _______________ _ TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE _________________________ _ (Resident School District) I, ________________ , petition that my children or wards, as listed below, now residing in the ____________________ School District in _________ County, Arkansas, be transferred to the _________________ School District in _________ County, Arkansas, for educational purposes under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-316 authorizing such a transfer, effective the ___ day of ____ _ 19 __ . NAME AGE NAME AGE (Signature of Petitioner) CONSENT OF RESIDENT DISTRICT The Board of Directors of _______________ School District of ____________ _ County, consents to have the student (s) listed above transferred from said school district. Date Board Authorized Transfer President of School Board CONSENT OF SERVICING DISTRICT The Board of Directors of ______________ School District of _____________ _ County, consents to have the student (s) listed above transferred to said School District. Date Board Authorized Transfer President of School Board File approved copies with: (1) resident district, (2) servicing district, (3) county clerk and (4) Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, Room 202-A, Little Rock, AR 72201. If the school districts are in different counties, copies should be filed with both county clerks. FIN-09-00-016 9/97 (See reverse side) TRANSFER OF STUDENTS AFFIDAVIT According to Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317: \"(a) Boards of directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (1) Where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation-related court order or have ever been under such a court order\nand (2) The transfer in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order.\" Whereas, the Board of Directors of ____________ School District, in _________ County (resident district), and the Board of Directors of School District, in ________ _ County (servicing district), have agreed to have the student(s) listed below transferred ____________ , 19 _ , and in granting this transfer have in no way violated Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317. Name Age Name Age RESIDENT DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS' SERVICING DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS' SIGNATURES SIGNATURES FIN-09-00-016 9/97 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK . ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501 l 6b2-.l -Pj RAYMOND SIMON. Director NO: ACC-98-021 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Other: Special Education Supervisors Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Associate Director, Special Education: Diane Sydoriak Subject: Special Education Programs Special Education Program Approval and Required Data Collection Regulatory Authority: 34 CFR 300.382\n300.600 Contact Person: ADE Area Supervisors Clent Holly Susie B. Nelson Index Code: IlIBA Phone No: (501) 682-4225 (501) 682-4223 (501) 682-4222 Enclosed is a data collection packet which contains forms and instructions for special education program approval and needs assessments for personnel and inservice training. The packet is designed to consolidate data collection activities, thus reducing the burden on district personnel for reporting required data throughout the year. To expedite the reporting process, information on your Local District Special Education Summary Form and Special Education Service Provider Form submitted for FY 1996-97 has been copied and is being provided for verification only. The Local District Special Education Summary Form will provide information needed to approve your district's special education program for FY 1997-98. Only students identified as disabled and who are receiving special education services in approved programs may be counted for the calculation of special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. Districts may also use information submitted on this form to analyze technical as5istance needs in special education. (over) STATE BOARD Of' EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM b. tt:\u0026gt;Ht.k, l'anio..W  Vlu Chairman - LUKE GORD\\-, Vlln Buron Mmben: EDWIN 8. ALDERSON, JR., El Dondo  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocn  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIXOili, Ari\u0026lt;adlplua ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M\u0026lt;Gehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR .. Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttl, Rock  ANITA YATES. BentonvW An Equal Opportunity Employu Director's Communication No.: ACC-98-021 Page 2 of2 Following the receipt and review of the special education program approval information, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Area Supervisors will notify district superintendents as to the status of their special education program. If a program is not approved, recommendations for obtaining approval will be provided. The district must then submit a revised Local District Special Education Summary Form for reconsideration. Questions concerning the Local District Special Education Summary Form should be directed to the ADE Special Education Area Supervisor. The two (2) additional forms (Special Education Personnel Needed and Inservice Training Needs Survey), in conjunction with the Special Education Service Provider Form, will provide information needed to respond to annual federal data reporting requirements mandated by PL 94-142, Part Band Part D. These data may also be used to determine manpower trends in special education and to determine the potential supply of personnel in the present and future. Information provided on the Inservice Training Needs Survey will provide a basis for establishing state priorities for inservice training topics and audiences. If you have questions about the Special Education Service Provider Form contact Clent Holly. Contact Susie Nelson if you have questions about the Special Education Personnel Needed or Inservice Training Needs Survey Forms. The completed forms are due on or before October 1, 1997, and should be forwarded to: bt Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Grants and Data Management 4 Capitol Mall, Room 105-C Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 INSTRUCTIONS PART/ LOCAL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM SUMMARY FORM A computer printout of the FY 1996-97 Local District Special Education Summary Form is enclosed in the Superintendent's packet only. Changes for FY 1997-98 should be made with a red pen on this form, signed by the Superintendent and Special Education Supervisor and returned to the address listed in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that changes for .l!ll data points are indicated (e.g., race, gender, per period range). Incomplete forms will be returned, thus delaying the approval process. If there is not enough space on the computer printout to add new units, please use the enclosed blank computer form for that purpose. ITEM I Identify each unit by placing the appropriate Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of the position in the corresponding box, which is identified on the form as item \"I\" (i .e., 1.0 for FTE). A teacher serving students in two settings (i .e., resource room, consulting teacher) should be listed under ~ setting with the corresponding FTE for each setting. A resource room teacher or speech therapist providing services on different campuses within the same district should combine his/her caseload district wide and list under resource room or speech therapy. If, on the other hand, two or more districts share a teacher or a speech therapist, each district is responsible for reporting the FTE of the position under the appropriate item I category. To determine the FTE for a teacher assigned to the integrated classroom model (ICM), calculate the percentage of students with disabilities (up to one third of the total class size). Refer to Informational Director's Communication No. 93-250 and Administrative Director's Communication No. 94-196 for additional information. This FTE should be placed in the Resource Room column. ITEM IT Utilizing the following codes, identify the categorical unit type of each teacher. A unit is only considered categorical if 100% of the students served in the unit have the same disability. Classes composed of students with various disabilities are considered non-categorical (NC) programs. Teachers in these classrooms should be entered as NC under Item II. AU Autism DIB - Deaf/Blindness HI - Hearing Impairment MR - Mental Retardation MID - Multiple Disabilities OI Orthopedic Impairment OHI Other Health Impairment SED - Serious Emotional Disturbance ITEMID SI SLD TBI VI Speech or Language Impairment Specific Learning Disability Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment Enter the level of teacher unit according to the following codes: ITEM IV E MS JH SH - Elementary Middle School Junior High Senior High JE - Junior High and Elementary JS - Junior and Senior High SE - Senior High and Elementary All - Elementary Through Senior High For each unit position listed which reflects a personnel change, red line existing personnel information. List the name that appears on each teacher's certificate or license, last name first. Use a red pen to delete positions no longer in existence. Enter the Special Education Supervisor's name only if he/she has instructional duties part of the day. New units may be added on the computer printout as space allows. Do not list here other types of purchased services providers. Do not list names of aides or other noncertified support staff. Do not send copies of teacher contracts. ITEMV Enter the Social Security Number of school personnel listed. For purchased service speech therapists, list licensure number or, if not applicable, Social Security Number. Please check for accuracy. ITEM VI Enter \"a, b, c, or d\" in Column VI according to personnel certification status, as follows: a. A teacher in his/her first year of teaching special education in Arkansas, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved Deficiency Removal Plan (DRP) and will have a minimum of 12 hours in special education no later than the end of the third quarter. 2 b. A teacher in his/her second year of teaching special education in Arkansas, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved DRP and will have a minimum of21 hours in special education no later than the end of the third quarter. (See note at the end ofltem VI.) c. A teacher in his/her third year of teiiching special education in Arkansas with more than 21 hours in special education, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved DRP, and - a letter from the Arkansas Department of Education recommending to the State Board of Education that additional time be granted to meet certification deficiencies. A copy of this letter must be attached to the Special Education Program Summary Form. Failure to do so could result in partial or conditional approval of a special education program. d. Full certification in special education or appropriate licensure. NOTE: If certification is not obtained by the end of the two-year period, a letter from the Superintendent to the Associate Director of Special Education must be written indicating the special circumstances and requesting additional time. The letter will be reviewed by the ADE. The ADE will recommend to the State Board of Education whether or not the district should receive additional time to meet certification deficiencies. ITEMVIl Enter the number of hours the staff member is engaged in special education instruction, including up to one allowable planning period. ITEM VIII Enter the total number of students identified as disabled currently assigned to each position under the \"TL\" column. This total should equal the sum of the five columns which follow it. Designate the number of students served by category as follows: BM - Black Male BF - Black Female ITEM IX WM - White Male WF - White Female Enter the per period range for cl ass size (i.e., 2-5). 3 HM - Hispanic Male HF - Hispanic Female ITEMX For personnel listed where an aide is assigned, enter for part-time aide or E for full-time aide. ITEM XI Indicate with an \"X'' in this column any personnel providing speech therapy as a purchased service. ITEMXIl Indicate with an \"X'' in this column any personnel assigned to the integrated classroom model. To complete this form, obtain the appropriate signatures and date the form. PERSONNEVPROGRAM STANDARDS RELATIVE TO PROGRAM APPROVAL I. PROVISIONS FOR QUALIFIED PROVIDERS A. TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROGRAM APPROVAL Certification of teachers for accreditation is not the same as the qualification requirements for program approval. The requirements for program approval are for the purpose of funding. For certification requirements related to accreditation, please contact an ADE Field Service Specialist. Special education teachers not fully certified in special education MUST forward a copy of their most current transcript and an approved DRP to their ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Failure to do so could result in the district's program not being fully approved. As course work is completed, an updated transcript must be forwarded to the ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Course work should be completed in a timely manner. If a situation arises which prohibits the completion of course work by the end of the third quarter, an extension to June 1, 1998, may be granted if requested in writing by the superintendent. This request should be made to the ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Approval of a DRP must be obtained from the Office of Teacher Education and Licensure, ADE. (See Regulatory Director's Memo No. 90-46.) The following is an excerpt from Regulatory Director's Memo No. 87-26 which lists the guidelines to be followed when correcting certification deficiencies: 1. Individuals who are completing courses under an approved DRP must complete a minimum of21 hours during the two-year period following the filing of their plan. 4 2. If certification is not obtained at the end of the two-year period, the ADE will recommend to the State Board of Education whether the district should receive additional time to meet certification deficiencies. 3. Enrollment in a college or university to complete course work must commence either the semester the person is employed or the one which immediately follows. B . . SUBSTITUTES When a fundable teacher is unable to fulfill a contract, the district may count the cost of hiring a substitute as a special ducation expenditure using the following criteria: I. Substitute (non-certified or certified, but not in special education): For the purpose of special education program approval a substitute teacher should not be used for more than forty-five ( 45) consecutive days in the same position unless an emergency situation prevails at which time permission may be granted for a total of ninety (90) days by the State Department of Education, Special Education. 2. Substitute employed as a speech therapist must meet minimum ADE certification or licensure requirements. C. QUALIFIED EXAMINERS Examiners utilized by districts must be qualified as required on pages 2-4 and 2-5 of \"Program Standards and Eligibility Criteria for Special Education.\" (Hereafter referred to as the Program Standards.) Use of student evaluators is discussed on page 2-5 of the Program Standards. The name of each examiner ( or supervisor of examiners, if contracting with a group) is required for verifying qualifications. As a result of Ark. Code Ann. 17-24- 101 and 102, Licensed Professional Counselors, whose training warrants inclusion of psychological testing on their Statement oflntent, may be employed as examiners by public schools in Arkansas. Il. CONTRACTEDPROGRAMS Program approval for provision of services by private providers is determined by the application submitted by the private provider to the Department of Education, Special Education. Approved programs are listed in the Arkansas Education Directory. The Local Education Agency is not responsible for seeking approval of the private provider\nhowever, districts may not count students served for State Equalization Aid or IDEA Part B funds unless the program providing services has been approved. 5 Local school districts that purchase educational services for their students from another district or approved special education program must complete a tuition agreement which is ultimately approved by the Department of Education, Finance and Administration. Ill. TEACHER/PUPIL RATIO A. TEACHER/PUPIL RA TIO: CASELOAD 1. Refer to Program Standards page 7-1, for maximum caseloads. 2. Exceptions to the stated teacher/pupil caseload are detailed on pages 7-1 and 7-2 of Program Standards. 3. Waiver from the Maximum Teacher/Pupil Caseload a. Should an emergency situation arise creating the need to request a waiver from the maximum teacher/pupil ratio, the district must submit a letter to its Area Supervisor stating the reason(s) for exceeding the maximum teacher/pupil ratio and outlining a remediation plan. The Area Supervisor will forward a letter approving or disapproving the variance. b. Ten percent (10%) of the teacher/pupil ratio is the maximum variance approvable before funding is affected. For example, the noncategorical teacher/pupil ratio is 1.25\nten percent resource room maximum variance equals 2.5. When approved, the teacher/pupil ratio may increase to 1 :28. For a self-contained maximum teacher/pupil ratio of 1: 15, a ten percent (10%) variance equals 1.5. When approved, the teacher/pupil ratio may increase to 1: 17. c. Prior to approval for the ten percent (10%) variance, a full-time teacher aide must be employed for that class by the requesting district. For a I :6 classroom, a fulltime aide is already required\ntherefore, an additional aide must be employed before a district's waiver will be approved. d. If a district fails to secure approval for a variance of the teacher/pupil ratio, yet exceeds the teacher/pupil ratio outlined in Program Standards, page 7-2, the district's program will not be considered an approved program. Consequently, state and federal funds cannot be generated by the nonapproved program. e. Under no circumstances will a waiver be granted for an increase in maximum teacher/pupil ratios for speech/language therapists or teachers serving students in indirect placement. 6 B. TEACHER/PUPIL RA TIO: PER PERIOD CLASS SIZE NOTE: For itinerant instruction (excluding speech therapy) and resource services, a maximum of five (5) students per period, the number served should be as near to five (5) as possible Districts will NOT be cited for noncompliance with state standards when the per period class size is eight (8) students without an aide, if conditions warrant such an exception. However, the adopted guideline of five (5) students per period is considered to be best educational practice and should be adhered to whenever possible. Additional exceptions to the adopted guideline of fiv~ (5) students are: 1. Pre-vocational and vocational students who attend one class per day in the area of personal/social adjustment. 2. When the teacher has an aide to assist in follow-through activities, the per period load may be adjusted upward not to exceed 40% of the initial teacher/pupil ratio listed on page 7-1 of Program Standards. For example, the per period number may be increased to ten (10) students for noncategorical classes. The number of students served per period may not be increased beyond the allowable adjustments noted in 1 and 2, regardless of the approved maximum caseload, inclusive of waiver granted. C. INDIRECT SERVICES CASELOAD Districts will comply with guidelines issued by the ADE, Special Education Unit, for caseloads and services for consulting teachers providing indirect services. INSTRUCTIONS PART II SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE PROVIDERS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED FORM A computer printout of the FY 1996-97 Special Education Service Providers Form is enclosed in the Superintendent's packet only. ITEMS I AND II Make changes in personnel on the computer printout with a red pen. List only personnel which are not included on the Local Special Education Program Summary Form (Part I). Obtain appropriate signatures and return to the address listed in the enclosed memo. Please note: Social security numbers are not necessary for non-certified personnel. 7 ITEM Ill Enter \"a\" or \"b\" to indicate certification or licensure status, as follows . Use NI A for employees not requiring certification or licensurc. a. holds full certification or licensure b. holds valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate and an approved DRP ITEM IV List the FTE for each person listed in the appropriate service provider column, including purchased service personnel, based on a 40-hour work week. The FTE for a speech-language pathology assistant/aide should be placed in the Teacher Aide column. ITEMY Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any purchased service personnel. ITEM VI Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any personnel assigned as a speech-language pathology assistant. ITEM VII Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any personnel assigned as a speech-language pathology aide. INSTRUCTIONS PART III SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDED FORM Complete identifying information at the top of the form. One form per district must be submitted. COLUMN A Indicate the current position vacancies by FTE that exist for the district. If two or more districts share personnel, each district is responsible for reporting its FTE of the position. 8 COLUMNB Indicate with a plus(+) and FTE your projections for additional personnel by position type, or a minus (-) and FTE your projections for any decrease in personnel for each year listed. PART IV INSERVICE TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY Complete identifying information at the top of the form. One form per cooperative or district should be submitted. If a school district has its own early childhood program, submit only one form with needs indicated in the appropriate columns and rows. Early childhood programs in educational cooperatives will complete a separate form. For each target group in your cooperative or district needing training, select three (3) inservice training areas from the Inservice Training Areas list. Enter the content code of the in service training area and indicate number of personnel to be trained in the designated columns. Completed forms should be returned to the address listed in the cover memo. 9 SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDED 1997-98 School Year - School District___________ County _____ Date ___ _ LEA# ---- Person completing this form ________________ Phone __________ _ COLUMN A COLUMNB NO.OF Net Change in Position(+ or - and nwnber) CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF POSITIONS VACANCIES 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I. Supervisors/ Administrators 2. Mildly Disabled 3. Mod./Prof Disabled TEACHERS 4. Ser. Emot. Disturbed OF 5. Visually Impaired SPECIAL EDUCATION 6. Deaf/Hard of Hearing STIJDENTS 7. Mentally Retarded 8. Leaming Disability 9. Physically Handicap. I 0. Speech/Language Pathologist 11. Teachers of Preschool Disabled 12. Occupational Therapist 13. Physical Therapist 14. Adaptive PE Teacher 15. Rec. \u0026amp; Therapeutic Rec. Spec. 16. Diagnostic \u0026amp; Evaluation Staff I 7. Interpreters 18. Psychologist 19. Rehabilitation Counselors 20. Audiologist 21 . Paraprofessional (Teacher Aides) 22. School Social Worker 23 . Job Coach/Vocational Ed. Teacher 24. Workstudy Coordinator 25. Counselors 26. Other Professional Staff 27. Non-professional Staff - 34 CFR 300. 382 Part ID ADE Form No. SPED-00-00-00lR 8/97 IN SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY Arkansas Department of Education Special Education/ Preschool (FY98) Co-op/School District ____________ _ LEA# ____ _ Education Service Cooperative your district belongs to: _______________ _ Name and title of person completing this ~orm: __________________ _ Date:____________ Phone: ______________ _ No. To No. To No. To Target Group Content Be Content Be Content Be Code Trained Code Trained Code Trained LEA Supervisors Early Childhood Coordinators Superintendents Co-op Director Principals Special Education Teachers Pre-School Spec Ed Teachers Speech/Language Pathologists Regular Education Teachers Regular Pre School Teachers Parents/Surrogate Parents Volunteers/Peer Tutors Paraprofessionals Job Coaches School Psych. Specialists/ Psych. Examiners Support Personnel (School Counselors, Nur -es, Phys./Occup. Therapists, etc.) Operations Personnel (Secretarial, Clerical, Maintenance, Transportation, Food Service, etc.) Head Start Other (Specify) 34 CFR 300.382 Part IV ADE Form No. SPED-01-00-0l0R 8/97 Content Code IN-SERVICE TRAINING AREAS (for students with Disabilities ages 3-21) 00 I Applying federal, state and local regulations to the provisions of Special Education and Related Services (laws, procedural safeguards, etc.). 002 Selecting assessment/diagnostic instrument, techniques or procedures 003 Interpreting assessment results and developing recommendations for intervention 004 Developing leadership skills to facilitate change (including team building) 005 Developing integrated curricula and programs for students with severe/profound disabilities 006 Utilizing strategic planning for developing a local CSPD plan 007 Integrating students with disabilities into regular school-based programs (non-academic activities, classroom modifications, learning styles, placement options, consulting teacher model and teacher assistance team model) 008 Applying classroom organization and management techniques 009 Using paraprofessionals, peer tutors and/or volunteers in educating all students with disabilities 010 Involving parents in a parent-school partnership 011 Developing conflict resolution and negotiation skills 012 Using effective conferencing skills 013 Developing curricula for students in secondary special education 014 Assessing speech/language disorders, developing intervention strategies (i.e. to include integrated speech therapy) 015 Assessing communication skills and implementing augmentative-assistive systems, including non-symbolic communication 016 Developing and implementing preschool programs on a public school campus 017 Developing and implementing programs for preschool children with disabilities (3 to 5 years), including consulting teacher model in preschool special education (see #7 reg.) 018 Training for transition of children with disabilities from Part H to preschool programs 019 Developing strategies for transitioning preschool students with disabilities to kindergarten 020 Training for transitioning students with disabilities from school to adult options 021 Developing strategies for returning students from restrictive settings to local school building sites 022 Other (Specify) Arkansas DIRECfOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (501) 682-4-P.5 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-114 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Relations with Election Authorities Index Code: KLB Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-115 \u0026amp; 6-14-121 as amended by Act 443 of 1997 Contact Person: Yvonne Williams Phone No: 682-4485 Each year the office of Local Fiscal Services collects results of the annual school election of each school district and compiles a state summary. Please complete and return this fonn with a copy of the ballot (regular or absentee) by September 30. 1997. The date for run-off elections will be October 7, 1997. RESULTS OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 I. Number voting for and against the proposed millage ___ FOR ___ AGAINST. 2. Please place a check mark on the ballot beside the name of the board member in each position who won the election. 3. If there were other issues on the ballot, please indicate if they passed or failed . 4. TOT AL MILLS voted in the September 1996 election _______ _ 5. MILLS voted in the September 16, 1997 election: Dedicated M\u0026amp;O(Capital Outlay) ____ Debt Service ___ Total Mills __ _ Signature of Superintendent School District and LEA # District Telephone Number County Please return to: Arkansas Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ST ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: O..U- - WILLIAM B. FISHER, P.........  Va~ LUICE GORDY, Van Bun,n M.,.llen: EDWINB. A.LDERSON,JR., l!IDo,...o  CARLE.BAGGETT,11.opn  JoN!LLCALDWU.L...,_  MARTHADIXOl'i,Arudlphsa JAMES McLARTY Ill, N-,or1  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD r. SMITH, Jll., Mee-. . LEWIS THOMPSON, JR .. Tn  run  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlo Rock  ANITA VA TES, Jlaloevlllo An Equal Oppommlty Employor Ari\u0026lt;ansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4-P.$ RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Title I Coordinators NO: SI-98-019 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, School Improvement and Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Research/ Administrative Reports Index Code: CL Title I, ESEA Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution Regulatory Authority: 34 CFR Part 80.40 Contact Person: Brenda Irvin Phone No: 682-4482 Enclosed is your Title I Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution for the second quarter. Instructions for completion of the form may be found on the reverse side. Please be sure to complete and return to the Federal Finance Office prior to September 20, 1997. PLEASE RETURN A COPY TO: Arkansas Department of Education Federal Finance 4 Capitol Mall, Room 204-A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: C'llalfflWI - WILLIAM H. FISHER, Para1.W  VluCllaifflllUI - LUKE GORDY, Van BuN'n Mtmlien: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Ro1n  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIX01', Ariladtlphi JAMES McLARTY JJJ, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlt Rock  ANITA VATES. BeatonvWt An Equal Opportunity Employtr Second Quarter TITLE I - !ASA QUARTERLY REPORT OF CASH DISTRIBUI'ION Item 1: Budget Needs for the Second Quarter category A. Total Budgeted By Object B. Expenditures 07-01 to 09-30 by Object C. Total Budget Needs 10-01 to 12-31 by Object D. Remaining Available By Object Item 2: Reconciliation Employee Salaries Object 10 1 Employee Benefits Object 20 2 Purchased Services Object 30 3 A. Beginning Cash Balance 07-01 $ _______ _ B. Revenue Received 07-01 thru 09-30 $ ________ _ C. Available 07-01 through 09-30 $ ______ _ D. Expenditures Through 09-30 $ ________ _ E. Cash on Hand 09-30 $ ______ _ F. Budget Needs 10-01 thru 12-31 $ _______ _ G. Total Funds Requested this Quarter $ _______ _ (F inus E) Ite  3: Requested Funds by Month A. October B. Noveber C. Deceber D. Total Amount Requested (Must Equal Item 2--0) $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ ________ _ Materials Supplies Object 40 capitol outlay Object 50 5 Other Objects Object 60 6 Total for All Objects 4 7 FOR DEPAR.nttml' OF EDUCATION USE ONLY 1991 Ftlfids Pald 1\u0026lt;!9B Etmtir-: P'ai ii $ ________ _ $ ________ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ _______ _ $ _______ _ --------. $ _______ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ Date Paid School District ________________________ _ County ________ _ LF.A Code Number __ _ Form ~e- red By Requir CFR Part 80.40 T~ e ADE . 0006 Phone N1111ber__,..,..---- 07/1992 Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: QUARTERLY REPORT OF CASH DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS Enter in the total amount budgeted by Object in Line A. These amounts are found in the budget on Page 3 of the approved program (Part A, Line 3 Totals). INDIRECT COST SHOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER OB.lECT 60. On Line B enter the expenditures 7-1 to 9-30 by Object. On Line Center the total budget needs of your district for the months of October, November, and December by Object. Do not request funds budgeted for Indirect Cost until June. The entries for Line Dare determined by subtracting the entries in Lines Band C from the entries in Line A. Line A Line B Line C Line D Line E Line F Line G Enter the Cash on Hand as of July 1. This amount will be on the Notice of Grant Award as well as in the district's books. Enter the total revenue you have received or expect to receive for the time period July 1 through September 30. Add cash on hand (Line A) and total revenue received (Line B). Enter sum in this blank. Enter total expenditures (expended or expected to be expended by September 30). This entry should equal Line B, Column 7 of Item 1. Subtract total expenditures (Line D) from total available (Line C) and enter cash on hand September 30. Enter total budget needs of your district for the months of October, November, and December. Subtract Line E cash on hand from Line F total budget needs this quarter to determine total funds requested. The amount requested should always be in even dollars--NO CENTS! Enter the funds needed for October, November, and December. The total is equal to Item 2, Line G, above and does not include cash on hand. TO INSURE PAYMENT IN EARLY OCTOBER, THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL FINANCE OFFICE BY SEPTEMBER 20. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARI\\.ANSAS 72201 10.,1  (501) 61-\n2 4-P5 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-116 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 11. 1997 Type of Memo: Regulatory Fonvard Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Response Required By: Those Affected There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Tuition/ Admission of onresident Students Index Code: JFAB Tuition Agreement Form Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-202 (d) (I). 6-18-204 Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-205 (b) (I) (A), 6-18-316 (f) Contact Person: Sheri Da\\ is Phone o: 682-4258 A Tuition Agreement form is enclosed for use by those school districts which find it necessar) to purchase educational services for their students from another district or an approved special education agency. lfyou have need for such forms. please reproduce the attached form as needed. The receiving district may enter into a tuition agreement with either the resident district or the parents of the child/children involved. whereby the resident district or the parents \\\\ ill make tuition payments to the receiving district to compensate for the educational cost of the transferring student. Please refer to the above mentioned codes for conditions in enrolling a student in grades 9-12 in another district under a tuition agreement. the amount required to pay under these circumstances. and the course of action to take because of failure to pay under these and other circumstances. A tuition agreement must be approved by each district/agenc) involved. The receiving district/agency shall keep attendance records on the children attending that district/:1gency under a tuition agreement. I hese attendance records shall be reported to the resident district qua1terl) STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Chairman WILLIAM 8 . nsm.R, P n,:ould  Vk Cluunnan - Ll'KE GORD\\, \\'an Burrn '1-hmbort : EDWIN B ALDERSO!li, JR, El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Roen  JoNELl, CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA mxo, . .\\rl.adelptua .JAMES McLARTY 111, N~r1  BlsTTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~htt  LEWIS THOMPSO,. JR., Tnarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES. BattonvW An Equal Oppomanity Employu Director's Communication No. FIN-98-116 September 11, 1997 Page 2 of2 so the resident district will in tum have correct records to report to the Department of Education for aid purposes. After completing a tuition agreement, mail the original and three copies to the Department of Education. After reviewing the tuition agreement, the Department of Education will mail approved copies to the resident district, receiving district/agency and the county school supervisor. (File tuition agreement in quadruplicate) TUITION AGREEMENT The _______________________ (Resident District) of __________ County hereby agrees to pay to _____________ _ ___________ (Servicing District) of ____________ County tuition in the amount of$ _____ per pupil for providing educational services to its students in _______ (grades) during 19 _ -19 _ . CONDITIONS*: ________ -'-------------------- *The specifics of the agreement should be given here, i.e., whether the payment is per enrollment, ADA or ADM, for the current or previous year\nhow payment is to be made (annually, semi-annually, monthly, etc.)\nwho pays transportation and/or any other costs\nare attendance records to be furnished\nand other pertinent information. RESIDENT DISTRICT SERVICING DISTRICT (Signature, President of Board) (Signature, President of Board) (Signature, Superintendent) (Signature, Superintendent) ADDRESS ADDRESS Approved: _____________ _ Date: ________________ _ Public School District or approved Special Educational School. \"District\" may include \"Educational Cooperatives\" established pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-902 . ._end all copies to the Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, ~ ittle Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071. FIN-09-00-015 9/96 ,,. - .-,,\n. - (l)1~~=-=E::\".:~=-i\\~R~~==M~s~E~N-T-0F_\nD:..:,\nE~o:.:.u:.:.:R,.:_'C:.:.JX=M:r.:.:.:u.:..:.:.i1 0~C/li.:.:.:.N::.:..N _ W, 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201:1071  (501) 682-4-P\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Others: LEA Supervisors *EC Coordinators *Other Interested Parties NO: ACC-98-022 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Associate Director, Special Education: Diane Sydoriak Subject: Special Education Programs Index Code: IHBA Public Hearing: Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation Regulatory Authority: Public Law 94-142, as amended Contact Person: Diane Sydoriak Phone No: (501) 682-4221 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a copy of Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation and to provide notice of the public hearing on these proposed regulations. The Public Hearing is scheduled for: October 2, 1997 10:00 AM - 12:00 Noon Auditorium of the Arkansas School for the Blind 2600 West Markham, Little Rock, AR Written comments will be taken until 4:30 PM on October 11, 1997. Written comments should be addressed to: Diane Sydoriak, Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education Special Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 105-C Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 * W\",U be maikd by Specilll Eactdlo., STATE90ARDOFl!.DUCATION: CW.---WJLUAMK.nSHl'.a. ..........  Vlee\u0026lt;::...--~GOllDY,\\ll\"ttl M-Mn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JJl., l!'l Denllo  CARL I. L\\CGETT, llepn  Jel'IU.L CALDWa.L, .,_  MARTHA DIXON, Arilalltlphia  JAMES McLAllTY Ill, Nowport  BETTY PICKETT, c-y  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGdltt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER. UUlt Rock  ANITA YATES..___.. An f.ltual Opport.any Eaployu 1.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS To Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Act I 005 of I 997. 2.00 Purpose 3.00 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth the criteria for determining student eligibility for adaptive textbooks (i.e. braille and large print). 2.02 These regulations define the process for local school district access to such adaptive textbooks for students with visual impairments. Definitions 3.01 For the purpose of these regulations, adaptive textbooks are defined to mean braille and large print. 3.02 IDEA refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 3.03 IEP means the individualized education program for a student with disabilities under the IDEA. 3.04 Learning Media Assessment (LMA) authored by Koenig, A. \u0026amp; Holbrook,C. ,1995, is a structured systematic procedure used to gather information and document decisions regarding the selection of reading and writing media for students who are visually impaired. 3.05 Minnesota Braille Skills Inventory published by the Minnesota Department of Education, 1995, is a comprehensive assessment of braille skills including knowledge of braille contractions, nemeth code, foreign language codes and computer braille. 3.06 Informal Reading Inventories (IRls) as used in these regulations refers to commercially available IRis which are adapted into braille and large print and used as a part of continuing assessment to determine student progress in reading as measured by reading comprehension and reading rate. 3.07 Reading rates are measured using informal reading inventories and content texts and are one component of the data needed to determine efficiency in a student's current literacy media. 3.08 Informal functional vision assessment as used in these regulations refers to teacher observations which provide evidence of a student's use of visual ability in near and distance tasks. 4.00 Administration 4.01 The braille and large print textbook program for students with visual impairments shall be administered by the Arkansas School for the Blind in conjunction with the Arkansas Department of Education's designee from Internal Administration. 5.00 Eligibility For Adaptive Textbooks 5.01 The following criteria should be considered when determining the appropriate reading medium for students with visual impairment. 5.01.1 Observations made by, but not limited to, the classroom teacher, parent, vision teacher and regional vision consultant. 5.01 .2 Assessment by a regional vision consultant, vision teacher or reading teacher to include the following, as appropriate. 5.01 .2.1 Learning Media Assessment 5.01.2.2 Minnesota Braille Skills Inventory 5.01.2.3 informal functional vision assessment 5.01.2.4 reading rates 5.01.3 Eye specialist report detailing acuity, pathology and prognosis. 5.01.4 Media/functional vision evaluation by a low vision specialist. 5.01.5 Student's IEP team recommendation. 6.00 School District Access to Adaptive Textbooks 6.01 Local school districts must assess any student whose visual impairment adversely affects his/her educational performance as to the student's need for adaptive textbooks. 6.02 For the purpose of these regulations, the criteria stated in Section 5.00 shall be the minimum criteria for determining student eligibility. 6.03 Local school districts may seek assistance for assessing a student's need for adaptive textbooks by calling the Educational Services for Visually Impaired located at the Arkansas School for the Blind. 6.04 Following a determination that a student is eligible for adaptive textbooks, the regional vision consultant serving the local school district will approve the purchase of textbooks for each student determined eligible. 6.05 The regional vision consultant will complete an Educational Materials Center book order form and transmit the form to the Educational Materials Center at the Arkansas School for the Bltnd. 7.0 Costs 7.01 There shall be no charge to local school districts for the large print or braille textbooks, unless the book is lost or is severely damaged. 7.02 Should a textbook be lost or sustain such damage as to render the book unusable, the district will be billed for the costs associated with replacing the book. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK . ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 61i2-4-l 7 j RAYMOND ~IMOr-.. Director NO Sl-98-020 Page: l of2 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected Other: Librarians There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability and School Improvement: Frank Anthony Subject: Arkansas Young Writer's Award Winners Celebration of Young Readers and Writers Banquet Regulatory Authority: None Index Code: AEB Contact Person: James A Hester Phone No: 501-682-4371 The Arkansas Young Writer's Award, sponsored by the Arkansas Elementary School Council, is completing its third year of operation. The annual banquet \"A Celebration of Young Readers and Writers\" will be held at Sherwood Forest, Sherwood on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. Barbara Robinson, author of The Best School Year Ever, Charlie May Simon Medallion Winner, and Mary Hahn, author of Time for Andrew: A Ghost Story, Honor Book winner will do presentations at the banquet. Please see enclosed map and instructions for ordering tickets and books. Twenty-four young authors will be recognized as outstanding writers. The students being recognized are as follows: Mary Hitt Lain Lawrence Wendy Owen Marcy Tarno Lauren Bridges Brandi Aleshire Amy Cessor Jessieville Elementary Russellville Middle School Rose Bud Eiementary Maynard Elementary Benton Middle Van Cove Lakeside Middle, Lakeview \"The Wind \"How Mr. Shears Got a Job at the White House\" \"The Lucky Coin\" \"Unknown Protector\" \"Buttercup Wishes\" \"Bees\" \"At Least Somebody Loves Me\" STATE BOARD Of EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM II. HSHF.R, Poraiollld  Vkt Chairman - LUKE GORD) . \\-an Buren MrmlN,n: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARI. E IIAG\u0026lt;\nETT, Roe~  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA lllXO.,, , .\\rl..od,lphia ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conwoy  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., Mc:Gehtt  LEWI~ THOMPSON, JK, l \u0026lt;\u0026gt;arl...ul  SHERRY WALKER. Uttlt Rock  ANITA YATES, S...ton~W An Equal Opportunity Employu Courtney Magness Lisa Mccullen Stahr Mangrum Heather Johnson Clarke Lindsey Gray Christie Surber Jessica Baker Nicole Billingsley Rebecca Moss Christopher William Ison Luke Rothwell Justin Burris Emily Tyson Judy Jenkins Katy Stone Brandy Trout Newark Elementary Van Cove Elementary Buffalo Island Central West Elementary College Station Elementary, Pulaski County Belwood Elementary, North Little Rock \"A Wish\" \"Relaxation\" \"Ernie, The Nerd--Yet My Best Friend\" \"What Reading Means to Me\" \"The Planet That Glowed\" L. F. Henderson Elementary, \"The Haunted House\" Ashdown Oakbrooke Elementary, Pulaski County Prescott Middle School Bright Star Elementary Cato Elementary Pulaski County \"The Tornado\" \"The Holocaust\" \"Our Darling Emrnaly\" \"It Could Happen\" Walker Elementary, Springdale \"My Trip Through The Tunnel\" Oakbrooke Elementary, Pulaski County Bright Star Elementary Maynard Elementary L. F. Henderson Elementary, Ashdown Tuckerman Elementary \"The Field\" \"The New Kid\" \"Mothers Birthday Surprise\" \"Sunsets\" \"Hiding In The Bathroom\" A CELEBRATION OF YOUNG READERS AND WRITERS BANQUET PLEASE RETURN NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 I/we will attend the Celebration ofYoung Readers and Writers Award Banquet on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at Sherwood Forest in Sherwood. The price is $11.00 for students and $18.00 for adults. Make checks payable to the ARKANSAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNCIL. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL CASH, ONLY CHECKS. Enclosed is $- -------for- ---------student reservations. En closed is $ for adult reservations. DO NOT SENT TICKET ORDERS TO SHERWOOD FOREST Your confirmation may be obtained at the registration table before the banquet. The confirmation will be under your school district name, or if it is an individual, it will be under the name of the person(s) attending the banquet. Registration will begin at 4:30. No tickets sold on site. Name Name Name School and City School and City School and City Mail to: James A. Hester, Secretary/Treasurer Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Elementary School Council 4 Capitol Mall, Room 302-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 REGISTRATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 1997, AND RECEIVED BY SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 I - BOOK ORDER INFORMATION I would like to order the following books to be picked up on Thursday evening, September 25, I 997, at Sherwood Forest in Sherwood. Make checks payable to the Arkansas Elementary School Council. Please do not mail cash, only checks. In the event, when your order is received all books have been sold, you will be notified by telephone of the lack of books and your check will be returned. Books can be picked up on Thursday evening, September 25, 1997, at the time of registration. Name of person purchasing books Work telephone number Name of School City THE BEST SCHOOL YEAR EVER by Barbara Robinson Enclosed is for hardback books $15 .00 each Enclosed is for aperback books $5 .00 each TIME FOR ANDREW: A GHOST STORY by Mary Hahn Enclosed is -------for --------hardback books $15.00 each Enclosed is _______ for ________ _.aperback books $5.00 each TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED --------- Mail to: James A. Hester, Secretaryffreasurer Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Elementary School Council 4 Capitol Mall, Room 302-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 DEADLINE FOR SENDING IN BOOK ORDERS IS SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 Lit t1e lb::k I-)'.) I-est\n1-bry.larl Ave. G mi 11.nidptl Aiq:ort 1111 W. H1ryla--cf A~. B.:-1234 Ari\u0026lt;ansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722011071  (501) 682-44 75 RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies to: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals NO: SI-98-021 Page: Page 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, School Improvement and Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Curriculum Development, Adoption and Review Index Code: IG Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness Regulatory Authority: Act 326 of 1997 Contact Person: Dr. Gayle Potter Phone No.: 501-682-4558 The Arkansas Department of Education will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules and regulation for African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness. The hearing will be October 3, 1997, beginning at 1 :00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building in Little Rock, Arkansas. A copy of the proposed rules and regulations for African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness is attached. Written comments regarding the proposed rules and regulations will be accepted by Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director, Curriculum and Instruction, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, until October 30, 1997. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman-WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pan10.W  VluClwnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Bun,n Mrmben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Roa:n  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadrlplua JAMES MtLARTY Ill, Nnrport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rod,  ANITA YA TES, Bmtonvlllr An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND RACIAL AND ETHNIC AWARENESS 1.00 African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness 1.01 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Concerning AfricanAmerican History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness. 1.02 The State Board of Education enacted these regulations pursuant to its authority under Act 326 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose of Regulations 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to establish a task force to select instructional resource materials appropriate for teaching African-American history in all grade clusters in kindergarten through grade twelve in the public schools to advance in the training of educators in racial and ethnic awareness. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Training: training of school district personnel in the use of instructional materials combined with the development of their greater awareness of ethnic and racial differences. 3.02 Black History Task Force: the only group commissioned to recommend instructional resource materials for use in African-American History. 4.00 Composition of seven person task force 4.01 These regulations indicate that the seven (7) members of the Black History Task Force shall be appointed by the chairperson of the Black History Advisory Committee of the Arkansas History Commission. 4.02 These regulations mandate that the Black History Task Force of seven (7) members is to be composed of classroom teachers representing each of the grade clusters in K-12 and an historian from an institution of higher learning. Members shall represent the regional diversity of Arkansas. 5.00 Reviewing bodies 5.01 For the purposes of these Rules and Regulations, a \"reviewing body\" is any person or organization that would serve to evaluate or critique the work of the Black History Task Force. 5.02 These regulations maintain that the Black History Task Force will not be composed of any person from any reviewing body, such as the Arkansas Department of Education or the Black History Advisory Committee. 6.00 Distribution of Funds 6.01 When funds are available for African-American History expenditures in public schools, such funds will be distributed for the purchase of materials from a prepared resource list on a per pupil basis to local school districts or to educational service cooperatives. However, the Arkansas Department of Education may elect to fund pilot programs on a competitive basis, in lieu of per pupil disbursements. 6.02 At least ninety (90) percent of all funding shall be dedicated to the purchase of material and/or required training. 7.00 Training 7.01 Each school district shall send a district trainer for training as a resource for others in the district in the use of instructional materials and in racial and ethnic awareness and sensitivity. 2 7.02 All training for African-American History implementation shall be delivered through the statewide system of education service cooperatives and the three (3) Pulaski County school districts. 7.03 During the required training session, each trainer shall receive training in developing greater awareness of ethic and racial differences, improving interpersonal skills, and enhancing racial harmony. 7.04 All training required by the Black History Task Force for teachers of African-American History shall be concluded by August 1, 1999, if funds are available. 7.05 All materials recommended by the Black History Task Force for teachers of African-American History shall be authorized by August 1, 1999, if funds are available. 3     ADE Memos - Received 9-24-97 Funding Proposals, Grants and Special Projects, ~ ight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Act Proposed Rule and Regulations on Duty to Report Student Criminal Acts School District Annual Report Textbook Selection Use of Technology Resources in Instruction Internet Use by District Owned Computers Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,-S, .. ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4-P.S RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 t 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: SI-98-023 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 18, 1997 Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. (Eleven Page Evaluation Report) Assistant Director, School Improvement \u0026amp; Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Funding Proposals, Grants and Special Projects Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Act Index Code: DD Regulatory Authority: Title II of Improving America's Schools Act Contact Person: Gayle Potter Phone No: 682-4558 This memo contains the district's 1997-98 allocation for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development program, Title II of the Improving America's Schools Act (!ASA). Also included are forms to report activities and expenditures from 1996-97 and to project professional development initiatives for the new year. This is year three of a three-year project. In Year One each applicant was required to design a three-year professional development plan based on identified needs in the district (cooperative). Unless the needs have significantly changed, this year's activities will continue to be linked to that original plan. The application packet requires applicants to report on activities conducted during 1996-97, complete the expenditure report reflecting both Title II funds and required matching, and project a budget and time line for the 1997-98 project year. Listed are some major program guidelines that must be followed in the administration of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pn1CMIW  VkcChalnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Burtn Mtmbtn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON.JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocrn  JoNELLCALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadtlplua JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR, Tuarkona  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlt Rock  ANITA YATES, BmtonvWt An Equal Oppommlty Employtr ASSURANCES LEAs completing the application assure the SEA that it will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application. Also applicant assures that: A. Teachers and children in private schools will share equitably in proposed LEA activities and that adequate notice of the opportunity to participate will be provided. B. Programs ofin-service training and retraining will take in account the need for greater access to and participation in mathematics and science programs by students from historically underrepresented groups, minorities, individuals with limited English proficiency, the economically disadvantaged, and the handicapped. C. Funds received under this program will be used to supplement, not supplant, programs in mathematics and science. D. The LEA agrees to keep such records and provide such information to the Department as reasonably may be required for fiscal audit and program evaluation consistent with the responsibilities of the Department under Title II. PROJECT ASSURANCES Identify the person(s) who will be responsible for administration of the proposed activities at the LEA (Cooperative) level. Name: Position: Telephone Number: The signature certifies that the proposed activities will be carried out in keeping with this proposal and the assurances above, and the LEA named on the application has authorized me as its official representative to file this application. Superintendent of Schools/Cooperative Director Date 1997-98 Schedule of Activities List project activities to be conducted during the 1997-98 project year. You must be as specific as possible in that monthly payments will be based on this schedule of activities. Project Activity Title II Funds Matching Month Scheduled (Copy and use additional pages if necessary.) - Materials. Eisenhower Program funds may be used to purchase supplies and materials that are necessary to conduct training activities. This does not include sets of materials for any individual teacher's classroom.  Support for partnerships between schools, consortia of schools or local educational agencies, and institutions of higher education, to support both academic and pedagogical training for current and pre service teachers.  Preparing teachers in the effective use of educational technology as instructional tools for increasing student understanding of mathematics and science.  Professional development to ensure that girls and young women, minorities, limited English proficient students, individuals with disabilities, and the economically disadvantaged have full opportunity to achieve the challenging State content standards.  Providing financial or other incentives for teachers to become certified by nationally recognized professional teacher enhancement programs.  Preparing teachers to work with parents and families on fostering student achievement in mathematics and science. Special Provisions of the Legislation LEA Consortia. Under Section 2204 of the Act, any LEA receiving an Eisenhower Program allocation of less than $10,000 is required to form a consortium with at least one other entity receiving Eisenhower Program funds. Waiver Provision. The State Education Agency may waive the consortium requirement when a local district is able to demonstrate that it can implement an effective program of professional development as required in the Act with limit~ funds. Consideration of a waiver will depend on the overall potential of the project to meet the determined professional development needs within the LEA\nthe remote location of a district making expenses of a cooperative project more costly or outcomes less effective\nor the extent to which project activities are supported by other local, state or federal funds. Local Cost Sharing. Each local educational agency shall provide not less than 33 percent of the cost of the activities proposed under this part, excluding the cost of services to private school teachers. Waiver of Cost Sharing. The State education agency may approve a waiver of the Local Cost Sharing requirement if a local education agency can demonstrate that such agency is unable to meet the 33% match requirement due to economic hardship and that compliance with such requirements would preclude such agency's participation in the program. LEA Focus on School-Level Activities. At least 80% of the funds available to an LEA must be spent on school-level activities as determined by teachers and other staff through the needs assessment. No more than 20% of the funds may be used for district-wide activities including reasonable administrative expenses (generally not to exceed 5% of the total grant amount). Information Sheet Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program Authorized Activities: Each local educational district, school, or cooperative that receives funds under this program shall use such funds for activities that give teachers and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet the Student Learning expectations as listed in the Arkansas curriculum Frameworks. Professional Development activities funded under this program shall meet the following criteria:  Be tied to the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks  Take into account recent research on teaching and learning\n Provide professional development which incorporates effective strategies, techniques, methods and practices for meeting the educational needs of diverse groups of students, including girls and women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, limited English proficient individuals, and economically disadvantaged individuals\n Include strong academic content and pedagogical components\nand -  Be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on the teacher's performance in the classroom. Examples of Eligible Activities as described in the Act:  Professional development for teams of teachers, and, where appropriate, administrators, pupil service personnel, or other staff from individual schools, to support teaching consistent with the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks.  Support and time, which in the case of teachers may include released time with pay, for teacher, and, where appropriate, pupil service personnel and other school staff to enable such teachers and staff to participate in mathematics and science subjects that are Offered through professional associations, universities, and other providers.  Activities that provide follow up for teachers who have participated in professional Development activities that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teacher are implemented in the classroom. 1997 -1998 Budget Information Allocation of Funds Public School Allocation Private School Allocation Carryover from 1996-97 _____ _ Carryover from 1996-97 _____ _ New allocation 1997-98 ------ New allocation 1997-98 ------ (see printout) (see printout) Public School Subtotal Private School Subtotal Required Matching (33% of 97-98 Public School A/location) - Identify the source of matching funds. Note: Funds allocated for project activities must equal the sum of Total Grant Award and Required Match unless a waiver is requested and approved. (1996-97 Program Evaluation) 6. Budget Summary of Public/Private schools. Total grant award amount for public schools for 1996-97 (Includes any carry over from I 995-96) $ ______ _ Provide amount spent in each of the following categories: Reimbursement and/or stipend Consultant fees and expenses Materials and supplies used for conducting training Administrative expenses Other (please specify) Total project expenditures for 1996-97 Amount of 1996-97 Grant Award unspent to be carried forward. $ ----- Total grant award amount for private schools for 1996-97 (Includes any carry over from 1995-96) $ ------- Provide amount spent in each of the following categories: Reimbursement and/or stipend Consultant fees and expenses Materials and supplies used for conducting training Other (please specify) Total project expenditures for 1996-97 Amount of 1996-97 Grant Award unspent to be carried forward. $ ____ _ 7. Matching Funds/In-Kind Support for Professional Development Activities a. Local district or State funds used to match Title II expenditures $ ------ b. Other Federal funds used to match Title II expenditures $ ------ Source _______________ _ c. In-Kind contributions used to match Title II. $ ------ d. Total $ ------ (1996-97 Program Evaluation) 3. List the total number of participants in each of the following categories: (non duplicate count) A. Teachers B. Preservice teachers C. Administrators/Supervisors D. Other school staff Total 4. List the number of participants who were: A. Male B. Female 5. List the number of participants who were: A. White, non-Hispanic B. Black, non-Hispanic C. Hispanic D. Asian, Pacific Islander E. American Indian/ Alaskan Native 2. (1996-97 Program Evaluation) Private School Information Number of Participants Number of Participants Number of for Mathematics for Science Hours Trained Activity Elem. MIS Sec. Elem. MIS Sec. 1. (1996-97 Program Evaluation)  Public School Information (List each activity conducted during Number of Participants Number of Participants Number of the 96-97 project year.) for Mathematics for Science Hours Trained Activity Elem. MIS Sec. Elem. MIS Sec. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Improving America's Schools Act School District or Cooperative: Address: City: County: EVALUATION REPORT 1996-97 School Year Zip: Telephone: Please return completed application on or before November 3, 1997 to: Dr. Gayle Potter Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 . .. Other Subject Areas. The IASA provides for subject areas other than mathematics and science to be included in the program. The extent to which funds may be directed to activities involving teachers other than mathematics and science teachers is dependent on the level of funding at the national level. For the 1997-98 year, 22. 7 percent of the funds may be directed to professional development in subject areas other than mathematics and science activities. Consortium. \"Any local education agency that receives an allocation of less than $10,000 under this Title shall, ... form a consortium with at least one other local agency or institution receiving assistance under the act.\" Refer to the Information Sheet for conditions and procedures under which this agreement may be waived. Cost Sharini, Each local educational agency is required to provide not less than 33 percent of the cost of activities proposed under this Title, excluding the cost of services to private school teachers. Refer to the Information Sheet for conditions and procedures under which this requirement may be waived. Allocation and Distribution of Funds Allocations are based on two factors: 50 percent is distributed based on the total enrollment from public and participating private schools (where applicable), and fifty percent is distributed in the same proportion as funds received under Part A of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act. Funds must be distributed based on the schedule of activities. It is imperative that the proposal identify, to the extent possible, activities that will be conducted during the year and that a cost be projected for each activity. The schedule of payments will be based on monthly needs to fund those activities. Current grant awards extend through September 30, 1997. Any expenditure of funds after that date must be by extension of the grant award or carried over into the new project. Once the plan has been reviewed and approved, the effective date of the new grant award will be the date that the new Schedule of Activities and Evaluation of the 1996-97 project were received by the Department of Education. Applications should be received on or before November 3, 1997. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATE C' APITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. AR KANSAS 72201- l 07 l  (501) 682 -~-n\nRAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: ACC-98-024 Page: 1 of 1 SEP 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: September 18, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors *Other Interested Parties Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There is an attachment to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Subject: Proposed Rule and Regulations on Duty to Report Student Criminal Acts - Regulatory Authority: Act 1243 of 1997 Index Code: nH Contact Person: Theresa W. Dixon Phone No: (501) 682-4227 The Arkansas Department of Education will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule and regulation on Duty to Report and Investigate Student Criminal Acts. The hearing will be held October 6, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building in Little Rock, Arkansas. A copy of the proposed rule and regulation is attached. Written comments regarding the proposed rule and regulation will be accepted until October 27, 1997. Comments should be addressed to: Theresa Dixon Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 * Will be mailed by Attorney's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Oudnnan . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pancoalcl  Vice Ownnan . LUKE GORDY, Van Buren Memben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXOI',, Ari\u0026lt;adelphia  ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR .. Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES. BaatonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS ON DUTY TO REPORT STUDENT CRIMINAL ACTS 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education regulations governing the duty of school personnel to report student criminal acts. 1.02 The State Board of Education enacted these regulations pursuant to its authority under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-113, as amended by Act 1243 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose of Regulations 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidelines under which schools will report felony incidents or other crimes involving acts of violence against a teacher, school employee or student to law enforcement authorities. - 3.00 Definitions 3.01 \"Felony\" means a crime of a more serious nature than those designated as misdemeanors, as defined by Arkansas statutes. ~ Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-106 which classifies felony crimes. (A) Examples of a felony involving violence include, but are not limited to: Murder in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-10-102 Murder in the second degree, A. C. A. 5-10-103 Kidnaping, A. C. A. 5-11-102 Aggravated robbery, A. C. A 5-12-103 Rape, A. C. A. 5-14-103 Sexual abuse in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-13-201 Violation of a minor in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-14-120 Battery in the first degree, A. C. A  5-13-201 Terroristic act, A. C. A. 5-13-310 Unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, A. C. A. 5-7 4-107 3.02 \"Other crime involving an act of violence\" means the equivalent of \"crime of violence\" as defined by Ark. Code Ann. 5-74-103 (c) and 5-74-202 (c): 'any violation of Arkansas laws where a person purposely or knowingly causes, or threatens to cause, death or physical injury to another person or persons.' 3.03 \"Reasonable belief' means the belief that an ordinary, prudent person would form under the circumstances in question and are not recklessly or negligently formed . See Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-102(18). 3.04 Student \"enrolled\" means a student who is registered to attend the school. 3.05 \"Law enforcement officer'! means any public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses. See Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-102(12). 4.00 School Reporting Responsibility 4.01 The principal or designee who has direct knowledge or who has received information leading to a reasonable belief that a student enrolled in the public school has committed a felony on school property or while under school supervision/authority shall report the incident to the superintendent. 4.02 The principal or designee who has direct knowledge or who has received information leading to a reasonable belief that a student enrolled in the public school has committed a crime involving an act of violence against a teacher, a school employee, or a student shall report the incident to the superintendent. 4.03 The superintendent or designee shall report the incident to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. 5.00 Guidelines for School Reporting 5.01 If a principal or designee has reason to believe that an incident has occurred that satisfies the provisions of these rules and regulations, the incident must be reported to the superintendent. 5.02 The age of the student or other mitigating factors should not be considered when deciding whether to report the incident. 5.03 Possible defenses to criminal acts should not be considered when deciding whether to report the incident. (Example: self-defense). 5.04 An attempt should not be made to distinguish between degrees of involvement when several students are involved. All students who may have participated in or planned an incident should be reported. 5.05 An attempt should not be made to distinguish between attempt and a complete crime. A student who has taken substantial steps toward committing a crime as described herein may have committed a felony and should be reported. 5.06 Incidents that should be reported include, but are not limited to: (A) Crimes against persons when the result of student conduct is believed to be: Death (capital murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)\nDeprivation of liberty of another (kidnaping, first degree false imprisonment)\nPhysical injury to another (first and second degree battery)\nOthers were put at risk of death or serious physical injury (aggravated assault). (B) Crimes against property when it is believed that: Property was taken by deception or theft, and value is over $200\nProperty was taken by threat or by force\nThe property taken was a credit card\nA fire was started\nA student remained in school building to commit a crime\nA student broke into school building to commit a crime\nA student broke into building, structure, vehicle or object containing money or products. (C) Sex offenses if sexual contact is believed to be have occurred: By force\nVictim was under age 14\nVictim was unable to consent because of mental defect or mental incapacity or because he or she is physically helpless. (D) Drug offenses if a student is believed to possess: Drugs or controlled substances\nDrug paraphernalia. (E) Weapon offenses if a student is believed to possess: A bomb\nAny firearm\nMetal knuckles or similar device. 6.00 Failure to Report 6.01 The statute carries a Class C misdemeanor penalty for any person who fails to report, as required by the statute. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201. 1071  (501) 682-4-P.\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 1997 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MOfUTORING FORWARD COPIES TO: X SUPERINTENDENTS, X CO-OP DIRECTORS TYPE: No: SI - 98 - 024 Date: September 18, 1997 Page: 1 of 1 RESPONSE REQUIRED BY: X REGULATORY ATTACHMENTS All ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/SECTION: Frank Anthony, School Improvement\u0026amp; Instructional Support SUBJECT: School District Annual Report INDEX CODE: CM - REGULATORY AUTHORITY: N/A CONTACT PERSON: Oliver Dillingham PHONE NO: 682-4213 Equity Assistance Center The purpose of the Annual Equity Compliance Report is to assure that each local school district is in compliance with Standard I, 1993 Revised Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, which states: All school districts' policies and actions shall be nondiscriminatory and shall be in compliance with state and federal laws. State Code Annotated 6-10-111 (1987) Section 3, requires each district to annually report to the Arkansas Department of Education, Equity Assistance Center, regarding its compliance with civil rights responsibilities. Federal laws (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) have specific requirements of public schools as recipients of federal funds . The attached 1997 Annual Equity Compliance Report should be completed and returned to the Equity Assistance Center by Wednesday, October 15, 1997 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Clwnaan -WILLIAM H. FISHER, PancoaY  VluC'halnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Burrn MemMn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia , JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD r. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES, Badoavllk An Equal Opportunity Employrr ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPORT 1997-1998 District ________________ County __________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ___________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle. ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone _____________ Fa~------------- PLEASE RESPOND RELATIVE TO THE DISTRICT'S STATUS 1. Is there a district Equity Self-Evaluation process used annually to determine if the district is in compliance with Standard I, Civil Right Laws of 1964, Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504? _ Yes _ No 2. Is the district's non-discrimination policy posted throughout the district's facilities and included in all handbooks, application forms and recruitment materials? _Yes __No 3. Are strategies to alleviate inequities and comply with state and federal regulations included in each school's improvement plan? _ Yes __No The signatures below certify that the district is in compliance with state and federal civil rights regulations and with Standard I for Accreditation of Arkansas public schools. Superintendent's Name: ________________________ _ Signatures/Dates: __________________________ _ Superintendent Date Board President Date Board Secretary Date SECTION 504: DISABILITY Identify the designated Section 504 Coordinator (34C.F.R. 104.7) District County _________ _ Education Cooperative _______________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator _____________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle _____________________ _ Address __________________________ _ Telephone. ______________ Fa ____________ _ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, state: \"no otherwise qualified handicapped individuals ... shall, solely by reason of their handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" 1. Has the district designated at least one person to coordinate efforts to comply with Section 504? __ Yes __ No 2. Does the district have grievance procedures that incorporate due process standards and provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any prohibited action? __ Yes __ No 3. Does the district provide appropriate provisions for children that have been identified with disabling conditions under 504 to ensure equal educational opportunities? __ Yes __ No 4. Has the district taken appropriate steps to notify students, parents and the general public of its duty to assure equitable access to educational programs? __ Yes __ No 5. Are there district procedures to locate and identify students with disabilities who do not qualify for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? __ Yes __ No TITLE IX: GENDER EQUITY Identify the designated Gender Equity Coordinator {34C.F.R.106.8)* District ___________ ____ _ County ___________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator _____________________ _ Coordinator's Position/fitle ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone. ______________ Fa,._ ____________ _ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states: \"No person. .. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Financial Assistance. \" The Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving federal assistance . Please indicate the district's status relative to the following requirements of Tide IX of the Education Amendments Acts of 197 4, Tide VI and Tide VIl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1. Does the district have a specific policy against harassment and a written code of conduct that publicizes it? __ Yes _No 2. Does the district's policy contain the minimum elements of a definition and prescribe methods of notifying people? __ Yes ____No 3. Are there references to harassment in the district's student handbook and the employee's handbook? __ Yes ____No 4. Does the district have a grievance procedure to handle complaints about harassment and to monitor its effectiveness? __ Yes ___ No 5. Has information about the grievance procedure been distributed to students and employees? _ Yes _No TITLE VI: RACE Identify the individual designated to respond to race equity issues. District ________________ County __________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ____________________ _ Coordinator's Position/fitle _____________________ _ Address ____________________________ _ Telepbone _____________ Fa ____________ _ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: \"No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or nation origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" 1. Does the district have board adopted grievance procedures that encourage local resolution of problems rather than resorting to the formal civil rights complaint procedure? __ Yes _No 2. Does the district distribute its grievance procedures and policy of nondiscrimination to the students, parents and general public annually? __ Yes _No 3. Is there a district policy and procedure that ensure that no student is denied equitable access to instructional services, transportation, student activities, facilities, honor and awards learning materials, guidance and counseling, and curriculum and instruction? __ Yes __ No 4. Does the district utilize a variety of methods to encourage all identifiable groups of parents to become involved in school functions? __ Yes __ No 5. Are the district's policies of nondiscrimination posted in all facilities and disseminated prior to the beginning of each school year to students, parents, employees and the general public? __ Yes ____No .. TITLE VI: NATIONAL ORIGIN Identify your district's English as a Second Language (ESL) Coordinator. District _ ______________ County _________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ___________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle. ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone. _______________ Fax. _____________ _ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C Sec. 200d et seqJ requires that: \"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" In addition, insofar as national origin regulations are applied to those students who are limited in their english proficiency, the May 25 Menwrandum from DHEW requirements state that: \"Where the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students. \" Indicate your response to the following statements: 1. Does the district have, in place, a process that ensures that national origin students are provided opportunity for full participation in the full life of the school, including all academic services, counseling, extracurricular student activities, and placement in gifted and talented programs, advanced placement and honors courses? __ Yes __ No 2. Has the district identified language minority students, assessed their level of English proficiency, and provided all Limited English Proficient (LEP) students with an educational program that develops English skills and provides for appropriate, understandable content and subject matter instruction? __ Yes __ No 3. Does the district ensure that staff training, curriculum materials, and evaluation procedures are appropriate for LEP students? __ Yes _ No 4. Does the district ensure that LEP students are not mis-assigned to special education classes due to their inability to speak and understand English. __ Yes __ No 5. Does the district ensure that parents who are not proficient in English are provided with appropriate, understandable, and sufficient information about all school activities? __ Yes __ No 6. Does the district takes steps to modify a program for LEP students when that program is noteffective? __ Yes __ No Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4.n..\n, RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr High Principals Elementary Principals NO: IA-98-009 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 18, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected Attachments: None Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Textbook Selection Index Code: IJJ Regulatory Authority: Arkansas Code Annotated 6-21-401-413 (Rep!. 1993) Contact Person: Sue McKenzie Phone No: 682-4593 The State Recommended List of Textbooks and other Instructional Materials for Language arts, grades kindergarten through eight and the Textbook Caravan Itinerary normally sent to districts in September will be sent following the state Board Meeting in October. The anticipated dates for the textbook caravan, this year are November 3 through December 15, 1997. The dates for filling reports of adoption will be adjusted accordingly. Beginning the textbook caravan later will allow full attention to be given to the state standardized testing to take place in late September and early October. The accompanying attachments provide information to update the present State Recommended List of Textbooks and other Instructional Materials. The information covers substitution of new materials made by publishers, price reductions and some ISBN number corrections. A listing of the latest off list materials on state contracts is also included. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  Vice Chairman  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren Members: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rogers  JoN ELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, .JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, ,JR, Texarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock  ANITA YATES, Bentonville An Equal Opportunity Employer ADDENDUM Please Make the following changes in your Textbooks /Instructional Grades 7-12 (Gray Binder) Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Social Studies: Government and Civics American Government: Principles and Practices Page 20, ISBN Number change Incorrect ISBN 0-02-823919-0 Page 21 Substitution, Old Title Section Quizzes Cpyt. Ed. 1996 4 0-02823836-2, Student Text, Copyright 1996, 2nd edition New 0-02821913-9, Student Text, Copyright 1998, 3rd edition ISBN Correction - 0-0283847-8, Chapter and Unit Tests, 1998, 3rd edition Mosby Publishers Science: Applied Science Page 0-81518805-6 understanding the Human Body, 1994 Correct ISBN 0-02823919-9 1998 3 (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill now distributes this title, Educator's Book Depository Supplemental Health, Page 7 Scott Foresman ISBN correction Incorrect number 0-67359824-8 Student Text, Soft bound Social Studies, Page 55 Rand McNally Number correction Incorrect number Correct number 0-67329824-8 528-17715 Atlas of American History transparencies,set of 14 Correct Number TRP-17715-5 Social Studies, Page 10 Prentice Hall The American Nation: Beginnings to 1877 0-13-427048-7 American heritage Single User Version CD-ROM/Win 0-13-427121-1 American heritage Single User Version CD-ROM/Mac 9-13-432311-4 Guided Reading Audiotapes, English America: Pathways Page 13 0-13-831124-2 Guided Reading Audiotapes, English Version World Georgraphy, Page 36 Prentice Hall 0-13-828013-4 Guided Reading Audiotapes English Version World Georgraphy, Page 34 Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 0-02-14 73339-0 World Regions, Pupil Edition Glencoe/McGraw-Hill . Teen Health Course 1 and 2 0-02-651774-4 Student Text 0-02-651792-2 Conruct Resolution 0-02-651796-5 Building Life Management Skllls 0-02-651794-9 Personal and Social Development 0-02-65177~5 Concept Mapping Activities 0-02-651783-3 Enrichment Activlttes 0-02-651782-5 Decision-Making Activities 0-02-651781-7 Health Labs 0-02-651784-1 Cross-Curriculum Acttvlties 0-02-651785-X Performance Assessment 0-02-651786-8 Test Program 0-02-651798-1 Cooperative Leaming Activity Cards Package 0-02-651802-3 Poster Package 0-02-6527 46-4 Deallng with Sensitive Issues 0-02-6527 44-8 Cultural Diversity In the Health Classroom 0-02-651512 1 Death and the Adolescent 0-02-651788-4 Parent Letters and Acttvlties (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 0-02-651803-1 Engllsh Audlocassette Package 0-02-651804-X Spanish Audlocassette Package 2 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 New Price 49.97 49.97 45.47 45.47 45.47 39.78 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 24.99 6.99 6.99 6.99 18.99 16.98 12.99 12.99 12.99 14.97 18.99 25.98 18.99 13.99 12.99 14.54 - 12.99 75.00 75.00 - 0-02-.652766-9 Spanish Summaries, Quizzes \u0026amp; AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 19.98 0-02-6527 48-0 Teen Health Course 1 Video Kit 1996 1 6-8 299.99 0-02-651813-9 Testmaker, Apple 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651814-7 Testmaker, IBM 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651815-5 Testmaker, MacIntosh 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651816-3 Videodisc Program (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 1996 1 6-8 195.00 0-02-651823-6 VHS Program (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 1996 1 6-8 99.99 0-02-651799-X Teaching Transparencies Binder 1996 1 6-8 120.62 0-02-651801-5 Teaching Strategies and AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 15.12 Teen Health, Course 2 0-02-652566-6 Student Text 1996 1 6-8 32.97 0-02-652712-X Developing Responsible RelaUonshlps 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652590-9 Violence PrevenUon 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652588-7 Alcohol. Drugs, and Tobacco EducaUon 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652710-3 HIV/AIDS 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0--02-652573-9 Concept Mapping AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 22.98 0-02-652577-1 Enrichment AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 19.98 0-02-652576-3 Decision-Making AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652575-5 Health Labs 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652578-X Cross-Curriculum AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652581-X Performance Assessment 1996 1 6-8 18.99 0-02-652579-5 TesUng Program 1996 1 6-8 22.98 0-02-653122-4 CooperaUve Leaming acUvlty Cards Packa\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\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1648","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator","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":["1997-08-27"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator"],"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/1648"],"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":["52 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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG INTERVENORS MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSIDP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR The Joshua lntervenors respectfully request that the Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors in order to review the circumstances that exist at Southwest Junior High School including many violations of the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans adversely affecting the education of black students, and upon appropriate findings determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership, or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that: 1. Chaotic conditions exist at the schoo~ including but not limited to, numerous students having been kept out of classes for the first five days of school by the principal because they have no schedules through no fault of their own and through the misfeasance or malfeasance of the princip~ Dr. Walter Marchalek and the failure of the leadership of the LRSD to respond appropriat_e,l,y,- to the 1 situation; 2. Numerous students have been misassigned to classes by Principal Marshalek with the result being that some students who were lasi year assigned to special education and/or resource classes are now assigned to gifted and talented classes and vice versa; 3. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for one or more years without the school developing an individualized remedial plan for the student; 4. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for two years or more without their parents receiving interim reports prior to their retention; 5. Discipline in the school is frequently arbitrary or in some cases non-existent. Some students are left unsupervised in classes without teachers thereby increasing the probability of difficult student relationships. In one of the unsupervised classrooms, at least one student has been injured - due, in large part, to the absence of supervisor personnel; 6. Students are not being taught due to the delay in making schedules for them. For these students, the school has no plan for providing remediation type work. These students will necessarily be disadvantaged in mee~ing the educational expectations of the school, with many being unable to make up the time or work lost, due to the administrator misfeasance or malfeasance; 7. The teaching staff is fractionated and substantially leaderless. Education on an organized, systematic and educationally acceptable basis is simply not occurring at Southwest Junior High school; 8. The school district is aware of these problems. It has been aware of these problems since the assignment of the present principal to the school. The school district has not devised a plan to correct the problems identified above and others of a similar nature. The problems impact black 2 students almost exclusively, with black males being disproportionately affected by the adverse conditions at the school. Moreover, the school administration has difficulty in treating this group of students fairly, as a general matter, 9. The equal educational opportunities promised by the desegregation plan are not occurring at Southwestern Junior High School; the facts cited in this motion establish violations of the LRSD Plan, 4/92, at [pp. 2-3 (Leadership), pp. 28-29 (School Operations), and 33-35], and the Interdistrict Plan, 4/92, at [p. 21 (School Operations)]. 10. Joshua has previously served notice of the administrative malfeasance which has occurred at the school upon Little Rock's acting administrative superintendent Don Roberts and upon Ms. Ann Brown. See Attachment A These efforts did not yield improvements at Southwest. Black students are thus in a position where their educational opportunity is being severely curtailed, and in - some cases denied in violation of the desegregation plan. This action for relief is therefore appropriate and necessary. An early hearing is essential if relief is to be meaningful. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court a) give this matter urgent and immediate attention; b) require the District to prepare within two days a report showing the actual school climate and the extent to which students have been assigned or misassigned to class; c) require the District to report to extend to which black males have been adversely affected by late assignment or scheduling practices and to describe the remediation plans that the District has provided or plans to provide for make-up work, and other corrective actions; d) require the District to establish the extent to which students have been retained in specific grades for more than one year; and to explain by clear and convincing proof all other conditions that demonstrate racial disparity. The Court is further called upon to enjoin the District from allowing the present principal to continue 3 his assignment at Southwest Junior High School and to have placed in his stead someone responsible to the Court who will establish the school as an efficient, nondiscriminatory educational institution. The Intervenors further pray that the Court require the ODM to develop a comprehensive monitoring report on the present educational and interpersonal conditions which exist at Southwest Junior High School, the extent to which there is racial division in the school, and the extent to which the principal has led and now leads the institution. Joshua finally prays, as a last resort, for the school to be placed into receivership. Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER,P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: -j_ Jo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this -2:3_ day of August, 1997. 4 .JOHN W. WALKER ~.ALPH WASHINGTON \\L.\\RK BURNETTE . .\\USTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AITOR!-IEY AT I.Aw 1723 BROADWAY LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 12, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Roberts: During the last school year, we had myriad complaints of a racial nature from students, parents and staff regarding the-  .  . administration of Dr. Walter Marshaleck at Southwest Junior High. School. I advised him that there appeared to be a number of  problems and suggested that he may wish to address them before  the beginning of this school year. The school year is at hand Aand my office has already received at least three complaints from wblack staff members which we construe to have racial overtones. I believe that it would be appropriate for you to address this matter at once to determine whether the indications we have received are symptoms of a more endemic problem. We will cooperate with you in addressing the issue at your request. Back to the Southwest Junior High School matter, Ms. Springer and I spoke with Dr. Marshaleck today and we will no doubt have different opinions about our conversation. From our perspective, he seeks to run the school and to interact with people as if he is still a military officer. This approach is contrary to the spirit and promises of the desegregation plan. The plan seeks and promises cooperation rather than dictatorial approaches to interpersonal and interprofessional situations. Your counsel and wisdom are earnestly sought regarding this matter. r:eri.2~ 5;t!1:. Walker ~ JWW: js ecc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Walter Marshaleck I  ; ~,::II(, : . ,:_ _.. ... 1=-.-: . ~~: ~;, it' :. \",t:.: . FILED U.S. DISTRICT C8t.JRT IN Tiffi UNITED STATES couftrESN DISTRICT .l~ i{ ~'IJSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK. CLERK By: ---------,=-=--=-:-:=-=-e UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Di:?. K~IFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR Joshua Intervenors' motion concerning Southwest Junior High School shows a total breakdown in the educational program at the school, violative of the rights of class members as set forth in the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans. See Motion, para. 9. The relief requested in the motion, as strong as it is, is tailored to address the situation at the school. It is in accordance with relevant precedent. This motion cannot be dismissed as \"an individual personal matter.\" It shows a failure by the LRSD leadership to fulfill the promises voluntarily undertaken in the plan. Intervenors rely on the following points and authorities. a) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371. 1394 (8th Cir. 1990), (\"The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\") b) Morgan v. McDonoutp1, 540 F.2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976). C:rl. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff: and overall pattern of resistance by school board; initial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located; thereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver; the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of\"all faculty and ~ucational personnel\" to select a staff \"fit for the purpose of desegregation\"; the receiver reported directly to the district court). c) The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v. Mc[)onou\u003cp1. supra. in which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F2d 1296, 1319 (8th Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee); Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Winin~. 949 F.2d 235,239 (8th Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). d) Turner v. Goolsby. 225 FSupp. 724 (S.D. Ga 1966) (3-judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring district, including providing of bus transportation and then closed the one fonnerly white school as unneeded; this left the 87 black pupils who had chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option; the court placed the system in receivership, 2 designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools ... , \" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan ... , whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730); thereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties; and investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction; the receiver was discharged when the initial systems agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966- 67). e) Perez v. Boston Housing:Authority. 400 N.E 2d. 1331 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing; court placed the Boston Housing Authority in receivership; the orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she \"shall have - the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA; he/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that may be necessary or appropriate; upon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). f) United States v. City of Parma. Ohio. 504 F.Supp. 913. 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed. 661 F.2d. 562. 577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee\" 'within [the] city government\"; this FHC was \"to operate as a primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing a remedial plan ... [and] to ensure that the provisions of [the] order [were] fully complied with .. .' \"[membership on 3 the FHC] shall consist of Panna citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the purpose of [the] Order\"; the membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States; specific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fuir housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Infonnation and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster and interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development). Conclusion As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) -3758 John 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading ha:s been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this~ day of August, 1997. Jo 5  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_154","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1997-07-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring 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/154"],"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\nArkansas Department of Education's Semiann'ucll Desegregation Monitoring Report . ' OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION   TABLE OF CONTENTS Monitoring Overview . . ...................................................................... ii SECT/ONA Monitoring Process .. A-1 SECTION B Enrollment/ Attendance Data ............................................. B-1 SECTIONC Test Data ....................... . ..................................................... C-1 SECTION D Staff .. SECT/ONE Policy and Program Information . SECTION F Budget Information . ....... D-1 . ... E-1 .. F-1  I   TABLE OF CONTENT (page 2 of 2) SECT/ONG Discipline .................................... . . . G-1 Referrals Suspensions . Exclusions Expulsions SECTIONH Perceptual Data SECTION I Majority to Minority Transfer . SECTION.I ECOE . G-6 . .... G-220 ..... G-323 G343                              ............................ H-1 . . . . . . . 1-1 . . . . . J-1 i\n I'-   MONITORING OVERVIEW During the 1996-97 school year, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education selected monitoring teams for the Pulaski County School Districts to monitor these districts in accordance with the Department's Implementation Plan. Monitoring teams were assigned to intensively monitor the following Cycle One Schools: Little Rock School District (10) Baseline Elementary, David O'Dodd Elementary, Fair Park Elementary, Forest Park Elementary, J.A. Fair High School, Jefferson Elementary, Parkview Magnet High, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Terry Elementary, and Wilson Elementary. North Little Rock School District (7) Belwood Elementary, Boone Park Elementary, Glenview Elementary, North Heights Elementary, Park Hill Elementary, Pike View Elementary, and Redwood Elementary. Pulaski County Special School District (5) Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, Oak Grove Jr./Sr. High, Sylvan Hills Jr. High and Sylvan Hills High. Note All parties to the Pulaski County desegregation suit were invited to participate in the monitoring Process for the announced visits on October 8, 1996 and on January 8, 1997 for the unannounced visits. iii  I Section A OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION    MONITORING PROCESS A. MONITORING SCHEDULE The monitoring teams visited schools in accordance with an established schedule of announced and unannounced visits. Announced visits were scheduled from February 26, 1996 to May 10, 1996. Monitors conducted monitoring visits using instruments developed to align with the established criteria for the Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (ECOE). Monitors completed classroom observations, a principal's interview, and a document review process at each school. The school document review process was refined by the establishment of the Tri-District Data Collection Committee and the development of a common terminology document for the fourteen qualitative data elements identified on pages 3 8-41 of the Implementation Plan, and pages 4-5 of the Allen Letter. Accordingly, the ADE identified and monitored the following: 1. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student's assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement is used to facilitate the desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the A-1 I   percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling are designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students is non-discriminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel are recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregated school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed district wide and school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 13. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority Transfers 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective inter-district remedy for racial balance.  The following questions and descriptive data charts show the results of the Department's monitoring for the above components during the announced and unannounced visits. A-2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,.,:, ..  // . . . . .~.~ i~?:,~~ :::.::.. /\n}P'' :.::.: ...... .. .... : .. ~\n.. .-.-.- Section B Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District 1B.    ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE DATA The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan, must collect the following Attendance/Enrollment data from the three Pulaski County School Districts. 1. Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional program for each magnet school. This information is presented in the enrollment/attendance section on the following page. 3. Number of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and non transported. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. B-1 I Section C Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District and the Psychological Corporation.    TEST DATA The Arkansas Department of Education according to the Implementation Plan, must collect the following test data on the three school districts in Pulaski County: 1. Arkansas Minimum Pcrfonnance Test results by race, gender, grade, and socioeconomic status (SES). 2. Number of eighth graders failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of tests by race, gender, SES, and school. 3. Number of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to attain mastery after third administration of tests by race, gender, SES, and school. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. 4. Metropolitan Achievement Test - 6th Edition or other national nonncd tests as may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race, gender, grade, school SES. and teacher. Because the ADE no longer uses the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test, results from these assessments do not exist. However, since 1991-92 the ADE has collected test data by using the Stanford Achievement Test-8. Scores for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 have previously been reported in the I 994 Interim Monitoring Report, the February 1995 Semiannual Report and the July 1995 Semiannual Report. Scores for the Spring of 1994-95, tbe Fall of 1995-96, and the Fall of the 96- 97 school years arc outlined on the following page. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance cow1sclor who take the PSAT, SAT or ACT. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed Fehruarv 1.1997. C-1 I 90 80 70 60 50 40 .' 30 20 10, 0    BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE BM 35 37 30 BF WM RACE AND GENDER 84 WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 87.0% l[IlI!]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was 8. Deaton. COST, F=FREE C-2 60 50 40 30 20 10    DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 50 50 42 fl 36 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC 8.0% NE 12.0% o~-------------~ F 80.0/4, BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER If fiili]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was Y. Goldmon. C-3 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 , 10 0    FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 45 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 93.8/o RC 6.3% lillililSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was S. Branch. COST, F=FREE C-4    FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 100 90 80 70 60 50 , 40 30 20 10 ,' COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 93 94 0\"'----------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER jffiITilSPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was T. Hudson. C-5 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1 Ofo F 28.6% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 70 63 60 50 40 ,' ,' 27 25 30 ,' , 23 20, 10 ,' o~-------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER ID]]]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was D. Armstrong. C-6 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 89.0% RC 7~if 3.7% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60    JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 88 90 88 88 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 50 ,:,,,39 38 35 3 NE 57.8% 40 30 20 10 o~--------------~ BM BF WM WF 37.5/o RA C E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, j. _ffi_II _IlS__P_R_IN__G_9 _5_ _F_A_L_L 95 FALL 96 __j _. CROC=SRTE,FD=UFRCEEED Teachers administering the test were T. Hammond, K. Pittenger, \u0026amp; R. Williams. C-7    PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE ' 83 38 43 41 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER l[Il]Il]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF The teacher administering the test was C. Piggee. C-8 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1 Ofo F 28.6% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 87 84 35 36 39 / BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER 81 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 45.5/o F 32.7% IIIIIII]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were K. Kelly and S. Fountain. C-9    TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD 90 80 70 STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 , - SES BASED COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 60 , , 46 50 NE 50 55.7% 40 30 20 10 c o~--------------,----~ BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER lmsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF 5.1 Ofo F 39.2% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were K. Studdard, D. Powell and S. Cox. C-10    WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 79 80 70 60 , , 50 , , 40 , , 30 , , 2 20 , 10 0\"--------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER I [!Ill]]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIERCITY 1996/11'% F 67.6/c, NE NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were J. Carr and H. Jenkins. C-11    BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 80 70 60 - 50\n40 , 30 20, ~ 10 82 66 0\"----------------____,J BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER The teacher administering the test was B. Hartwick. C-12 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97NE RC s.01o 50.0% F 45.0% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 50 40 30 20 10, 34 37 36 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER l[[ill]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 45 WF The teacher administering the test was M. Cherry. C-13 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1% F 28.6/o NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 ' ' COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE - 28 - - - 23 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER IIIIIIIlSPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 78.3% NE The teacher administering the test was H. Allen. NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE C-14    NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 80 70 60 50 ,'_,,,38 36 40 , 30 20 10 59 59 0\"------------------J BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER lmsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was D. Snowden. C-15 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1% F 28.6/o NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY= Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 22 15 18 10 11 11 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE RC 38.5/o F 53.8% If fiTIIlSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teacher administering the test was C. Melton. C-16 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 68 72 75 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY  1996/97 RC 5.5% NE 45.5/o 49.1% lillJIJSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was D. Crites. COST, F=FREE C-17 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE SES BASED ~-------------~ON FREE 66 40 38 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER j!IIIillSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC 4.5% NE NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teacher administering the test was L. Chancellor. C-18    JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE , , , BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER II T!IIIlSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 60 57 51 WF The teacher administering the test was L. Black. C-19 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY N~996/97 F RC 22.ao1o 5.8% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    NORTH PULASKI HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 70 60 50, 30 , - 3a--39 51 51 32 47 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 82.3/o 20 , - 10 ,' F 10.9% RC 6.8% 0\"---------------_____J BM BF WM WF RA C E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE Il lllilllSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 I ' RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was F. Newkirk. COST, F=FREE C-20    OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 7 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 50 40 30 , 20 ,,, l 10 _, BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER IIJlllillSPRIN9G5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was V. Abrams. C-21 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 93.4/o F ~\"cfo 0.9% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 50 40 , 30, 20 10 56 28 27 28 o~------------~ BM BF WM WF R A C E A N D G E N D ER lnsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was R. Graham. C-22 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 92.1 Ofo F 7.9% I NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 7 70 60 50 _, , 40 _, ' ' 30 _, 20 _, 10 0 , COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE SES BASED ,r--------------~ ONFREE 65 - 26- 28 31 . 36 35 37 BM BF WM WF LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE R1C F 0.3% 24.7% RAC E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE lllllllIISPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 IRC=REDUCED Th e t eac h er a d m1. n.1 sten. ng t h e test was C . Baker. COST ' F=FREE C-23 ' 70 60 50 40 30 20 10    SYLVAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 63 56 54 36 35 35 , / 2 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC _ 85.0% - , RC f2.6 2.4/o 0\"-------------------/ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER [lilllillSPRIN9G5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was P. Cook. C-24 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE Section D Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   STAFF The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following staffing data on Pulaski County School Districts: I. Number of full time equivalent (F .T. E.) classroom teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 2. Number ofFT.E school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. 3. Number ofF.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of experience. 4. Number of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 5. Number ofF.T.E. librarians by race, gender, school, years of experience. 6. Number ofF.T.E. department heads by race, gender, school, years of experience. 7. Number ofF.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience. 8. Number ofF. T.E. central office positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. D-1  I Section E Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following program and policy information on the Pulaski County Districts: 1 . Administrative chart indicates titles, names, and reporting responsibilities.  I 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings and special state funded programs including a. Magnet Schools b Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assignments policies, rules and regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular activities E-1    e. Student Rights and responsibilities f. Library usage g. Student records 4. Copies of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1.1997. However, all policies updates since February 1, 1997 are reported as follows E-2    POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION (Continued on next Chart) 1996-97 Summary of the Three School Districts in Pulaski County   Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD District bas Administrative Chart indicating titles, names, Yes Yes Yes responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit Yes Yes Yes criteria for course offerings and special state funded * * programs. The District has Policies and Regulations for Magnet Schools. Yes No No The District has Policies and Regulations for Compensatory Yes Yes Yes Education Programs. * The District has Policies and Regulations for Majority to Yes Yes Yes Minority Transfers. The District has Policies and Regulations for Transportation. Yes Yes Yes The District has Student Assignment Policies or Regulations. Yes Yes Yes NOTE: The Asterisk(*) denotes that this policy has been undated. E-3    POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION (Continued from previous Chart) 1996-97 Summary of the Three School Districts in Pulaski County Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD The District has Policies, Rules, Regulations and written Yes Yes Yes Administrative Directive Governing. A. Class Assignment Yes Yes Yes B. Testing Yes Yes Yes C. Guidance and Counseling Yes Yes Yes D. Extracurricular Activities Yes Yes Yes E. Student Rights and Responsibilities Yes Yes Yes F. Library Usage Yes Yes Yes G. Student Records Yes Yes Yes The District has made available copies of current negotiated Yes Yes Yes agreements with all employee groups. NOTE: The Asterisk(*) denotes that this policy has been undated. E-4 Section F Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   BUDGET INFORMATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following financial reports quarterly or monthly if available: 1 . Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory Education Program costs. 5. Magnet school cost. Note: The financial information contains actual expenses through March 31, 1997 for the three school districts in Pulaski County This information follows for each school district in Pulaski County. F-1  I Budget Information as of March 31, 1997 OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION    F. BUDGET INFORMATION The Allen Letter, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement) and the Implementation Plan detail specific monitoring responsibilities regarding financial information and various desegregation financial obligations of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to the three school districts in Pulaski County. The financial monitoring responsibilities detailed in the Allen Letter are presented in this section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. The Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan state that the ADE is financially responsible for the following: desegregation compensatory education payments\npayments in lieu of formula\npayments for operating the six original magnet schools in the LRSD\nM-to-M incentive payments for sending and receiving schools\nMagnet and M-toM transportation costs\n$20 million in loans to the LRSD\nattorney's fees\n$75,000 annually to the Magnet Review Committee\nand $200,000 annually to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). SOURCES: The ADE General Finance Section and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-2 Program Cost as of March 31, 1997 .    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 96/97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The information for FY 96/97 reflects each district's expenses as of March 31, 1997. The schedules included in this portion of the Budget Section contain information on Total Program Costs, Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. A zero listed in any expense category funded by federal or desegregation funds indicates that no costs for the school were budgeted to be funded by restricted federal funds or special desegregation funds. The financial information for each district reflects budgeted increases in total expenses in each of the three school districts in Pulaski County for FY 96/97 . Total expenses for the LRSD are budgeted to increase 11.6 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. NLRSD's total expenses are budgeted to increase 18. 7 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. Total expenses in the PCSSD are budgeted to increase 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. The enrollment figures for the LRSD as of October 1, 1996 showed an increase of of O .4 percent for FY 96/97. Enrollment for the NLRSD indicated an increase of 1.8 percent for FY 96/97 according to the enrollment figures as of October 1, 1996. The enrollment figures for the PCS SD showed a decline in the FY 96/97 enrollment of October 1, 1996 of 1.2 percent. The LRSD's cost per student figures are budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97. The NLRSD's cost per student figures are budgeted to increase 16.6 percent in FY 96/97. The cost per student figures in the PCS SD are budgeted to increase 13. 6 percent in FY 96/97. The increases in the cost per student figures for FY 96/97 in each of the districts correspond to the increases in total cost for each of the districts and fluctuations in enrollment for FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-3    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) The LRSD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $44,989,746, of which $27,670,103 will be eligible for ADE desegregation funding. The district should received funding from the ADE for desegregation in accordance with the Settlement Agreement totaling approximately $22,706,311. The NLRSD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $1,863,866 and should received ADE desegregation funding totaling approximately $2,120,796. Of the amount expected to be received by the district in FY 96/97, only $1,823,776 of the total amount relates to expenses for FY 96/97 because the district was reimbursed $297,020 in FY 96/97 for transportation costs incurred from FY 91/92 through FY 95/96. The PCS SD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $12,554,647 and should receive funding for desegregation from the ADE totaling $7,395,116 . All of the information received from the school districts has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. All of the districts are utilizing the funds received from the ADE for desegregation purposes according to records from the districts. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-4    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 43,097,892 24,284,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 5,288,655 10,403,236 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,767 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 20,200,260 8,246,193 1,270,286 935 1,265,373 762,885 627,095 258.597 0 0 166,353 82,667 32,880,644 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 39,358,671 11,785,762 4,328,212 108,956 1,503,298 1,215,886 2,951,468 2,319,795 0 0 1,019,512 330,213 64,921,773 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Oeseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Category Al 03/31197 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district as of March 31, 1997. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-5  DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Enrollment FY 95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Cost per Student FY95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Total Program Expense FY 9!\u0026gt;'96 FY 96197 Percent Variance SOURCES:  PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROGRAM VARIANCES FOR FY 96/97 ENROLLMENT COST PER STUDENT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE 24,154 24,250 0.4% 5,905 6,565 11.2% 142,640,518 159,201,043 11.6% 8,802 8,963 1.8% 5,169 6,027 16.6% 45,497,622 54,015,933 18.7% 20,285 20,047 -1.2% 4,921 5,591 13.6% 99,828,066 112,075,972 12.3% For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. The difference in the FY 96/97 enrollment and the FY 95196 enrollment expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in enrollment for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in enrollment for FY 96/97. The average cost per student for the district for FY 95/96. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The average cost per student for the district for FY 96197. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The difference in the FY 96/97 cost per student and the FY 95/96 cost per student expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the cost per student for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the cost per student for FY 96197. Total expenses for the school district for FY 95/96. Total budget for the school district for FY 96197. The difference in the FY 96/97 total budget and the total cost for FY 95/96 expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the total budget for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the total budget for FY 96197. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-6  LRSD Program Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual as ofMarch 31, 1997. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is based on total budgeted costs for FY 96/97 and is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs . Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted to increase 11. 6 percent from $142,640,518 in FY 95/96 to $159,201,043 for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise from $78,593,013 in FY 95/96 to $89,623,223 or 14.0 percent for FY 96/97. Operating costs for junior high schools are budgeted to increase $2,883,769 or 8.9 percent from $32,542,205 in FY 95/96 to $35,425,974 in FY 96/97. Operating costs for high schools are budgeted to increase 8.4 percent from $31,505,300 in FY 95/96 to $34,151,846 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-7    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment increased 0 .4 percent in FY 96/97 from 24,154 in FY 95/96 to 24,250 in FY 96/97. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools increased from 13,348 in FY 95/96 to 13,525 in FY 96/97. Junior high school enrollment declined 2.4 percent from 5,623 in FY 95/96 to 5,491 in FY 96/97. Enrollment in the district's high schools increased from 5,183 in FY 95/96 to 5,234 in FY 96/97 . Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97 from $5,905 in FY 95/96 to $6,565 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 12.5 percent in FY 96/97 from $5,888 in FY 95/96 to $6,626 in FY 96/97. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $5,787 in FY 95/96 to $6,452 in FY 96/97. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 7.3 percent in FY 96/97 from $6,079 in FY 95/96 to $6,525 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-8    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Desegregation Expense In FY 96/97, the district budgeted $44,989,746 in total desegregation costs with $27,670,103 being eligible for funding from the special desegregation payments made by the ADE. The district should receive approximately $22,706,311 in desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 96/97. All of the information received from the LRSD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes . SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-9    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 3,6  2,16  1,779,5  3 381,702 13,781 16,811 179,936 37,824  0,622 0 0 166,264 5,001 6,66  ,566 6001002 HALL HIGH 2,576,110 824,178 176,782 6,383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,583,453 6001003 MMINJR.HlGH 0 855,222 183.440 6.623 0 0 0 2n.1se 2,253,098 0 79,904 2,836 3,592,879 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 880,256 168,811 6,817 0 0 0 217,955 2,640,807 0 82,23 2,919 4,019,810 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 603,663 129,525 4,676 0 0 0 149,519 1,667,908 0 56, 19 2,002 2,613,912 6001007 DUNBAR JR, HIGH 1,782,804 776,109 166,-471 6,010 1,111 78,475 149,979 192,168 0 0 72,512 2,573 3,228,212 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,690,266 630,902 135,325 4,886 25,670 63,793 116,227 156,214 0 0 58,945 2,092 2,884,320 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,817,653 786,123 168,619 6,088 0 0 42,734 194,647 0 0 73,448 2,607 3,091,919 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 1,365,835 594,850 127,592 4.607 31,111 60,147 120,660 147,287 0 0 55,577 1,972 2,518,638 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 1,956,193 747,066 160,242 5,785 39.675 75,539 112,194 184,977 0 0 69,799 2,477 3,353,949 6001017 BALE ELEM 736,707 339,485 72,616 2,629 70,867 34,327 89,908 84,058 0 0 31,718 1,126 1,463,643 6001018 BRADY ELEM 759.053 353.505 75,825 2.736 66,641 35,744 62,481 87,529 0 0 33,026 1,172 1,477,716 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 933,428 489,700 105,038 3,792 35,403 49,515 8,990 121,251 0 0 45,753 1,624 1,794,584 8001021 CARVER ELEM 0 604,864 120,740 4,684 0 0 0 149,767 1.498.142 0 58,513 2,006 2,445,718 8001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 541,095 219,313 47,042 1,698 33,285 22,176 70,527 54,303 0 0 20,491 727 1,010,657 8001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 794.164 440,643 96.446 3,482 26,751 45,465 10,259 111,333 0 0 42,010 1,491 1,592,044 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 380,544 61.625 2,947 02,660 36,476 0 94,224 0 1.381,946 35,554 1,262 2,109,240 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 259,371 55,634 2,009 48,594 26,226 0 64,221 0 882,573 24,233 860 1,363,721 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 312,446 67,018 2,420 0 0 0 77,363 972,060 0 29,192 1,036 1,461,555 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 617,736 312,446 67,018 2,420 54,844 31,593 6,173 77,363 0 0 29,182 1,036 1,199,821 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,001,026 497,711 106,756 3,854 54,574 50,325 17,110 123,235 0 0 46,501 1,650 1,902,744 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 703,741 373,534 60,121 2,893 57,743 37,769 16,123 92,468 0 0 34,699 1,239 1,400,550 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 244,349 52,412 1,892 31,722 24.707 0 60,502 0 816,233 22,630 810 1,255,457 6001035 ML KING ELEM 55,679 551,768 116,356 4,273 36,772 55,793 1,282,961 136,625 0 0 51,554 1,830 2,295,631 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 740,241 454,650 97,520 3,521 50,093 45,971 17,070 112,573 0 0 42,478 1,508 1,565,625 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 228,326 48,975 1,768 55,665 23,087 0 56,534 0 766,500 21,333 757 1,202,965 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 778,139 268,384 57,567 2,078 31,460 27,137 103,392 66,453 0 0 25,075 890 1,361,575 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,380,920 656,939 140,910 5,067 136,539 66,425 220,456 162,661 0 0 61,378 2,178 2,833,  93 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 501,717 107,616 3,885 0 0 0 124,227 1,371,201 0 46,876 1,664 2,157,166 6001044 WILSON ELEM 791,654 344,492 73,892 2,668 90,650 34,633 47,105 85,298 0 0 32,186 1,142 1,503,920 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 518,034 232,332 49,834 1,799 39,666 23,492 62,706 57,526 0 0 21,707 770 1,007,870 6001047 TERRY ELEM 991,567 515,737 110,623 3,994 0 0 11,240 127,698 0 0 48,166 1,710 1,610,755 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,106,821 500,716 107,401 3,878 35,000 50,629 14,092 123,979 0 0 46,762 1,660 1,990,956 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 337,482 72,386 2,613 104,860 34,124 0 63,562 0 1,441,403 31,531 1,119 2,109,082 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 502,142 168,269 40,363 1,456 30,203 19,037 77,314 46,616 0 0 17,590 624 923,636 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 587,777 266,361 57,137 2,063 48,613 26,935 99,203 65,957 0 0 24,888 663 1,160,037 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,118,765 482,690 103,534 3,736 84,688 48,807 109,641 119,516 0 0 45,098 1,600 2,118,077 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 724,496 464,664 99,668 3,598 81,207 46,984 102,756 115,053 0 0 43,414 1,541 1,683,381 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 587,091 242,346 51,982 1,677 35,411 24,505 22,673 60,006 0 0 22,643 604 1,049,336 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 560,222 274,392 58,856 2,125 72,468 27,745 80,037 67,941 0 0 25,637 910 1,170,333 6001057 MABEL VALE ELEM 833,730 401,57  86,135 3,110 71,604 40,605 54,635 09,431 0 0 37,519 1,332 1,620,675 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 696,158 310,4  4 66,566 2,404 32,048 31,300 10,266 76,867 0 0 29,005 1,029 1,256,199 8001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 607,491 436,624 93,653 3,361 100,676 44,149 13,465 108,110 0 0 40,794 1,448 1,849,791 6001060 WATSON ELEM 618,501 443,634 95,157 3,436 71,739 44,657 99,069 109,845 0 0 41,449 1,471 1,729,158 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 1,366,758 639,914 137,256 4,956 51,256 64,704 103,614 158,445 0 0 59,788 2,122 2,588,815 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 1,461,533 468,670 100,527 3,629 6,688 47,389 33,644 116,044 0 0 43,788 1,554 2,283,466 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 2,098,239 830,186 178,070 6,429 0 0 27,  00 205,557 0 0 77,565 2,753 3,426,199 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 2,515,866 927,325 198,906 7,181 0 0 57,449 229,609 0 0 86,641 3,075 4,026,052 NIA METRO HIGH 1,081,745 0 0 0 35,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,117,151 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 41,538 0 0 0 0 0 309,965 0 0 0 0 0 351,503 NIA ISH ELEM 13,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,768 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 43,097,892 24,284,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 10,403,236 5,288,655 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,767 The district has Incurred expenses as of March 31, 1997 totallng 65.4 percent of the total FY 96/97 budget of $159,201,043. See the note secllon on the nu! page for explanations of 1he categories. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Fmtincf!I Officf!I. F-10   NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Oeseg Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, magnet expense, incentive expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site as of March 31, 1997. The Li/lie Rock School District Finance Office. F-11     LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 880,258 188,811 6,817 0 0 0 217,955 2,640,807 0 82,243 2,919 4,019,810 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 541,095 219,313 47,042 1,698 33,285 22,176 70,527 54,303 0 0 20,491 727 1,010,657 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 794,164 449,643 96,446 3,482 28,751 45,465 19,259 111,333 0 0 42,010 1,491 1,592,044 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,001,028 497,711 106,756 3,854 54,574 50,325 17,110 123,235 0 0 46,501 1,650 1,902,744 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 740,241 454,650 97,520 3,521 50,093 45,971 17,070 112,573 0 0 42,478 1,508 1,565,625 6001044 W1LSON ELEM 791,654 344,492 73,892 L,668 90,650 34,833 47,105 85,298 0 0 32,186 1,142 1,503,920 6001047 TERRY ELEM 991,567 515,737 110,623 3,994 0 0 11,240 127,698 0 0 48,186 1,710 1,810,755 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 587,777 266,381 57,137 2,063 48,813 26,935 99,203 65,957 0 0 24,888 883 1,180,037 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 587,091 242,346 51,982 1,877 35,411 24,505 22,673 60,006 0 0 22,643 804 1,049,338 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 2,098,239 830,186 178,070 6,429 0 0 27,400 205,557 0 0 77,565 2,753 3,426,199 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 8,132,856 4,700,717 1,008,279 36,403 341,577 250,210 331,587 1,163,915 2,640,807 0 439,191 15,587 19,061,129 The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year 96/97 is $159,201,043. See note section for Total Program Operating Expense as of March 31, 1997 for explanations or the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The Little Rock Schoof District Finance Office. F-12  LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001003 6001005 6001006 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030  6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 6001061 6001062 6001063 6001064 NIA N/A N/A  SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTPERSTUDENTFORTOTALPROGRAMS Y 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,614,545 439,905 1,003,672 10,058,122 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,112 0 0 5,111,112 MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,174 0 4,265,825 5,643,999 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,519 0 4,828,367 6,246,886 BOOKER ELEM 603 973,113 0 3,137,532 4,110,645 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 775 3,783,313 199,752 612,576 4,595,641 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,332 187,112 535,992 4,396,436 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,511 0 527,133 4,574,644 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,090,817 184,286 513,642 3,788,745 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 746 4,345,878 225,354 545,523 5,116,755 BALE ELEM 339 1,701,229 130,686 335,297 2,167,212 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,174 131,940 293,014 2,172,128 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308,282 160,261 283,949 2,752,492 CARVER ELEM 604 974,727 0 2,853,601 3,828,328 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,255 91,288 210,329 1,547,872 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,151 146,606 273,735 2,456,492 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,240 181,270 2,443,526 3,238,036 GARLAND ELEM 259 417,971 305,541 1,621,230 2,344,742 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,502 0 1,778,493 2,281,995 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,535 109,278 190,876 1,876,689 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,245 205,411 300,830 2,961,486 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817,416 162,045 232,634 2,212,095 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,763 102,152 1,490,408 1,986,323 ML KING ELEM 551 951,442 175,279 2,471,252 3,597,973 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,587 711,596 269,459 2,994,642 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 367,943 92,854 1,390,174 1,850,971 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,786 107,285 291,248 2,034,319 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,503 320,190 737,570 4,415,263 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,507 0 2,506,587 3,315,094 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,234 150,556 267,932 2,325,722 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,151 97,276 237,035 1,512,462 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,652 0 314,951 2,784,603 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,018 160,947 304,641 3,101,606 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,846 264,581 2,468,670 3,277,097 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066,875 91,049 224,925 1,382,849 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,615 131,953 283,125 1,806,693 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579,662 198,310 432,089 3,210,061 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,096 182,178 417,037 2,612,311 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 242 1,316,087 70,687 172,426 1,559,200 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,155 107,986 276,259 1,667,400 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,423 208,967 317,134 2,433,524 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,217 114,234 188,416 1,892,867 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,338 435,712 262,235 2,737,285 WATSON ELEM 443 2,013,951 148,534 389,505 2,551,990 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,716 220,946 561,882 3,886,544 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,820 136,526 295,864 3,423,210 JAFAIR HIGH 829 4,721,199 0 490,814 5,212,013 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,357 0 607,848 5,971,205 METRO HIGH N/A 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 608,256 ISH ELEM N/A 14,500 0 0 14,500 TOTAL BUDGET 24,250 107,043,856 7,167,441 44,989,746 159,201,043 The district as of March 31, 1997 has incurred expenses totaling $104,064,767 or 65.4 percent of their total Y 96/97 budget.  See the nole section on the nex1 page for explanations of the categories. The LiH/e Rock School District Finance omce and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-13 !co:~~ ,~\nnu II 5,660 6,210 6,609 7,107 6,817 5,930 6,978 5,828 6,378 6,859 6,393 6,153 5,629 6,338 7,068 5,471 8,521 9,053 7,314 6,015 5,959 5,931 8,141 6,530 6,596 8,118 7,591 6,731 6,617 6,761 6,519 5,407 6,203 9,724 7,356 6,792 6,660 5,630 6,443 6,085 6,069 6,106 6,278 5,761 6,082 7,315 6,287 6,448 N/A N/A N/A 6,565    NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FORTOTALPROGRAMSFORFY9~97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96/97 This category consists of bt.\ndgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96/97 SOURCE The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total budget for FY 96/97 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-14  LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 SOURCE:  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES II II ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\nJ SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,519 0 4,828,367 6,246,886 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,255 91,288 210,329 1,547,872 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,151 146,606 273,735 2,456,492 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,245 205,411 300,830 2,961,486 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,587 711,596 269,459 2,994,642 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,234 150,556 267,932 2,325,722 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,652 0 314,951 2,784,603 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,615 131,953 283,125 1,806,693 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 242 1,316,087 70,687 172,426 1,559,200 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,199 0 490,814 5,212,013 TOTAL BUDGET 4,6\"A ,::,fJ,344 1,508,097 7,411,968 29,895,609 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-15  I COST PER STU FY 96/97 7,107 7,068 5,471 5,959 6,596 6,761 5,407 6,792 6,443 6,287 6,369  LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 SOURCE:  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,657,559 149,684 103,353 2,910,596 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,128,508 167,893 122,289 3,418,690 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 329 2,399,123 196,333 83,539 2,678,995 TOTAL BUDGET 1,441 8,185,190 513,910 309,181 9,008,281 As of March 31, 1997, the district had incurred junior high school expenses totaling $5,514,663 or 61.2 percent of the total junior high school budget for FY 96/97. See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-32  COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,741 5,651 8,143 6,251  LEA# 6002075 6002076 I SOURCE:  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96197 I FUNDING SOURCES II ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7,639,264 278,058 290,540 8,207,862 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,369 7,739,774 357,363 292,842 8,389,979 TOTAL BUDGET I 2,740 II 15,379,038 I 635,421 I 583,382 I 16,597,841 As of March 31, 1997, the district had incurred high school expenses totaling $10,329,243 or 62.2 percent of the total high school budget for FY 96197. See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. I The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-33  COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,987 6,129 6,058    NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 140,243 30,911 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 520,352 57,733 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 276,070 30,962 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 409,955 58,265 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 287,293 31,012 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 465,091 31,050 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 273,784 33,432 TOTAL SALARY EXPENSE 2,372,788 273,365 Teacher Expense At 03/31197 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense as of March 31, 1997 was $12,595,099 or 38.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $32,880,644 . The district's teacher and school site administrator budget for FY 96/97 totaled $22,776,143 or 42.2 percent of the district's total budget for FY 96/97 of $54,015,933. Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. Administrator Expense At 03/31197 Total Category At 03/31197 SOURCE: School site administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997 . The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. F-34 TOTAL 171,154 578,085 307,032 468,220 318,305 496,141 307,216 \",\" '\",153 PCSSD Program Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) The following is a summary of the PCSSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual as ofMarch 31, 1997. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is based on total budgeted cost for FY 96/97 and is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses are budgeted to increase 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 from $99,828,066 in FY 95/96 to $112,075,972 for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise from $54,103,532 in FY 95/96 to $61,439,373 or 13.6 percent in FY 96/97. Operating costs for junior high schools are budgeted to increase $3,491,504 in FY 96/97 to $24,685,317 from junior high school costs for FY 95/96 of $21,193,813. Operating costs for high schools are budgeted to increase 5.8 percent from $24,530,721 in FY 95/97 to $25,951,282 in FY 96/97. SOURCES The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section F-35    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1996 declined 1.2 percent in FY 96/97 for a total enrollment of20,047 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1995 of20,285. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools decreased 2.5 percent for FY 96/97 from 11,313 in FY 95/96 to 11,029 as of October 1, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined 2.1 percent in FY 96/97 from 4,339 in FY 95/96 to 4,249 as of October 1, 1996. Enrollment in the district's high schools increased 2. 9 percent in FY 96/97 from 4,633 in FY 95/96 to 4,769 as of October 1, 1996. Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 13. 6 percent in FY 96/97 from $4,921 in FY 95/96 to $5,591 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $4,782 in FY 95/96 to $5,571 in FY 96/97. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to rise 19. 0 percent in FY 96/97 from the FY 95/96 junior high cost per student rate of $4,884 to $5,810 in FY 96/97. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $5,295 in FY 95/96 to $5,442 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-36    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Desegregation Expense In FY 96/97, the district has budgeted $12,554,647 in total desegregation costs. The ADE's desegregation funding to the district for FY 96/97 should total approximately $7,395,116. All of the information received from the PCS SD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes . SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-37   PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 636,997 203,119 63,476 1,598 75,890 19,409 1,926 94,349 21,983 6003092 BAKER ELEM 603,652 219,700 68,657 1,728 566 20,993 139,449 102,051 23,777 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 1,208,663 502,271 156,962 3,951 87,949 47,993 224,805 233,307 54,359 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 979,164 433,873 135,587 3,413 66,225 41,457 0 0 0 6003095 CLINTON ELEM 1,100,951 460,819 144,007 3,625 98,862 44,032 228,882 214,052 49,873 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 691,651 302,606 94,566 2,381 46,935 28,914 0 0 0 6003100 FULLER ELEM 696,891 234,900 73,407 1,848 102,277 22,445 115,385 109,111 25,422 6003102 HARRIS ELEM 728,698 209,337 65,419 1,647 70,493 20,003 36,315 97,238 22,656 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 1,131,406 505,035 157,825 3,973 145,353 48,257 23,129 234,591 54,658 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM 836,349 348,205 108,815 2,739 96,379 33,272 113,364 161,742 37,685 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 666,815 203,119 63,476 1,598 40,358 19,409 0 0 0 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 795,679 366,168 114,429 2,881 342 34,987 0 0 0 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 751,618 241,119 75,350 1,897 78,526 23,039 118,135 112,001 26,095 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 747,455 263,917 82,475 2,076 1,908 25,218 823 122,591 28,563 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 376,872 87,743 27,420 690 33,225 8,384 26,318 40,756 9,496 6003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 812,030 287,407 89,816 2,261 141 27,462 0 0 0 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 772,294 291,552 91,111 2,294 168 27,859 0 0 0 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 1,212,293 301,665 140,985 3,549 253 39,323 22,712 24,462 48,826 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 1,192,595 244,381 114,213 2,875 504 31,856 20,746 19,817 39,554 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 1,763,014 389,438 182,006 4,582 29,413 50,765 389,407 31,579 63,033 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,674,622 402,373 188,052 4,734 554 52,451 30,922 32,628 65,126 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,336,156 451,804 211,153 5,315 5,166 58,895 0 0 0 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 1,536,418 386,205 180,495 4,544 1,110 50,344 512,280 31,317 62,509 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,001,371 424,548 198,415 4,995 20,043 55,342 25,922 34,426 68,715 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 1,045,810 202,803 94,781 2,386 9,860 26,436 17,833 18,445 32,825 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,859,743 374,194 174,882 4,402 5,818 48,778 3,345 30,343 60,565 6003129 CATO ELEM 879,984 374,459 117,019 2,946 82,452 35,780 0 0 0 6003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 813,597 375,150 117,235 2,951 61,116 35,846 0 0 0 6003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 476,470 223,154 69,737 1,756 45,937 21,323 342,755 103,657 24,151 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,902,199 363,569 169,916 4,277 23,346 47,393 0 0 0 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 637,850 263,227 82,259 2,071 0 0 0 0 0 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 877,594 312,970 97,804 2,462 17,691 29,904 0 0 0 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 1,862,859 424,086 198,199 4,989 17,156 55,282 19,198 34,389 68,641 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 865,313 274,279 85,714 2,158 62,453 26,208 779 127,404 29,684 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 798,467 315,042 98,452 2,478 0 0 1,539 146,338 34,096 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 1,040,989 200,956 93,918 2,364 296 26,196 62,681 16,295 32,526 6003146 BATES ELEM 1,024,083 320,569 100,179 2,522 174,480 30,631 111,915 148,906 34,694 N/A SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 20,059 0 0 0 53 0 360,903 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 39,358,671 11,785,762 4,328,212 108,956 1,503,298 1,215,886 2,951,468 2,319,795 1,019,512 The district has incurred expenses as of March 31, 1997 totaling 57.9 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget of $112,075,972. SOURCE: See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-38  LEGAL TOTAL 7,120 1,125,867 7,701 1,188,274 17,607 2,537,867 0 1,659,719 16,154 2,361,257 0 1,167,053 8,234 1,389,920 7,338 1,259,144 17,703 2,321,930 12,206 1,750,756 0 994,775 0 1,314,486 8,452 1,436,232 9,251 1,284,277 3,076 613,980 0 1,219,117 0 1,185,278 15,814 1,809,882 12,811 1,679,352 20,416 2,923,653 21,094 2,472,556 0 3,068,489 20,246 2,785,468 22,256 2,856,033 10,632 1,459,811 19,617 2,581,687 0 1,492,640 0 1,405,895 7,823 1,318,763 0 2,510,700 0 985,407 0 1,338,425 22,232 2,707,031 9,615 1,483,607 11,043 1,407,455 10,535 1,486,756 11,237 1,959,216 0 381,015 330,213 64,921,773   NOTES FOR PCSSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site as of March 31, 1997. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-39     PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,674,622 402,373 188,052 4,734 554 52,451 30,922 32,628 65,126 21,094 2,472,556 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,336,156 451,804 211,153 5,315 5,166 58,895 0 0 0 0 3,068,489 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,001,371 424,548 198,415 4,995 20,043 55,342 25,922 34,426 68,715 22,256 2,856,033 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,859,743 374,194 174,882 4,402 5,818 48,778 3,345 30,343 60,565 19,617 2,581,687 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,902,199 363,569 169,916 4,277 23,346 47,393 0 0 0 0 2,510,700 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 9,774,091 2,016,488 942,418 23,723 54,927 262,859 60,189 97,397 194,406 62,967 13,489,465 The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year is budgeted at $112,075,972. See the note section for Total Program Operating Expense for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-40  LEA# 6003090 6003092 6003093 6003094 6003095 6003099. 6003100 6003102 6003103 6003104 6003105 6003106 6003108 6003110 6003111 6003112 6003113  6003116 6003117 6003120 6003122 6003123 6003125 6003126 6003127 6003128 6003129 6003130 6003135 6003136 6003137 6003139 6003140 6003141 6003142 6003143 6003146 NIA  SOURCE: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG HOMER ADKINS ELEM 294 1,582,187 164,277 211,279 BAKER ELEM 318 1,509,052 15,645 352,823 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 727 3,275,527 241,668 762,119 BAYOU METO ELEM 628 2,718,495 200,893 0 CLINTON ELEM 667 2,927,569 252,828 738,623 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 438 1,890,149 146,701 0 FULLER ELEM 340 1,801,402 209,251 416,518 HARRIS ELEM 303 1,632,895 142,111 323,447 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 731 3,160,161 313,977 511,458 LANDMARK ELEM 504 2,203,568 214,148 510,706 LAWSON ELEM 294 1,556,741 93,937 0 TOLLESON ELEM 530 2,204,965 26,074 0 OAK GROVE ELEM 349 1,868,992 162,841 411,219 ROBINSON ELEM 382 1,867,043 18,956 192,550 SCOTT ELEM 127 804,443 56,939 64,016 SHERWOOD ELEM 416 2,040,148 20,466 0 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 422 1,929,018 20,761 0 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 653 2,905,343 32,126 444,858 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 529 2,655,904 26,025 370,428 FULLER JR. HIGH 843 4,155,048 203,098 1,069,798 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 836 3,492,566 41,129 1,157,074 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 ROBINSON HIGH 439 2,132,440 76,026 288,701 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 CATO ELEM 542 2,360,279 185,131 0 PINEWOOD ELEM 543 2,302,217 171,112 0 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 323 1,280,169 111,492 726,107 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 381 1,694,436 0 0 OAKBROOKE ELEM 453 2,213,010 107,559 0 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 918 4,504,405 201,401 624,235 TAYLOR ELEM 397 2,018,141 159,701 200,111 PINE FOREST ELEM 456 2,096,695 0 230,369 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 435 2,301,579 21,401 375,191 BATES ELEM 464 2,424,886 317,694 464,409 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 0 122,406 0 484,863 TOTAL BUDGET 20,047 95,074,687 4,446,638 12,554,647 The district as of March 31, 1997 has incurred expenses totaling $64,921,773 or 57.9 percent of their total FY 96197 budget. See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories . COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 1,957,743 6,659 1,877,520 5,904 4,279,314 5,886 2,919,388 4,649 3,919,020 5,876 2,036,850 4,650 2,427,171 7,139 2,098,453 6,926 3,985,596 5,452 2,928,422 5,810 1,650,678 5,615 2,231,039 4,210 2,443,052 7,000 2,078,549 5,441 925,398 7,287 2,060,614 4,953 1,949,779 4,620 3,382,327 5,180 3,052,357 5,770 5,427,944 6,439 4,794,477 5,505 4,944,032 5,055 4,690,769 5,611 5,222,867 5,683 2,497,167 5,688 4,401,072 5,433 2,545,410 4,696 2,473,329 4,555 2,117,768 6,557 4,195,375 5,331 1,694,436 4,447 2,320,569 5,123 5,330,041 5,806 2,377,953 5,990 2,327,064 5,103 2,698,171 6,203 3,206,989 6,912 607,269 N/A I 112,075,972 II 5,591 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-41 I    Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg NOTES FOR PCSSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 96/97 This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96/97 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96197 SOURCE: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's FY 96/97 total budget by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996 . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fis ca/ Services Division of the ADE. F-42  LEA# 6003122 6003123 6003126 6003128 6003136 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 TOTAL BUDGET 4,365 21,442,808 491,270 1,623,745 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category.  I COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 4,794,477 5,505 4,944,032 5,055 5,222,867 5,683 4,401,072 5,433 4,195,375 5,331 23,557,823 5,397 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-43    PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 61,439,373 54.8% 5,571 5,591 (20) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 24,685,317 22.0% 5,810 5,591 219 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 25,951,282 23.2% 5,442 5,591 (149) PCSSD PROGRAM COST PCSSD COST PER STU 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 FY 96/97 Program costs consists of the total budget for FY 96/97 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of the program budget to the total district budget of $112,075,972 for FY 96/97. The total program budget for FY 96/97 to the total number of students in the program category. The total budget for FY 96/97 of $112,075,972 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1996 of 20,047. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-44  LEA# 6003090 6003092 6003093 6003094 6003095 6003099 6003100 6003102 6003103 6003104 6003105 6003106 6003108 6003110 6003111 6003112 6003113 6003129 6003130 6003135 6003137 6003139 6003141 6003142 6003146 NIA SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10101196 STATE FEDERAL DESEG HOMER ADKINS ELEM 294 1,582,187 164,277 211,279 BAKER ELEM 318 1,509,052 15,645 352,823 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 727 3,275,527 241,668 762,119 BAYOU METO ELEM 628 2,718,495 200,893 0 CLINTON ELEM 667 2,927,569 252,828 738,623 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 438 1,890,149 146,701 0 FULLER ELEM 340 1,801,402 209,251 416,518 HARRIS ELEM 303 1,632,895 142,111 323,447 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 731 3,160,161 313,977 511,458 LANDMARK ELEM 504 2,203,568 214,148 510,706 LAWSON ELEM 294 1,556,741 93,937 0 TOLLESON ELEM 530 2,204,965 26,074 0 OAIS GROVE ELEM 349 1,868,992 162,841 411,219 ROBINSON ELEM 382 1,867,043 18,956 192,550 SCOTT ELEM 127 804,443 56,939 64,016 SHERWOOD ELEM 416 2,040,148 20,466 0 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 422 1,929,018 20,761 0 CATO ELEM 542 2,360,279 185,131 0 PINEWOOD ELEM 543 2,302,217 171,112 0 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 323 1,280,169 111,492 726,107 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 381 1,694,436 0 0 OAKBROOKE ELEM 453 2,213,010 107,559 0 TAYLOR ELEM 397 2,018,141 159,701 200,111 PINE FOREST ELEM 456 2,096,695 0 230,369 BATES ELEM 464 2,424,886 317,694 464,409 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE NIA 122,406 0 484,863 TOTAL BUDGET 11,029 51,484,594 3,354,162 6,600,617 At March 31, 1997, the district has incurred elementary school expense totaling $36,580,355 or 59.5 percent of the total elementary school budget of $61,439,373. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96197 1,957,743 6,659 1,877,520 5,904 4,279,314 5,886 2,919,388 4,649 3,919,020 5,876 2,036,850 4,650 2,427,171 7,139 2,098,453 6,926 3,985,596 5,452 2,928,422 5,810 1,650,678 5,615 2,231,039 4,210 2,443,052 7,000 2,078,549 5,441 925,398 7,287 2,060,614 4,953 1,949,779 4,620 2,545,410 4,696 2,473,329 4,555 2,117,768 6,557 1,694,436 4,447 2,320,569 5,123 2,377,953 5,990 2,327,064 5,103 3,206,989 6,912 607,269 NIA 61,439,373 5,571 The Pulaski County Special Schoof District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-45   LEA# 6003116 6003117 6003120 6003122 6003140 6003143 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR. HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 653 2,905,343 32,126 444,858 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 529 2,655,904 26,025 370,428 FULLER JR. HIGH 843 4,155,048 203,098 1,069,798 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 918 4,504,405 201,401 624,235 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 435 2,301,579 21,401 375,191 TOTAL BUDGET 4,249 20,675,251 526,902 3,4~~.'=' At March 31, 1997, the district has incurred junior high expense totaling $13,079,230 or 53.0 percent of the total junior high budget of $24,685,317. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 3,382,327 5,180 3,052,357 5,770 5,427,944 6,439 4,794,477 5,505 5,330,041 5,806 2,698,171 6,203 5,317 C,810 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-46   LEA# 6003123 6003125 6003126 6003127 6003128 6003136 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 4,944,032 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 836 3,492,566 41,129 1,157,074 4,690,769 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 5,222,867 ROBINSON HIGH 439 2,132,440 76,026 288,701 2,497,167 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 4,401,072 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 4,195,375 TOTAL BUDGET 4,769 22,914,842 565,574 2,470,866 25,951,282 As of March 31, 1997, the district has incurred high school expense totaling $15,262,188 or 58.8 percent of the total high school budget of $25,951,282. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,055 5,611 5,683 5,688 5,433 5,331 5,44? The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal SeNices Division of the ADE. F-47     PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES I TOTAL 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,143,978 118,280 1,262,258 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 1,573,533 151,901 1,725,434 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 1,365,749 149,044 1,514,793 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,189,768 123,797 1,313,565 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,222,222 116,645 1,338,867 TOTAL SALARY EXPENSE 6,495,250 659,667 7,154,917 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense as of March 31, 1997 totaled $29,118,564 or 44.9 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $64,921,773. Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries is budgeted at $56,079,997 or 50.0 percent of the total budget for FY 96/97 of $112,075,972. Teacher Expense At 03/31/97 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. Administrator Expense At 03/31/97 Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: School site administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school at March 31, 1997. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997 . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-48 I Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 2. Transportation cost and funding source. Transportation costs as of March 31, 1997 are presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter. The districts' transportation cost information includes expenses by funding source as ofMarch 31, 1997. LRSD Transportation The LRSD's total transportation costs at March 31, 1997 were $7,400,868 and are budgeted for FY 96/97 at $8,912,967. The district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs at March 31, 1997 were $2,191,930 and are budgeted for FY 96/97 at $2,886,793. The ADE paid the district $4,644,961 in FY 96/97 for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs. NLRSD Transportation The district's total transportation costs were $1,436,639 as of March 31, 1997 and are budgeted at $2,109,410 for FY 96/97. The district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation expense totaled $166,353 as of March 31, 1997 and is budgeted at $369,312 for FY 96/97 The ADE paid the district $664,242 in FY 96/97 for Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 91/92 through FY 96/97. PCSSD Transportation The district's total transportation expense as ofMarch 31, 1997 was $5,347,724 and is budgeted at $7,646,557 for FY 96/97. The district's desegregation transportation expense as ofMarch 31, 19197 totaled $1,019,512 and is budgeted at $1,781,205 for FY 96/97. The ADE paid the district $1,500,209 in FY 96/97 for Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-49    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES RATIO OF LOCAL \u0026amp; TRANS EXPENSE TO LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 5,208,938 0 2,191,930 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,270,286 0 166,353 1 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 4,328.212 0 1,019,512 Funding Categories TRANSPORTATION 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 AS OF 03/31/97 TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE 7,400,868 7.1% 1,436,639 4.4% 5,347,724 8.2% Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Oeseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Total Category At 03131197 This category consists of the district's total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. Ratio of Transportation Expense to Total Expense At 03131197 SOURCES: This category indicates the percentage of the district's total expense as of March 31, 1997 attributable to the transportation function. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-50    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 BUS DRIVER REPLACEMENT OUTSOURCING SALARIES PARTS TOTAL 5,916,207 630,524 0 6,546,731 0 478,037 45,496 523,533 0 1,791,708 260,798 2,052,506 Outsourcing costs as of March 31, 1997 accounted for 79.9 percent of the total transportation expense of $7,400,868. Bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing fee, accounted for 8.5 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. The district does not incur replacement part costs because this is included in the outsourcing costs. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, the district does not incur any expense for this category. Bus driver salaries as of March 31, 1997 accounted for 33.3 percent of the total transportation expense of $1,436,639. Replacement parts accounted for 3.2 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, the district does not incur any costs for this category. Bus driver salaries accounted as of March 31, 1997 for 33.5 percent of the total transportation expense of $5,347,724. Replacement parts accounted for 4.9 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997 . The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-51 . . -:e:t -- ::===::::=====:=- =:::\n:-:- LRSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LRSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 I LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. SOURCE: Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, outsourcing costs were 79.9 percent of the total transportation expense, and bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing expense, were 8.5 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not incur expenses for replacement parts because this is included in the outsourcing fees . The Little Rock School District Finance Office. F-52 I 5,208,938 0 2,191,930 7,400,868 NLRSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 LEGEND 1500000 1000000 500000 0 LOCAUSTATE 1,270,286 FED 0 DESEG 166,353 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL 1,436,639 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. SOURCE: Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, bus driver salaries were $478,037 or 33.3 percent of the total transportation expense, and replacement parts were $45,496 or 3.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not have outsourcing costs . The North Uttle Rock School District Finance Office. F-53 PCSSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 PCSSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 FUNDING SOURCES LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL 4,328,212 0 1,019,512 5,347,724  Funding Categories  Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Oeseg SOURCE: This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, bus driver salaries were $1,791,708 or 33.5 percent of the total transportation expense, and replacement parts were $260,798 or 4.9 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not have outsourcing costs . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-54 Legal Fees as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET JNFORMA TION 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. Legal fees are reported by funding source and type of service for each of the three districts in Pulaski County. Legal fees are as of March 31, 1997 by funding source. The LRSD's legal expense totaled $265,855 as of March 31, 1997. The NLRSD's legal expense was $83,602 as of March 31, 1997. The PCSSD's legal expense totaled $439,169 as of March 31, 1997 . SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-55  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 OIL_ _________ _____, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jmDelozier, M.   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Delozier, Mary RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF 'MIi WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF 25 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 1 G-23 6 5  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mllRice, O IBPrice, B   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP Price, Beatrice BF 12 4 Rice, Opal WF 25 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 7 Grade 2 G-24 OF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    NUMBER OF REFERRALS FAIR PARK ELEMEMTARY: LRSD 8 BM BF WM WF Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Turner, Marilyn Carter, Charles lsum, Margaret Wade P!PJWade ~lsum, M mcarter, c imTurner, M RACE\u0026amp; GENDER BF WM BF BM Total referrals for this grade: 9 YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF EXP 29 5 1 15 1 20 1 3 1 Grade 3 STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-25  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ------------ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffll Branch, S mmJames, C   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP James, Charlotte BF 26 5 2 1 Branch, Samuel BM 25 1 1 Total referrals for this grade: 10 Grade 4 G-26 3 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 -- -- - BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ~Branch, S lffilCarter, C RSherwood, S   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Sherwood, WF 30 1 Sherry Carter, Charles WM 15 1 Branch, Samuel BM 25 1 1 Total referrals for this grade: 4 Grade 5 G-27  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 3 2 2 1 QIL..- __________ __, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mcarter, c mmPowell, R  FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97)  Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Powell, Rosie BF 8 2 2 Carter, Charles WM 15 1 Total referrals for this grade: 5 Grade 6 G-28 7 6 5 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 6 ... ..... . . - BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ~Machen, J lffllGwin, L mmBauman, S   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Bauman, Susan WF 19 3 Gwin, Lisa WF 10 3 Machen, Janet WF 19 1 Total referrals for this grade: 7 Grade 2 G-29  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 Qk:...._---------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jnmGestaut, H lfflJGuin, C   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Gestaut, Helen Guin, Charlotte Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF WF 20 9 1 3 2 Total referrals for this grade: 6 Grade 3 G-30  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 3 2 1 O~----------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllGiusti, D mm!Clements, C   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WWI WF OM OF GENDER EXP Clements, Carolyn Giusti, Deborah WF WF Total referrals for this grade: 3 G-31 18 3 1 2 Grade 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o~----------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ffiHWilson, G ffl!l!IHudson,T   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Hudson, Terry Wilson, Gloria RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF BF 4 32 5 2 3 2 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 15 Grade 5 G-32 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER QQMartin, M mil Mevawala, B Rlemle, N   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Lemle, Nettie BF 16 1 1 Mevawala, WF 4 1 1 Barbara Martin, Malinda BF 26 6 3 4 Total referrals for this grade: 17 Grade 6 G-33  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 15 10 / r: ... ... ,.,,-\n,-\n,-\n,.,,-\n,-\n,-\n,-\n,-\nJ', 5 I / / Ir:-:, 0,000000Q00~ ~ )( )' o I/ BM  Jennings lillIIJames ~Jamell \u0026amp;Jackson Im Heavin nmE nderlin mEarleywine  6 BF WM 15Q!Cox-Phillips wmCookus 1 I .IJJJJJ.l.l'/1/ WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF IMJf VVF OM OF Cookus IMJf 6 Eng. 4 1 Cox-Phillips VVF 19 Sp. Ed. Earleywine VVF 21 Eng. 2 Enderlin VVF 18 Math Heavin VVF 7 Music Jackson BF 13 Comm. Jamel! VVF 21 Sp. Ed. James VVF 2 French 2 Jennings VVF 14 Science 4 3 3 Total referrals for this grade: 47 Total referrals for this page: 26 Grade 10 Page 1 of 2 G-34 10 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 BM BF []]]Willis s Richardson BBWage m Thompson EJTaylor ~Rains @Lewis wmPalmer WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Palmer Lewis Rains Taylor Thompson Wage WalkerRichardson Willis G-35 BM 18 Soc. St 2 BF 0 Comm. 2 WF 25 Eng. BM 3 Music WF 26 Eng. 2 2 WF 14 Spanish BF 3 Math BF 12 Art Total referrals for this grade: 47 Total referrals for this page: 21 3 3 Grade 10 Page 2 of 2    NUMBER OF REFERRALS J  A  FAIR HIGH LRSD  Earleywine Discipline Referrals (96-97) 27 mmCo x-Phillips T e a C h e r s t u d e n t C 0 u n t 25 ~Cookus !iiiiii!iii f ..... - BB Callaway TEACHER RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP itmBurr a Bostic Armstrong BM 0 Science 1 1 II 1111111111  ---- . - ~Boone Beyah BF 17 Voe. 1 20 Ill oo!Beyah  WfflArmstrong Boone BF 0 Science 16 8 1 ,...., ..,.,..,....!,..,. 15 ..,. ....., ..... ...... ...,. . .. 15 ,,,. ......,. ..., . ................... .. j-~{: ~ ~:_~:_ :_ .,. . ,. . , . Bostic BF 18 Soc. St. 1 ,: ,: ~'.'.l~'.'.I~'.-_  ..  .......... ..,.. . ,. Burr WF 24 Admin. 1 , ..,.. . ... ~::::::::::::  , .,. ... .., 10 .. .,. . ,. ,,,., . , .,. . ...,. ....,. .... ....,. ...,. , . Callaway BF 24 H. Ee. 1 1 ...... ,. ,. ., .., . ., .. .. ., .. .. .....,. ...... ...............,.. ..,. .. ,-..,: ................ .... .,. . ........... ..,. ... ,: .... -- .,. Cookus VVM 6 Eng. 1 .,. .,. .,. .... 5 ....,. ....,. .... .,. ....,. ..., .,. ,..,. .Jl '\"..,,.a.. .Ill,..~. .... .., ., . ....... Cox-Phillips WF 19 Sp. Ed. 2 1 ..,. ..,.. ....,, . ., ... .. ........ .... \"'\"\"\"'~~... .- ,: ....,,: 1 .... ,:,:.-, j',  1 \" 0 / Earleywine WF 21 Eng. 5 2 0/ BM BF WM WF / Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 Total referrals for this page: 43 Page 1 of 4 STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-36 50 40 30 20 10 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 45 33 BM BF  Jacobs mmHu llum ~Heavin ea Harrison ttmGray EJFinch mFeldman IZ!Eskola !miEl nderlin WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER  TEACHER NAME Enderlin Eskola Feldman Finch Gray Harrison Heavin Hullum Jacobs G-37  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP WF WM WF WF BF \\/1/M WF WF BF 18 27 9 16 16 13 7 10 Student Count SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Math 8 3 Math 2 4 Math 9 5 3 3 Admin. 4 3 Eng. 4 7 Math 2 Music 5 2 Math 4 2 Science 7 6 Total referrals for this grade:235 Total referrals for this page: 85 Grade 11 Page 2 of 4 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 23 BM  Rains [Il]I]Nahlen 26 ................M....o rey :-:::::::.:- \u0026amp;McAfee mMays ........... m]Lewis mJohnson @James ........... imJamell 5 _:::::::::\n:\n2 BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Jamell WF 21 Sp. Ed. 3 1 James WF 2 French 10 18 1 Johnson WM 15 Soc.St. 1 Lewis BF 0 Comm. Mays BF 20 Voe. 2 McAfee WF 11 Science Morey WF 19 ISSP 2 Nahlen WF 14 Voe. 2 6 Rains WF 25 Science 3 Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 G-38 Total referrals for this page: 56 Page 3 of 4   NUMBER OF REFERRALS Willis 30 ITIIIlWilliams sWilder 25 TEACHER NAME ea Richardson :mm111m: Shells 25 mWage Stewart ....2. 0- -- aThompson Taylor =:=:= .-.: ::: ..: - ~Taylor 20 Thompson @Stewart ................. WWShells Wage Walker- Richardson 15 Wilder Williams 10 Willis 5 0 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-39  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Te a C h e r s t u d e n t C 0 u RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP BM 5 Soc. St 2 BF 0 Comm. 2 BM 3 Music 3 WF 26 Eng. 5 WF 14 Span. 4 5 BF 3 Math 3 3 WM 17 Math 2 3 BM 16 Soc. St. 6 5 BF 12 Art 3 Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 Total referrals for this page: 51 Page 4 of 4- n t OF  NUMBER OF REFERRALS ITIIFI1e ldman 25 sEnderlin \u0026amp;Delamar mcox-Phillips 19 El Callaway 20 mBurr 16 QQJBoone .............. filfflArmstrong 15 10 5 0 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Armstrong Boone Burr Callaway Cox-Phillips Delamar Enderlin Feldman G-40 Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF GENDER EXP BM 0 Science 1 BF 0 Science 7 2 WF 24 Admin. BF 24 H. Ee. WF 19 Sp. Ed. 2 3 BM 12 ISSP WF 18 Math 1 7 1/1/F 9 Math 6 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 38 Wfl/i WF OM Grade 12 Page 1 of 4 OF 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 14 14 BM BF DIII1Jamell ~Jacobs BHullum mHobbs BHeavin mHarrison WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Glassco Hall Harrison Heavin Hobbs Hullum Jacobs Jamell G-41 BF 21 Sp. Ed. BF 15 Eng. 6 3 WM 13 Math 2 2 WF 7 Music 2 WF 16 Jo urn. 4 WF 10 Math BF Science 2 WF 21 Sp. Ed. 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 30 Grade 12 Page 2 of 4 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 12 7 BM BF WM IIIlilR ains ~Pickering BPalmer mNahlen ITDJMorey mMays IZ!Lewis lllfilJames 8 0 WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF \\NM. VVF OM OF James VVF 2 French 3 Lewis BF 0 Comm. Mays BF 20 Voe. Ed. 2 Morey VVF 19 ISSP Nahlen VVF 14 Voe. 2 3 Palmer BM 18 Soc.St. Pickering VVF 21 Eng. 2 6 2 Rains VVF 25 Science Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 27 Grade 12 Page 3 of 4 G-42 15 10 5 0  BM NUMBER OF REFERRALS 15 11 BF WM Willis IBIWilder m Richardson Taylor ~Steele ooShells mmRu therford 1 WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER  TEACHER NAME Rutherford Shells Steele Taylor WalkerRichardson Wilder Willis G-43  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF WM 11 Voe. BM 5 Soc. St. 7 3 2 WF 14 Sp. Ed. BM 3 Music 2 BF 3 Math 3 17 Math 3 3 BF 12 Art 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 31 Grade 12 Page 4 of 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 1 O\"-----------___/ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; GENDER Muench, B WF Total referrals for this grade: 1 G-44 YEARS EXP 27 Student Count BM BF WM WF OM OF 1 Grade 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 1 QIL._ __________ __,, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllWheeler, D mcrutcher, C   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Crutcher, Cheryl BF 24 1 Wheeler, D BF 31 1 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 3 G-45    NUMBER OF REFERRALS JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) 1 Teacher Student Count 1 TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Itzkowitz, C WF 25 1 0\"--------------' BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Im mItz kowitz, c Total referrals for this grade: 1 Grade 4 G-46  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o~----------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mWilliams, R mlPittenger, K   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP Pittenger, K. WF 27 1 Williams, R. BF 10 2 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Grade 5 G-47 OF  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 12 /1  Howell,D rnmHenry,S 10 ~!l!l!l!  .. ............................ Goss,J B!IFicklin,L itmFarlow,M .......... . ............................... [D]Elrod L 8 ' ~Boosey,F 8 ooBiggs,L fill!IAcklen, R ,: ........ 6 : .... .................... 5 4 2 .... :m~m~ .... . ........ ...... .. . --  . --- .... 4 I .... :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,000( ..... ................... :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,000( :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,ooo\u0026lt; J000 _) J0O0O0O  :::\u0026gt;000 1 1 r,,l00Q !l 000 000 7 999 JC JC J[ J[ 0 / BM BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Acklen,R Biggs,L Boosey,F Elrod,L Farlow,M Ficklin,L Goss,J Henry,S Howell,D G-48 Te a C h e r s t u d e RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM GENDER EXP BF 30 Biology 1 BF 11 Drama, Comm. I 2 WNI 24 Comm., Acting 'NF 14 Dance BF 19 Music BM 2 Math 1 'NF 6 Speech, Drama 1 BF 30 English 4 'NF 18 Speech, Drama 2 Total referrals for this grade: 56 Total referrals for this page: 30 BF 2 1 1 2 2 n t C 0 u WNI 'NF OM 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 Grade 10 Page 1 of 2 n t OF 1 14 12 10 8 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS / Treadway,P rnrnTaylorC, Tate,H I/ 13 BPerry,R  itmlusk,J Ellem,L  ................................ .... mKelley,J ............ J D :::.::.::\n. ..................o..o.. ...o..n..e...s..,. ............. WI(,N: ,._[jjlr:[jjlr:[jji.,.la ,: \"\" imJennings,C r:r:r: .. , r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: BM BF WM .. , r, r, WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD TEACHER NAME Jennings,C Jones,D Kelley,J Lem,L Lusk,J Perry,R Tate,H Taylor,C Treadway,P G-49 Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF WF 24 Bus., Computer BF 3 Math 2 BM 32 Biology 6 3 3 OM 6 Naval Science WF 5 German WM 14 Music BF 22 Math WM 19 Voe. Ed. WF 19 Comm. 2 Total referrals for this grade: 56 Total referrals for this page: 26 Grade 10 Page 2 of 2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0    BM ,r--NU_M_BE_R_OF_R_EF.--_--_E _RR_AL_S- -, PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD ~Jones,D Discipline Referrals (96-97) mJennings,C .........t.3..J..a..c..k..s. on,C  Howell,D 1IIIFI1u lbrightD, .........~..F..i.c..k..l.i.n..,.L \u0026amp;Elrod,L mcarpenter,C aBiggs,L 3 mBailey,P mmAc klen,R 0 0 BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER TEACHER NAME Acklen,R Bailey Biggs,L Carpenter,C Elrod,L Ficklin,L Fulbright,D Howell,D Jackson,C Jennings,C Jones,D G-50 Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF lflM,, WF OM OF BF 30 Biology WF 17 English BF 11 Comm. WF 26 History 5 2 2 WF 14 Dance 2 BM 2 Math 2 3 WF 21 Resource WF 18 Speech, Drama WF 5 Trig., Cal. WF 24 Bus., Comp. BF 3 Math 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 48 Total referrals for this page: 28 Grade 11 Page 1 of 2 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM msTate,H . ~Richardson,D  Raque,C mmPic ard, R sPerry,R  IIIIMurray,D mLyle,L 8Lusk J I mKready,S oo! Kamara,L WfflJustice, M 1 BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM INF OM OF Justice,M Kamara,L Kready,S Lusk,J Lyle,L Murray,D Perry,R Picard,R Raque,C Richardson,  Tate,H G-51 INF BF INF WF WM WF WM WM WF BM BF 21 29 26 5 7 14 10 3 4 22 Dance History Eng. German Spanish Art Music Science, Physics Eng. Math Math Total referrals for this grade: 48 Total referrals for this page: 20 2 3 Grade 11 Page 2 of 2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0    BM _N_UM_B_ER_O_F_RE~FE___R__ RA_LS ~PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD  Elrod,L Discipline Referrals (96-97) 8 BF WM ITIIDIla niell,T Cross,K \u0026amp;Carpenter,C mBurke,B aBrown K ' ~Black,D ooBiggs,L  lm!IAcklen,R 2 1 WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF \\/1/M WF OM OF Acklen,R BF 30 Biology Biggs,L BF 11 Comm. Black,D \\/1/M 25 History 6 3 3 Brown,K WF 9 Math Burke,B WF 18 Music Carpenter,C WF 26 History Cross,K BF 32 French Daniell,T \\/1/M 12 Health Elrod,L WF 14 Dance Total referrals for this grade: 57 Total referrals for this page: 21 Grade 12 Page 1 of 3 G-52 20 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 =~{~{~~~{~~ =)J}:=)_J\")=: f _ .. ._. ......_.. ..- ---------- ---------- :-:-:-:-:- --- - .. -- ==-=-=-=-= ::::::\n::_ .. BM - . -- .. 9 ........... . ... ......         ............... . .... ........ ... . . .. BF WM 6  Kready,S rnrKni ng, G Kelley,J \u0026amp;Kamara,L IBJackson,C aGoss,J ~Fuller,D oo Fulbright, D IW!Ficklin,L 2 2 WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Ficklin,L Fulbright,D Fuller,D Goss,J Jackson,C Kamara,L Kelley,J King,G Kready,S G-53 BM 2 Math 3 WF 21 Resource WF 21 Chemistry WF 6 Speech, Drama 2 WF 5 Trig., Cal. BF 29 History BM 32 Biology 4 WF 17 Art WF 26 Eng. 10 3 5 Total referrals for this grade: 64 Total referrals for this page: 36 Grade 12 Page 2 of 3 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 BM 9 7 Walker,F mmTreadwayP, Taylor,C \u0026amp; Richardson, D mPicard,R ETIJPerry,R ~Murray,D @Lyle,L filWLee,C BF WM WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Lee,C WM 3 Chemistry Lyle,L WM 7 Spanish 2 Murray,D WF Art 6 3 3 Perry,R 'NM 14 Music Picard,R 'NM 10 Science, physics Richardson, D BM 4 Math Taylor,C 'NM 19 Voe. Ed. Treadway,P WF 19 Comm. Walker,F BF 31 Home Ee. 2 Total referrals for this grade: 64 Grade 12 Total referrals for this page: 28 Page 3 of 3 G-54  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 0 ~---------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jaMoore, A   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Moore, A BF 34 1 Total referrals for this grade: 1 Grade 1 G-55  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 o~-------------' BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !ffl:lSmelko, S mChesser, J   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP BM BF WM WF OM OF Chesser, Jo WF 22 1 Smelko, Sherry WF 22 1 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 2 G-56 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllStuddard, K BPowell, D   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) T eac h er ~1 11ri~n1 r.. n 11 1n t TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Powell, Darryl BM 2 1 1 Studdard, Katie WF 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Grade 5 G-57 7 6 5 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 6 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER IHEIReeves, K mERichardson, T   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Richardson, WF 4 3 Teresa 2 Reeves, Kimberly WF 4 3 1 Total referrals for this grade: 9 Grade 2 G-58  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o,.____ ________ __, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !Heard, C   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Heard, Cheryl WF 10 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 4 Grade 3 G-59  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lmSmith, B   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Smith, Barbara WF 23 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 4 G-60 10 9 8  NUMBER OF REFERRALS . a ..... ~ - \"\" ~--- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mcarr, J m.mJenkins, H   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Jenkins, H WF 4 3 2 Carr, J WF 4 3 1 Total referrals for this grade: 9 Grade 5 G-61  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 0 \"-------------\" BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jmMorris, J   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Morris, JoAnn BF 10 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 6 G-62  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o-----------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER I a Heffington, J  WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Heffington, Janell WF 21 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Music G-63  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 2 1 0 ,c__ _________ ____,, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Im mFr eeman, J   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Freeman, Jennifer WF Total referrals for this grade: 3 G-64 1 2 1 Resource 3 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !lfflGaines, V lm!IWest, S   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS GENDER BM BF WM WF OM OF EXP West, Susan WF 16 1 1 Gaines, Vivian BF 33 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 5 Spec. Ed. G-65 4 Cl) c....u.. ..3 Q) 4- Q) 0::: 2 0 2 .... Q) ..0 E ::, 1 z 0 BM  BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 2 1 WM Student Race and Gender Page 1 of2 HARTWICK, BARBARA J. PURIFOY, FONDA L. II SHUFFIELD, MARY E. 111T1UR1N ER, ANTHONY D. Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: SHUFFIELD, MARYE. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : TURNER, ANTHONY D. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 2 BM: 1 BM: BM: 2 6 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 10 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 1 0 G-66 12 (/) 10 ro L... L... -Q) 8 Q) ~ - 6 0 L... Q) .c 4 E :::J z 2 0 BF BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 10 2 BM WF Page 2 of2 WM DECKER, PEGGY J. Student Race and Gender  ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY II LEE, GLORIA II RATLIFF, KRISTIE A. Teacher: DECKER, PEGGY J. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: E3M: 6 BF: WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: RATLIFF, KRISTIE A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 3 Discipline referral counts: BM: 10 BF: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 22 1 1 2 G-67 4 Cl) (1J t: 3 Q) '+- Q) 0::: c52 L Q) .a 1 E 1 :::i z 0 BF  BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 3 2 2 BM WF Student Race and Gender BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R.  HARTWICK, BARBARA J. II LEE, GLORIA Ill SHIMEK, BECKY K. Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: Teacher: SHIMEK, BECKY K. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: Referral counts for this grade: 7 0 0 0 1 TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: G-68 0 0 0 0 0 YrsExp: 2 WF: 0 YrsExp: 18 WF: 2 YrsExp: 5 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 2 9 Cl) 8 ~7 '- 26 (I) .0,:.:_::5 4 04 '- _253 E2 :::, 21 0 BF BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 3 1 BM WF WM Student Race and Gender ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY  HARTWICK, BARBARA J.  IVY, ALYSSA D.  LEE, GLORIA Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: IVY, ALYSSA D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this grade: BM: 0 BM: 0 BM: BM: 0 1 TchRace: B BF: TchRace: W BF: 2 TchRace: W BF: 4 TchRace: B BF: 3 10 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 0 WF: 2 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 4 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 5 WF: 8 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 0 WF: 6 5 20 G-69 4 If) cu t: 3 Q) 4- Q) Cl:'.'. 'o 2 L.. Q) .0 E 1 :::, z 0 2 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 2 Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 2 BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R.  COX, PATRICIA A. II HAYMES, CLARENCE M. Ill PURIFOY, FONDA L. Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W TchGender : F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: COX, PATRICIA A. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: HAYMES, CLARENCE M. TchRace: W TchGender: M YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 6 0 0 0 G-70 5 en ~.4.. . Q) '+- Q) 3 0:: '+- 0 ai2 ..0  1 z 0 4 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 1 WM Student Race and Gender CAMMACK, STACI A. HARTWICK, BARBARA J. n IVY, ALYSSA D. n LEE, GLORIA Teacher: CAMMACK, STACI A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: IVY, ALYSSA D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 4 BM: 3 BM: 3 BM: 3 13 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: WF: 0 0 G-71 Page 2 of 2 4 Cl) (U t: 3 -Q) Q) 0::: 2 c52 L.. Q) .0 E 1 :::, z 0 BM COX, PATRICIA A. Teacher: COX, PATRICIA A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this grade: BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 5 1996-97 3 WM Student Race and Gender  ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY iii HARTWICK, BARBARA J.  LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 BM: BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 5 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: 3 WF: 0 3 0 6 0 G-72 4 Cl) co t: 3 .(.1). .. (1) 0::: 02 L.. (1) 1 .Cl E 1 ::, z 0 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 6 1996-97 1 1 1 1 WM Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 2 BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY  PURIFOY, FONDA L. Ill STOKES.TOYA Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 Discipline referral counts: BM: O BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: STOKES, TOYA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: O BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 1 0 4 0 G-73 10 9 Cf) 8 ro L.. L.. 7 ~ Q) 6 0:::: '+- 5 ..............4.. 0 L.. Q) 4 ..c E 3 :J z 2 0 BF Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Teacher: TURNER, ANTHONY D. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 6 1996-97 BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 2 of 2 WM HARTWICK, BARBARA J. LEE, GLORIA ~ TURNER, ANTHONY D. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 BM: 1 BF: 4 WM: 3 WF: 8 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 BM: 4 BF: 3 WM: 0 WF: 6 TchRace: B TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: 2 WF: 0 5 7 5 14 G-74 10 V) 9 co 8 '- '- Q) 7 '+-- Q) 0::: 6 '+-- 5 0 '- 4 Q) ..a 3 E :::, 2 z 0 BF  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 8 8 BM WF Student Race and Gender ADAMS, MELISSA D.  BATTON, CARLA A.  CLARK, LYNNE E.  DIBEE, JULIE A. Teacher: ADAMS, MELISSA D. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 1 WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: BATTON, CARLA A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: DIBEE, JULIE A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 0 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILKINS, DONNA M. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 0 WM: 4 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 32 4 2 G-75 Page 1 of2 WM  WILKINS, DONNA M. BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 Page 2 of2 4~------------------------------------------~ en cu t:: 3 ~ Q) 0::: 'a 2 L... Q) ..0 E 1 ::J z 0-+------- BF 2 1 1 1 1 1 BM WF Student Race and Gender LYBARGER, CINDY L.  NORWOOD, CAROL R. II REDUS, ROCHELLE D. II WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher : LYBARGER, CINDY L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 7 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: REDUS, ROCHELLE D. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 19 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 1 WM: 0 WF: 2 Referral counts for this page: 4 1 0 2 G-76 BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 Page1 of3 9~------------------------------------------~ Cl) 8 ~7 26 Q) 0-:: 5 04 L-. i3 2 21 0-+-----'-------'------+--- BF 7 BM WF WM Student Race and Gender CLARK, LYNNE E.  GREENE, DEBRA K. - WILKINS, DONNA M. - WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 Discipline referral counts: BM: 7 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: GREENE, DEBRA K. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: WILKINS, DONNA M. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 19 Discipline referral counts: BM: 5 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 19 2 G-77 4 en ci'i 3 I... I... Q) '+- Q) a::: '52 I... Q) ..0 E 1 1 1 :J 1 z 0 BM Teacher: COTTRELL, MELISSA L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : EVANS, MARILYN A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LYBARGER, CINDY L. Discipline referral counts: BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 1 1 COTTRELL, MELISSA L. Student Race and Gender a EVANS, MARILYN A. MASTERSON, DEBORAH A. NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 TchRace: W TchGender : F BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 a LYBARGER, CINDY L. YrsExp: 5 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 YrsExp: 6 WF: 0 Teacher: MASTERSON, DEBORAH A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 12 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender : F YrsExp: 7 Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 5 0 0 0 G-78 Page 2 of 3 72 68 64 60 56 52 (/) r.o.. 4. 8 -a34 4 ~ 40 0 36 a3 32 ~ 28 ~ 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 BF BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 26 ...,..... BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 3 of3 2 WM BONE, KERI J.  POGUE-DUFFIE, JEANNE M.  WILLIAMS, MELISSA F. Teacher: BONE, KERI J. Discipline referral counts: BM: 17 Teacher: POGUE-DUFFIE, JEANNE M. Discipline referral counts: BM: 68 Teacher: WILLIAMS, MELISSA F. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 26 111 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 2 TchRace: W BF: 8 10 TchGender: F YrsExp: 4 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 WM: 32 WF: 4 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 2 WF: 16 34 20 G-79 BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 Page 1 of 3 4~------------------------------------------~ en co t: 3 '$ 0::: '52 ,._ Q) ..Q 1 1 1 1 E 1 ::::l z 0-+--- BM DALE, JOANN Teacher : DALE, JOANN Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ELDRED, SHARON L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: EVANS, MARILYN A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: FURLOUGH, LORETTA J. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: BM: BM: 1 BM: 1 4 Student Race and Gender ELDRED, SHARON L. II EVANS, MARILYN A. Iii FURLOUGH, LORETTA J. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 17 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 15 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 19 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 0 0 0 G-80  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 Page 2 of 3 4----------------------------------------------, en 3 ro L.. L.. 2 Q) 0:::: c52 L.. Q) .0 E :::, Z1 Q---1------ 1 2 2 BF BM WF Student Race and Gender HARRINGTON, DOROTHY J. NORWOOD, CAROL R. Teacher: HARRINGTON, DOROTHY J. TchRace: B TchGender: F Discipline referral counts: BM: 0 BF: WM: 0 Teacher : NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 Teacher: PARKER, WENDELL TchRace: B TchGender: M Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 Referral counts for this page: 3 1 0 G-81 II PARKER, WENDELL YrsExp: 22 WF: 2 YrsExp: 7 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 2 36 32 28 en ~ 24 L.. .Q_) Q) 0::: 20 ._ 17 0 a3 16 .0 E z:: :i 12 8 4 0 BF  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 34 24 19 8 BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 3 of3 4 WM CLARK, LYNNE E. HUGHES, ELIZABETH A.  WILLIAMS-SMITH, JAJUAN Ill WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : HUGHES, ELIZABETH A. BM: 8 Discipline referral counts: BM: 19 Teacher: WILLIAMS-SMITH, JAJUAN C. Discipline referral counts: BM: 24 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. Discipline referral counts: BM: 9 Referral counts for this page: 60 TchRace: W BF: 4 TchRace: W BF: 17 TchRace: B BF: TchRace: B BF: 2 24 TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 WM: WF: 8 TchGender : F YrsExp: 2 WM: 4 WF: 34 TchGender: F YrsExp: 0 WM: 2 WF: 2 TchGender : F YrsExp: 19 WM: 0 WF: 4 7 48 G-82  -------~------ 4 (/) cu t: 3 Q) '+- Q) ct: 02 ,_ Q) .0 1 E 1 ::, z 0 1 1 BM BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 1 Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 3 BAKER. KATHERINE A. 0 NORWOOD. CAROL R. m REDUS. ROCHELLE D. 11R1OBIN SON. DEWAYNE Teacher: BAKER, KATHERINE A. Discipline referral counts: BM: Teacher : NORWOOD, CAROL R. Discipline referral counts: BM: Teacher : REDUS, ROCHELLE D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ROBINSON, DEWAYNE Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: BM: 4 TchRace: B BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 4 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender : F YrsExp: 7 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 0 0 G-83  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 Page 2 of 3 13~------------------------------------------- 12 11 .c!!o!. 10 t: 9 Q) Q) 8 0:: 7 '+- 0 6 I.... i 5 E 4 z:: , 3 2 BF Teacher: DENNIS, JAMESETTA Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARPER, KIMBERLY A. Discipl\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\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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_151","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1997-07-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring 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/151"],"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\nExecutive Summary\n   -- ----------------------, EXECUTIVE UMMARY RC D JUL 1 6 1997 OfIfC EO f __jESEGREGMAOTN\\O\\TNO RING A Status Repor1 on Desegregation: The Three School Districts in Pulaski County ... Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation: A Division of Technical Assistance     ------- on Overvew Executive Summary  The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan, must collect data or review the following: A. Monitoring Schedule B Enrollment/ Attendance * C. Test Data D. Staff* E. Policy and Program F. Budget G. Student discipline H. Perceptual Data * I. Majority to Minority Transfer J Extended COE Monitoring The asterisk indicates that this information was reported in the February 1997 Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report. 1   Q OveNiew Executive Summary  The Arkansas Department of Education monitored all Cycle One schools in the Pulaski County Schools Districts in accordance with the Department's Implementation Plan during the 1996/97 school year.  The Cycle One schools included fifteen elementary schools and seven high Schools.  All parties to the Pulaski County Desegregation Settlement Agreement were invited to participate in the monitoring process. Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation 2     Unannounced ontoring Schedule DATE VISITED SCHOOL VISITED SCHOOL DISTRICT Februrary 10, 1997 Jacksonville High School PCSSD February 10, 1997 North Pulaski High School PCSSD February 14, 1997 Parkview Magnet High LRSD February 17, 1997 Glenview Elementary NLRSD February 28, 1997 Belwood Elementary NLRSD March 3, 1997 Pulaski Heights Elementary LRSD March 10, 1997 Park Hill Elementary NLRSD March 10, 1997 Terry Elementary LRSD March 23, 1997 Redwood Elementary NLRSD March 24, 1997 Boone Park Elementary NLRSD March 27, 1997 North Heights Elementary NLRSD March 31, 1997 Oak Grove Jr/Sr High PCSSD April 1, 1997 Wilson Elementary LRSD 3   Unannoumce Momtoring Schedule (Page 2 of 2) / RESULTS OF TIIE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN TIIE ALLEN LETTER YES NO NIA I. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate 5 17 desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are 17 5 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without 22 bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the 22 desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non- 22 black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 5 17 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non- 22 discriminatory.  - ---------  4  60 50 40 30 20 10 0   ------- ta Cycle One Schools : LRSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 51.2 52.2 52.4 50.9 43.2 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Baseline Elem.  David O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem.  Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High Jefferson Elem.  Parkview Magnet High  Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a I Finding: Jefferson, Parkview, Terry and Pulaski Hei! 5 1 \"average.\" ment at or above this range.  50 40 30 20 10 0   Test Data aJ Cycle One Schools: NLRSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 41.7 45.4 45.3 29.9 2 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Belwood Elem Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem.  Pikeview Elem. North Heights Elem. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 meaning \"average.\" Finding: None of the Cycle One schools in NLRSD performed within this range. 6  60 50 40 30 20 10 0   Data Cycle One Schools : PCSSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 46.9 46.9 45.2 46.4 48.6 48.6 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Jacksonville High North Pulaski Heights High Oak Grove Grade 1 O  Oak Grove Grade 7  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills Sr. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 meaning \"average.\" Finding: None of the Cycle one schools in PCSSD demonstrated achievement above the 50th percentile. 7    Po icy and Pr _,ram Update  The Little Rock School District updated policies and regulations related to student entrance/exit criteria, and compensatory/remedial programs.  The North Little Rock School District updated policies related student entrance/exit criteria.  The Pulaski County School District did not report policies updates during this reporting period. 8 --------- PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 43,097,892 24,264,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 5,288,655 10,403,236 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,787 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 20,200,260 8,248,193 1,270,286 935 1,285,373 782,685 627,095 256,597 0 0 186,353 82,687 32,880,644 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 39,356,871 11,785,782 4,328,212 108,958 1,503,298 1,215,888 2,951,488 2,319,795 0 0 1,019,512 330,213 64,921,773 Funding Caagorle Local \u0026amp; State Thia category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Dessg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. ExpenM Cat.gorle Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Thia category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Dessg Thia category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Cat.gory At 03131197 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district as of March 31, 1997. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County.   ---------------------- - 9   PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 5,208,938 0 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,270,286 0 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL '4,328,212 0 Funding CategoriN Local \u0026amp; Slala Federal Thia catego,y 1ndudes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestncted federal sources This catego,y 1ndudes funding from restncted federal sources wluch must be eccounted for S9tArately from the General Fund Daseg Th, catego,y consists of funding for desegregation purposes DESEG 2,191,930 166,353 1,019,512 RATIO OF TRANS EXPENSE TO TOTAL TOT AL EXPENSE 7,400,868 7.1% 1,436,639 '4.4% 5,3\"7,72\u0026lt;1 8.2% TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 EltpenM CategoriN 8000000 Local \u0026amp; Stale This catego,y C011S1Sotsf transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestncted local, state and federal sources This catego,y consists of transportat10r1c osts funded by restncted federal sources Oaseg This catego,y C011S1Sotfs transportation costs incurred relative to desegregat10r1p rograms funded by desegregation sources Total Category Al 03131/97 This catego,y cons11ts of the d1stnct's total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997 Ratio of Transportation ExpenM to Total ExpenM Al 03/31197 SOURCES Th11 catego,y indicates the percentage of the d11tnct's total expense as of March 31, 1997 attnbutable to the transportation funcllOrl. The F1n811CO8 ff,ces of aach of the school dlstncts ,n Pulaski County. 10 6000000 \u0026lt;4000000 2000000 0    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 188,063 0 TT,792 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 935 0 82,667 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 108,956 0 330,213 Funding Categort. Local \u0026amp; Stats F8dflral Dest,g This categoryi ncludesfu nding from local sources,r egular state sources, and unrestncted federal sources This category tndudes funding from restncted federal sources winch must be accounted for separately from the General Fund Thia category consists of funding for desegregation purposes ExpenM CategoriN Local \u0026amp; State F8dflral Total Category At 03131197 This category consists of legal expen- incurred relabve to programs funded by unrestncted local, state and federal sources This category consists of legal expenses funded by restncted federal sources Thia category consists of legal expen- incurred relablle to desegregabon programs funded by desegregat1011so urces This category constSts of the d1stnct's total legal expense as of March 31, 1997 Ratio of Legal ExpenM to Total ExpenM At 03131197 SOURCES This category Indtcates the percentage of the total d1stnct expense as of March 31, 1997 attnbutable to legal fees. The Finance OfflC8S of each of the school distncts ,n Pulaski County 11 RA TIO OF LEGAL EXPENSE TO TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE 265,855 03% 83,602 0.3% \u0026lt;139,169 0.7% LEGAL !500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 AS OF 03/311117    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 Total Deseg Expense Comp Ed Expense COMPENSATORY EDUCATION AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 TOTAL DESEGREGATION COMP ED DISTRICT EXPENSE EXPENSE LITTLE ROCK 17,119,599 3,870,984 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,134,712 885,690 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 6,620,988 2,362,306 The total desegregation expense as of March 31, 1997 eligible for funding by the State. Compensatory Education expense as of March 31, 1997. Comp Ed Pmts Compensatory Education payments made by the ADE to the district in FY 96/97 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. of Comp Ed Exp to Deseg Expense Ratio of Compensatory Education expense to total desegregation expense as of March 31, 1997. COMP EDPMTS PERCENT OF FROM ADE COMP ED EXPENSE IN FY 96/97 TO DESEG EXPENSE 2,527,936 22.6% 0 78.1% 0 35.7% COMP ED EXPENSE 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 AS OF 03/31/97 SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 12    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# SCHOOL STATE FEDERAL DESEG 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 0 2,253,098 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 0 2,640,807 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 0 1,667,908 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 0 1,498,142 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 0 972,080 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 0 1,371,201 TOTAL MAGNET EXPENSE 0 0 10,403,236 Funding Cat.gone Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. I TOTAL 2,253,098 2,640,807 1,667,908 1,498,142 972,080 1,371,201 I 10,403,236 Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately MAGNET EXPENSE AS OF 03/31/97 Deseg from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. 3000000 2000000 1000000 ExpenH Cat.gorlea o Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of magnet program expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded from desegregation sources. Total Cat.gory At 03/31197 SOURCES: The totals in this column represent the total expense for each magnet school as of March 31, 1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and tha Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 13  I I 500 400 300 200 100 0    - -- - ------- uarter 1-3 Referrals Cycle One Schools: LRSD 408 BM BF 189 396 245 B Baseline Elem. O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem. D Forest Park Elem. DJ.A. Fair High Jefferson Elem. Parkview Magnet Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 14 WM 108 WF 32 OM OF 6 2 0 1.0% w 17.7% --- -------    DiscpIn uarlter 1-3 Referral Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 1328 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Belwood Elem. Boone Park Elem.  Glenview Elem. D N. Heights Elem. D Park Hill Elem. D Pike View Elem. Redwood Elem.  15 BM BF 1290 495 WM 332 B 62.2% WF 755 w 37.8% OM OF 0 0  2000 1500 1000 500    Discipline: uarters 1-3 Referrals Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 1832 BM BF WM WF OM 2331 910 2851 1045 0 OF 0 0------------- B 45.4/o  Jacksonville High N. Pulaski High  Oak Grove Jr/Sr High  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High w 54.6% ---------------------- 16 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20      uarters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: LRSD 148 BM BF WM WF OM OF 44 47 36 21 229 70 69 6 1 2 B 0 ------------------ Baseline Elem. David O'Dodd Elem. D Fair Park Elem. D Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High Jefferson Elem.  Parkview Magnet High Pulaski Heights Elem.  Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 17 0 0.8% w 19.9%  Discipli     arters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 182 200 150 100 27 50 0--------------- Belwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem. Glenview Elem. DN. Heights Elem. Park Hill Elem.  Pike View Elem. Redwood Elem. 18 BM 172 B 87.5% BF WM WF 74 26 8 OM 1 OF 0 0 0.4% w 12.1%     rl uarters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 600 500 400 300 200 100 311 463 347 106 0-------------------' Jacksonville N. Pulaski  Oak Grove  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High 19 BM BF 459 188 WM WF 567 199 B 45.7% w 54.1 Ofo OM 3 OF 0 0 0.2%    Discipline: Quarters 1-3 Exclusions Cycle One Schools: LRSD 3 BM 3 2 2 1 0 ------------- D Baseline Elem. O'Dodd Elem. D Fair Park Elem.  Forest Park Elem. J. A. Fair High Parkview High Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 20 BF WM 0 1 B 66.7% WF OM 0 0 w 33.3% OF 0   Discip     uarter 1-3 Exclusions Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 0 IL::~!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~7 Belwood Elem Glenview Elem. Park Hill Elem. Redwood Elem. Boone Park Elem. Pikeview Elem. ' North Heights Elem. i D Belwood Elem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem. DPikeview Elem.  North Heights Elem. 21     ascipl uar1ters 1-3 Exclusion Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 25 20 15 10 5 20 16 0----------- Jacksonville N. Pulaski  Oak Grove  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High BM 22 22 BF 11 WM WF 20 B 53.2% 9 w 46.8% OM 0 OF 0     ----------------~aJ Discipline: uarters 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: LRSD 2 2 2 2 1 0---------------- Baseline Elem. David O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem. Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High  Jefferson Elem. Parkview Magnet High Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 23 BM 3 BF WM 1 B 66.7% 2 WF 0 OM 0 w 33.3% OF 0  ~ -  Discipln-=-=. uarter 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: NLRSD There were no Expulsions in Cycle one schools in NLRSD 0 Belwood Elem 0 Glenview Elem. 0 Park Hill Elem. 0 Redwood Elem. 0 Boone Park Elem. 0 Pikeview Elem. 0 North Heights Elem. 0 ...---=----------------------, Belwood Elem Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem.  Pikeview Elem. North Heights Elem. 24 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0   Discipline. Quarters 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 13 BM 10 19 Jacksonville High  North Pulaski High  Oak Grove Grade 10-12 D Oak Grove Grade 7 -9  Sylvan Hills Jr. Sylvan Hills Sr. 25 BF 4 WM 13 B 60.5% WF OM 2 w 39.5% 0  If oF 0    Minority-to-Nlajority Transfer Cycle One Schools (1996-97) LRSD 99. 7% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in LRSD are M-to-M. 100% of the M -to-M enrollment is White and 0% of the M-to-M enrollment is Black. NLRSD 98.5% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in NLRSD are M-to-M. 61 % of M-to-M enrollment is White and 39% of the M-to-M enrollment is PCSSD 94.2% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in PCSSD are M-to-M. 100% of M-to-M enrollment is White and 0% of the M-to-M enrollment is Black. \"    Exten\nNloni oring Fourteen Qualitative Elements RESULTS OF THE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN THE ALLEN LETTER YES NO NIA 1. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate 5 17 desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are 17 5 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without 22 bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the 22 desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non- 22 black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 5 17 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non- 22 discriminatory. Note: Evidence was collected by conducting a triangulated process of interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of documents during on-site monitoring at the 22 Cycle aski County. 27 ex    E Fourteen Qualitative Elements RESULTS OF THE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN THE ALLEN LETTER YES NO 8. Evidence that cwTicular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student 22 population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating 14 8 school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to 22 identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. I 111. Evidence that diverse representation on appointed districtwide and school-based committees. 21 1 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student 22 population. 13. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority transfers. 13 9 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective interdistrict remedy for racial balance. Note: Evidence was collected by conducting a triangulated process of interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of documents during on-site monitoring at the 22 Cycle One schools in Pulaski County. 28 NIA 22 i I I I I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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_1166","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":["1997-07-10/1997-12-18"],"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/1166"],"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 July 10, 1997 AUG 2 ~ 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, July 10, 1997, in the Board Room of the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Micheal Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Designee Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Colleen Kidda, Teacher Ex officio, ALC Tiffany Mays, Student Ex officio, Central High I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call\nall members of the Board were present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 10, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following action items: I. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election II. Superintendent's Contract ACTION AGENDA In compliance with Arkansas law, (Ark. Code Ann 6-13-622) the Board of Directors is required to approve a proposed budget for the 1998-99 school year, and a tax rate levy sufficient to provide such funding. This must be published not less than 60 days prior to the annual school election. The proposed budget was prepared by Mr. Milhollen and administration recommended approval. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the proposed budget, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Berkley moved for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel issue. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. The Board returned from executive session at 6:10 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT Mr. Berkley made a motion to extend Dr. Roberts' current contract to December 31, 1997. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Strickland made a motion to offer a contract to Dr. Les Carnine for the position of superintendent of schools. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Immediately following adjournment, Dr. Carnine and Board members signed the contract. APPROVED: '7 -.\n2LJ-Cf'7 I\u0026lt;, ~ ~ Micheal Daughe ~ ecretaryC PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 74 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6-13-622 (1993 Rep!.), has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures $ 64,331,159.00 RECEIVED 2. Instructional Expense $ 19,533,734.00 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense $ 11,162,134.00 4. Pupil Transportation Expense $ 10,464,500.00 AUG 2 s 1997 5. Other Operating Expense $ 26,847,025.00 6. Nonbonded Debt Payment $ 360,676.00 OFFICE OF 7. Bonded Debt Payment $ 6,827,445.00 DESEGREGATION MONITORING 8. Building Fund Expense $ .00 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $ .00 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures the Board of Directors proposes a total school tax rate (state and local) of 41.40 mills on the dollar of the assessed value of taxable property located in this School District. The proposed tax includes the uniform rate of 25.00 mills (the \"Statewide Uniform Rate\") to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in the State. As provided in Amendment No. 74, the Statewide Uniform Rate replaces a portion of the existing rate of tax levied by this School District and available for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The existing rate of tax levied by this School District is 41.40 mills composed of 32.00 mills specifically voted for maintenance and operation and 9.40 mills voted for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing indebtedness. The surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other school purposes. In accordance with the provisions of Amendment No. 59 to the Arkansas Constitution and Act No. 848 of 1981, the proposed tax levy applies to real property ( exclusive of real property owned by public utilities and regulated carriers). The tax rate applicable to personal property and to all property (real and personal) owned by public utilities and regulated carriers will be the rate computed in accordance with the provisions of Amendment No. 59 and Act No. 848. - The total proposed school tax levy of 41 .40 mills represents no increase over the current tax rate. Given this 10th day of July, 1997. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, July 24, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice President, Judy Magness, presided. A brief budget work session was conducted prior to the call to order of the regular meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland RECEn,~o SEP\n1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board Vice President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Five members of the Board were present\nMr. Berkley and Mr. Riggs were absent. Tiffany Mays, Central High School student ex officio, was also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of June 26, and a special meeting conducted on July 10, were presented for the Board's approval. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the minutes, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented citations to Central High School teachers who participated in a Goals 2000 grant staff development project, directed by Dr. Brenda James. The following teachers were present to accept their citation: Paulette Blevins, Tandy Cobb, Melissa Donham, Marion Easter, Kathy Gates, Gracie Mays, Dorothy McDonald, Angel Nash, Ellen Teeter, and Barbara Wilder. Other teachers who completed the training include: Beverly Broadnax-Thrasher, Sandy Deitz, Sarah Dixon, Karen Hammons, Gwen Hardin, Gary Hufford, Melinda Kalb, Doris Nash, Carolyn Pittman, Julia Post, Marilyn Rutledge, Annice Steadman, Flora Thompson, and Christopher Threatt. In addition, Linda Watson, Lloyd Sain, David Spillers, and Frank James were recognized for serving as consultants on the project. Dr. Roberts presented plaques to Rett Tucker and Baker Kurrus in recognition of the leadership roles they have assumed during the past year. Mr. Tucker serves as the president of the Central High Museum project and co-chairs the 40th anniversary recognition ceremonies. He also serves on the board of the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools. Mr. Kurrus serves as president of the Alliance board and volunteers on several LRSD committees, including the strategic planning committee and the student assignment work team. Tiffany Mays who recently graduated from Central High School served as the student ex officio representative on the Board for the month of July and was presented with a citation for her service. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES TRUCE Program Presentation - Little Rock Rotary Club Mr. John Ostner provided a brief report on the success of the TRUCE (Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday) Program. The Board was given copies of the membership figures for the 1996-97 school year and a list of participating business sponsors. He asked for the Board's endorsement to expand the program to include junior high school students in theLRSD. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 3 D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported on ODM participation in the Vital Link program this summer. Several businesses in the Heritage West building participated in Vital Link and all of them reported having positive and successful experiences. She expressed appreciation to Debbie Milam and Deana Keithley for their assistance in coordinating the Vital Link activities. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter, newly elected president of the CTA, introduced himself and expressed confidence that efforts to establish a more positive working relationship between the teachers' union and the District administration would be successful. 3. Joshua Intervenors Joy Springer noted concerns regarding the student rights \u0026amp; responsibilities handbook revisions, specifically the proposed changes to the due process section. Dr. Roberts asked the Board to table action on the handbook until the committee could work through some of the concerns and questions that still exist in the revisions. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty presented a brochure from the Office of Emergency Services and asked the public to be aware of requirements to have addresses clearly visible on the outside of homes. He also remarked that his son will be attending Pulaski Heights Jr. High School next year. Ms. Gee commented on the response to a question she had asked in the budget meeting prior to the regular meeting: the recently negotiated pay increases for teachers would also be granted to other employees in the District. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page4 Ms. Magness attended a reception at the Student Employability Center that operated this summer as a part of the state Employment Security Division office. The center is run by students who provide training for other students in employability skills, i.e. how to fill out applications, how to dress appropriately for an interview, how to respond to interview questions, etc. The Center is funded by grants from the City of Little Rock and the New Futures Initiative. Ms. Magness also thanked the Southwestern Bell Pioneers service organization for painting maps of the United States on school playgrounds. She and Mr. Berkley had visited Rightsell School this week while the volunteers were working on the map. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS None. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Common Ground Proposal Franklin Elementary School submitted a proposal in the amount of $42,000 to the Common Ground Program for a project to improve academic performance and citizenship of students through a wide range of behavior management activities. The Board was asked for authorization to maintain the grant submission. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the submission, Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. Resolution: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Picked Up Contributions and Purchased Service The Board was asked to approve a resolution authorizing the District to participate in the \"picked-up\" contributions program. Employees who are active Arkansas Teacher Retirement System members may opt to have their retirement deductions made from taxable income prior to federal and state income tax deductions. This option will allow members to take home more of their wages. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the resolution, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. ESEA, Title 1, 1997-98 District Plan The Board was asked to authorize submission of the 1997-98 ESEA, Title I District plan. The funding allocation is $4,202,821 based on 11,081 eligible students. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 5 D. ESEA, Title VI, 1997-98 Application The Board was asked to authorize submission of the 1997-98 Title VI application to the Arkansas Department of Education. The funding allocation, in the amount of $135,197, is based on enrollment of eligible public and private school students in the LRSD. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. E. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant A technology Literacy Challenge Grant application was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education on the deadline date, July 15. The Board was asked to approve maintaining the submission. The proposal seeks $94,000 for a one-year initiative\ncontinuation funding is expected to be made available over a 5 year period. No matching fund commitment is required. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the grant submission. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Implementation of Registered Volunteers Program (Act 1012 of 1997) Act 1012 of 1997 allows local school districts to establish registered volunteer programs to provide additional personnel to supervise extracurricular or interscholastic activities under the direction of a certified staff member. The Board was asked to approve the formation of a registered volunteers program in the LRSD for the 1997-98 school year, with initial costs for background checks and training to be paid from the secondary school budget. Dr. Victor Anderson responded to questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the implementation of Act 1012, registered volunteers program. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. G. Second Jleading: Appropriate Use of Computer Networks Policy Act 801 of the 1997 Legislative Session requires the Board of Directors to adopt a policy concerning student and staff use of District-owned computers in accessing the Internet. The law also requires the policy be incorporated into the written student discipline policy if there is punishment for students who misuse District-owned computers. The policy was passed on first reading at the regular meeting in June with an amendment to include \"normal district progressive disciplinary sanctions\" in the policy statement. Dr. Daugherty  moved to approve the policy on second reading. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page6 H. Second Reading: Strategy Five Policy Proposals Members of Strategic Planning Team 5 met monthly to facilitate implementation of the community partnership portions of the strategic plan. This group drafted three proposed policies, Partners in Education, School-based Mentoring Programs, and Relations with Community Organizations, which were approved on first reading at the regular meeting in June. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve these three policies on second reading. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. I. Approval of Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook Action on approval of the student rights \u0026amp; responsibilities handbook was tabled by consensus. It will be included as an action item in August. J. 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. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR J. A. Fair High Apple Computer/printer Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Aubrey Hough for Science Dept. Instructional Technology Star NX-1000 Printer Mr. W. J. Fitzhugh K Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the recommendations, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. L. Financial Reports Financial reports were provided prior to the regular meeting during the budget work session. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the reports. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 7 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Budget Update All budget information was presented in the work session prior to the regular meeting. B. Discussion: Progress Report on Annual Goals The Board briefly reviewed the annual goals, but did not take any action. Dr. Roberts reported that the work teams will be asked to present their reports to the Board at special meetings scheduled on August 14 and 18. Dr. Roberts will then present his recommendations from the work team reports at a special meeting on August 25. The Board will then be given an opportunity to review the recommendations before taking action in September. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS - None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Ms. Strickland moved for adjournment at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 8'  d---'g -'i '(  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 5, 1997 RECEnfED SEP 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, in the superintendent's office of the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, Vice President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: John Riggs, IV Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present, Mr. Riggs and Dr. Daugherty were absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The special meeting was called for the purpose of adopting a resolution requesting the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners to reduce the number of polling places for the Little Rock School District annual school election, scheduled for September 16, 1997. .. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 5, 1997 Page2 ACTION AGENDA In compliance with Arkansas law, (Act 545 of 1997) the Board of Directors was asked to approve a resolution petitioning the Pulaski County Election Commission to reduce the number of polling places in the September school elections. By doing so, the District anticipates saving approximately $20,000 in election costs. A copy of the resolution which further explains the law and the requirements is attached to these minutes. Ms. Gee made a motion to adopt the resolution. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Strickland. APPROVED: $-Jz-q1 Resolution 1997 School Board Elections WHEREAS, Act 545 of 1997 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly amends Arkansas Code Annotated 6-14-102, related to school board elections\nand WHEREAS, Act 545 states that \"In any election year, if no more than one (1) candidate for school district director or member of the county board of education presents a petition or notice in writing to the county board of election commissioners as required by 6-14- 111, and there are no other ballot issues to be submitted to district electors for consideration, the board of directors of any school district may, by resolution duly adopted, request the county board of election commissioners to reduce the number of polling places\"\nand WHEREAS, only one candidate has filed a petition in each of the three school election districts which are up for election this year, and there are no other ballot issues\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County adopts this resolution to request the county board of election commissioners to reduce the number of polling places. Secretary Adopted LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 RC 1997 OFRCEOF REGAT/DN MONITOR/~ The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, August 14, 1997, immediately following the regular agenda meeting, at the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, Vice President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Six members of the Board were present\nMr. Riggs was absent. Kamie Smith, 11 th grade student ex officio from Fair High School, and Ann McLennan, 2nd grade teacher ex officio from Badgett Elementary School were also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: I. Ratification of Personnel Contracts II. Student Reinstatement Petitions ill. Work Team Reports ACTION AGENDA Ratification of Personnel Contracts Brady Gadberry provided a brief summary of the personnel agreements and asked for the Board to approve the negotiated contracts. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the contracts, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. Student Reinstatement Petitions The Board convened an executive session for the purpose of reviewing student disciplinary reports. Dr. Watson submitted 17 petitions for reinstatement and recommended various placements for the students involved. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the administration's recommendations and Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The students and recommended placements for the 1997-98 school year are listed in the chart which follows: PREVIOUS RECOMMENDED STUDENT'S OFFENSE PLACEMENT PLACEMENT NAME Joseph Blue Physical Assault/Staff ALC/JJC Dunbar Jr. High Phillip Chandler' Possession/Weapon ALC/JJC Regular High School Jabari Cummins Inciting to Riot Central Central/Other High School Deon Earnest Inciting to Riot Central Central/Other High School Edmar Higgins Verbal Abuse/Staff Central Sr. HighALC James Hubbard Verbal Abuse/Staff Central Sr. HighALC Shamil\u0026lt;a Hudson Physical Assault/Staff ALC/JJC Jr. HighALC Latricia Logan Possession/Weapon McClellan McClellan Valarie Logan Possession/Weapon Mabelvale Jr. High Jr. High ALC Calvin Love Physical Assault/Staff Central Sr. HighALC Brandi Maclntrush Verbal Assault/Staff ALC Dunbar Jr. High Kevin Morrison Arson Central/Metro Central High Mashieka Murphy Possession/Weapon Fair/JJC Fair Chris Royster Verbal Abuse/Staff Hall Hall Shawnrita Sain Physical Assault/Staff Central Regular High School Louis Shelton Verbal Abuse/Staff Forest Heights Jr. HighALC Jasper Vick Verbal Abuse/Staff Parkview Sr. High School MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 Page 3 WORK TEAM REPORTS: The Curriculum-Reading \u0026amp; Mathematics work team report was presented by team leader, Sharon Davis and committee members, Gene Parker and Dennis Glasgow. The School Revitalization work team report was presented by team leader, Marian Lacey and other committee members, Selma Hobby and Carol Green. The Incentive School work team report was presented by Sadie Mitchell, Margaret Gremillion, Ethel Dunbar, Lillie Scull, Lionel Ward, Sharon Brooks, and Anne Mangan. The Alternative Education \u0026amp; Discipline work team reports were presented by Jo Evelyn Elston, Linda Watson, Everett Hawks, and Lee Ann Byrd. Additional reports will be presented to the Board on August 18, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. Dr. Roberts will present recommendations from these reports to the Board on August 28, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: 2 -\n).. f-9 ( Micheal Daughe ~ .. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 18, 1997 RECEIVE SEP 4 1997 DES OFFICE OF 'EGREGATION MONITOR/NG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Monday, August 18, 1997, at the administration building at 810 West Markham\nLittle Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs Judy Magness Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strick.land MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Five members of the Board were present\nMr. Berkley and Dr. Daugherty were absent. Ann McLennan, 2nd grade teacher ex officio from Badgett Elementary School was also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 18, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing the final work team reports. No official board action was taken. WORK TEAM REPORTS: The Classroom-Community Links work team report was presented by team leader, Carol Green, and committee members, Selma Hobby and Julie Rhodes. The Leadership \u0026amp; Staff Development work team report was presented by team leader, Betty Raper, and team members, Robert Robinson, Marion Woods, and Skip Gardner. The Technology work team report was presented by team leader, Lucy Lyon, and committee members, Lillie Carter, Skip Marshall, Rich Kennedy, Paul Smith, and John Ruffins. Patrick Kennedy, Central High School student, also presented a video demonstration. The Student Assignment work team recommendations were presented by team leader, Baker Kurrus. Dr. Roberts will present recommendations from these reports to the Board on August 28, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 :00 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Strickland. 8 APPROVED: f-J-f-97 Micheal Daughe~ecretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 RECF''' SEP 2 6 1997 OFFICE OF IISEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, August 28, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. II. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of July 24, and special meetings conducted on August 5, August 14, and August 18, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Berkley requested a correction to the minutes of July 24. That correction was noted and Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the amended minutes. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.  REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented a citation to Dionne Bennett who was recently selected as the 1997 Sallie Mae First Class Teacher. Ms. Bennett, a science teacher at Mann Magnet Junior High School, received $1,500 cash and a trip to Washington, D.C. Larry Berkley and Micheal Daugherty, school Board members, were recognized by the Arkansas Schools Boards Association for completing fifteen hours of inservice training. Six hours of training per year is required under Act 767 of 1987. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator for the District recognized recently formed partnerships between schools and community businesses. Those partnerships include: Arkansas Youth Symphony Orchestra and Booker Arts Magnet School, represented by Cheryl Simmons-Carson and Lou Alley KLRE Radio Station and Booker Arts Magnet School, represented by Cheryl Simmons-Carson and Lou Alley KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, represented by Charlotte Daniel, Dorsey Jackson and Cathy Reid, partnering with Carver Magnet School, represented by Diane Barksdale and Yana Scott Loomis, Fargo \u0026amp; Company, represented by Mike Teeter, in partnership with Chicot Elementary, represented by Jane Harkey Safety \u0026amp; Environmental Associates, Inc., represented by Keina Jennings, in partnership with Chicot Elementary, represented by Jane Harkey Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page3 SUPERINTENDENT'S PRESENTATION: Work Team/Desegregation Recommendations - Dr. Roberts reviewed recommendations contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, dated August 28, 1997. He will ask the Board to approve the recommendations included in this report at the regular Board meeting in September. District attorneys will gather comments from all parties to the desegregation lawsuit, and their input will be considered before submitting the document to the court. A copy of the report is attached to these minutes. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES City Board member Joan Adcock introduced L.O.V.E (Let Our Violence End) program directors, Robert Holt and R. B. Smith. The L.O.V.E. program teaches teamwork and selfesteem and provides jobs and training for young people in an effort to curb violence and gang activity. They made a presentation of their program goals and objectives and asked the Board to consider donating the old Eastside School to the L.O.V.E. program. Students who participated in the presentation included Derrick Almon, Romy Chambliss, and Antoine Perkins. Community member Shirley Marshall also stated support for the program on behalf of the residents near Eastside. The Board recessed at 7:35 and reconvened at 7:55 p.m. Dr. Daugherty did not return from recess. D. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter reported that CT A representatives and members were pleased with the negotiations process this year, especially with the fact that all groups were under three-year contract agreements. Two items especially popular with the membership were the direct deposit of paychecks, and technology training for teachers. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page4 IV. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Riggs expressed personal pleasure in the fact that school is back in session and that it seemed to be a smooth opening with the exception of a few transportation problems. He congratulated Ms. Magness, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland who were unopposed for positions on the Board. Each of these Board members will serve three more years on the Board and will be sworn in at the September 18 meeting. Mr. Riggs also commented on the impact of the recommendations made in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, which was the basis for Dr. Roberts' presentation earlier in the agenda. The Board's decision to approve these recommendations will impact the children in our city for many years. Mr. Riggs asked the Board to remain prayerful\nto ask for strength, courage and wisdom. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Sandy Becker representing the Panky Community Improvement Association asked the Board to extend the deadline for the required improvements to property in Panky that was previously deeded by the District. He also thanked the Board for continuing to implement Strategic Plan recommendations, especially those from Action Team 5. Enos Jones asked the Board to consider the current requirements for volunteer coaches. He provided copies of the Arkansas Law and AAA rules which address the issue. Debbie Vail expressed concern regarding transportation problems. Her daughter attends Dunbar Jr. High and has been late several times this school year and last. Terri Watkins also reported problems with late buses. Her son has missed first period classes several times this year, She has reported problems to Laidlaw, but doesn't feel that her problem is being resolved. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page5 Gary Banks and Larry Oberste representing Pepsi Bottling Company, expressed support for Ray Gillespie and the LRSD Athletic Program and proposed establishing a partnership to benefit LRSD students involved in athletic programs. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook The Board had been provided copies of recommended revisions to the current Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook. Dr. Roberts recommended postponing action until further discussion could be held with committee members. The Board agreed by consensus to table action until the meeting of September 18. B. Central High School Right of Way Easement The city of Little Rock requested a Corporation Dedication Deed, which would grant a small amount of property on the northeast comer of the Central High School site to allow the city to widen the curb radius at the intersection of West 14th \u0026amp; Park Streets. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the request, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. Criminal Background Checks for New Non-Certified Employees Under Act 1314 of 1997, the State requires criminal background checks for all new noncertified employees, full and part-time. This background check would currently cost approximately $39 per employee, and would include fingerprinting and a background investigation by the FBI. Brady Gadberry was present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the District paying for the entire cost of conducting the background check for the current (1997-98) school year. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. D. Proposed School Closing for Central High School Events \u0026amp; Activities Dr. Roberts asked the Board to approve closing all high schools in the District on September 25, 1997, the day that commemorates the 40th anniversary of the integration of Central High School. He has petitioned the Arkansas Department of Education to consider that day as an excused absence for students. In addition, students in other grade levels would be granted an excused absence if parents provide a written request. Students and staff members of the District would be encouraged to participate in the scheduled activities. Ms. Magness moved to approve the Superintendent's recommendation\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page6 E. 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. Magness. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Forest Park Elementary Cash to purchase Forest Park PTA computers ($10,742.) Brady Elementary 200 Folding Chairs Bradv PTA Hall High Books for ESL students Carolyn Newbern Air Conditioner for the Home Depot Field House K. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. L. Financial Reports Financial reports for the month of July were incomplete at the time of the meeting. They will be provided for approval at the September meeting. (Dr. Daugherty returned at 8:45 p.m.) VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The update was printed in the agenda. There was no additional information provided. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page7 B. Budget Update Dr. Roberts reported that he would consider asking the Board to meet for discussion of the budget sometime during the month of September, before submission to the Arkansas Department of Education on September 15. He would like to include some budget projections from the work team recommendations in the final budget submission. In reference to the request to consider donating the Eastside building to L.O.V.E. or any other community group, Dr. Roberts asked the Board to give the administration an opportunity to review the options regarding sale or use of the building before making any decisions or promises. There have been several inquiries as to the possible sale or lease of the property and he would like to be able to recommend the best options for the District. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS VIII. None. DISCIPLINARY Dr. Daugherty made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting student and employee disciplinary actions at 9:00 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Watson, student hearing officer, requested the Board's approval for reinstatemet of several students who had been previously suspended or expelled from the District. Each of these students will be placed under strict probation for a period of one school term. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the recommended placements. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Students who are being reinstated and their recommended placements are listed in the table which follows. STUDENT Danielle Freeman John Grant Andre Harris Herbert Harris Diana Hill Kevin Holmes Shavonne Palmer LaTan a Rice Rondi Smith PREVIOUS SCHOOL Central Hi Central Hi Central Hi RECOMMENDED PLACEMENT am am REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page 8 The Board recessed briefly and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. to consider an employee's appeal of District disciplinary actions. (Dr. Daugherty excused himself from the hearing.) Jonathan Miller had been an employee of the Plant Services Department and was represented in this hearing by Attorney Alvin Clay. The District was represented by Clay Fendley. Mr. Miller had been an employee of the District for over 12 years. He was accused of being in possession of a handgun on District property. The incident occurred after the regular school/work day during an athletic event at Quigley stadium. His attorney, Mr. Clay, asked the Board to give Mr. Miller another opportunity, and Ray Gillespie, District Athletic Director, testified on his behalf. Mr. Miller was working for Mr. Gillespie at the time of the incident. Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, testified that he had brought the charges against Mr. Miller and that there were charges filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court related to the altercation. The incident had been reported to Bobby Jones, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security for the District on the morning after the incident. Dr. Roberts recommended that the Board suspend Mr. Miller, without pay, pending the final outcome of the charges that are pending in Circuit Court. Mr. Miller would then have the option of coming back to the Board to ask to be reinstated if he is cleared of the charges in Circuit Court. Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend Mr. Miller indefinitely, without pay. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT The Board returned from executive session at 9:30 p.m. Ms. Magness moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 9-(g-q1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 11, 1997 SEP 2 6 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, September 11, 1997, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. Six members of the Board were present\nDr. Daugherty was absent. Carthoria Johnson, teacher ex officio from Bale Elementary School was also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 11, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of approving the 1997-98 budget submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. ACTION: Board members were provided copies of a budget summary earlier this week. They were also given a copy of the full budget submission prior to the meeting. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Dr. Roberts reminded the Board that the budget can be modified further after submission to the State. He asked the Board to consider a budget work session sometime within the next few weeks. The Board agreed to conduct a work session on October 9, in conjunction with the regular October agenda meeting. Ms. Magness moved to approve the submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley. APPROVED: q -{ 8 ,q ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1 97 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 18, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. This meeting was rescheduled from the usual 4th Thursday to the 3rd Thursday to accommodate plans for the 40th anniversary programs commemorating the integration of Central High School. The President, John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Micheal Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESE T: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Les Carnine, Superintendent Designee Carthoria Johnson, Teacher Ex-officio Yolanda Baskins, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6:20 p.m. and Dr. Mitchell arrived at 7:00 p.m. Judge Chris Piazza was present to administer the oath of office to Little Rock School District Board members Judy Magness, Pat Gee, and Sue Strickland. Ruth White Tucker, re-elected to the Pulaski County Special School District Board, and Ernie Davis, re-elected to a position on the Pulaski County Board of Education, were also sworn in by Judge Piazza. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page2 II. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of August 28, 1997, and a special meeting on September 11, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Magness moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent introduced Greg Harris and Barbara Byrd, teachers at M. L. King Elementary School. They were recently recognized for their programs to teach economics to elementary students by the Bessie B. Moore Arkansas Awards program. Kiffany Pride was also awarded an honorable mention, but was unable to attend the Board meeting. William Reid, owner of Reid-Vining Jewelers, was recognized for restoring two silver trophies that have been on display in the Central High School trophy case for many years. Age had blackened and corroded these trophies, dated 1908 and 1910. He presented the restored trophies to Principal Rudolph Howard. Dr. Roberts presented a certificate ofrecognition to Sharon Brooks, principal of Rightsell Incentive School. Ms. Brooks recently hosted U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and his staff on a tour of Rightsell, which included a visit with students and a live broadcast from the school's media center. Ms. Brooks was commended for the work she does at Rightsell, for the high expectations set for staff and students, and for her strong leadership abilities. Marion Woods was introduced to present certificates to the first graduates of the Mahl on Martin Professional Development Leadership class. The District received a Goals 2000 grant to fund this staff development program. The graduates are: Stacy Blacknall Marian Jackson Mary A. Smith Marilyn Bostic Mary Lawson Eunice Thrasher Sharon Bryant Ken Milton Janis Tucker Luverda Clay Debra Murray William Vann Carmelia Crawford Mike Peterson Nona Whittaker Donna Hall Julia Post R. J. Williams Gregory Harris Bemestine Rhodes Clarice Woodley Rory Hill Lillie Scull Karen Worsham Laureen Isom REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 3 The final citations were presented to Carthoria Johnson, teacher ex-officio from Bale Elementary and Yolanda Baskins, student ex-officio from Hall High School. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Baker Kurrus, representing the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, spoke in support of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by Dr. Roberts and presented to the Board in August. Odies Wilson, vice president of the Alliance Board, also addressed the board and asked them to make a commitment to the process of educating the children in our community by voting in favor of the proposed desegregation and education plan. He announced that the Alliance would work with the Chamber of Commerce over the next few weeks to develop a city-wide reading initiative. Jim Hathaway, representing Fifty for the Future, expressed support for the revised Plan and asked the Board and administrators to focus on strong fiscal management of the District. To promote stability, he suggested hiring additional, qualified staff and reorganizing the current staff to make operations more efficient. Speaking on behalf of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Hubert Barksdale read a resolution adopted by the Chamber Board. He also introduced Paula Patterson, the newly appointed Chairman of the Chamber Education Committee. D. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden was present and spoke briefly to the Board. ODM has not been monitoring in the LRSD this year, therefore there are no issues or concerns to report at this time. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter remarked on the cooperative efforts of the task force which has been working to coordinate technology training for over 600 employees who have expressed interest in this area. He also reported receiving several calls from teachers who want to participate in activities at Central High School on September 25, and he asked the Board to consider allowing all employees the opportunity to attend. He concluded his presentation by remarking that he had worked with the faculty at Metropolitan who were concerned about implementation of an alternative program at that school. He introduced Laurie Prather, who teaches at Metropolitan. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page4 Ms. Prather stated that the faculty and staff is not opposed to locating an alternative program at Metro, but that they are concerned about how the students would be served. She stated the faculty feels that they had been left out of the planning process and should have been consulted earlier. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty congratulated Ms. Magness, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland on their re-election\nall three were uncontested for their seats on the Board. He also introduced Dr. Dwayne Jackson who attended the meeting. Ms. Gee remarked that, although she was unopposed, she did not take the election for granted. She promised to continue to work towards a more cooperative and unified Board. Mr. Berkley also congratulated the re-elected Board members and stated that he was looking forward to the next year. Ms. Magness introduced her family and thanked them for their support of her service on the Board. She stated that she appreciated the opportunity to serve three more years and thanked district employees for the great beginning of school. She recognized the Alliance and Chamber of Commerce Board and thanked them for their contribution to the success of the past year. Ms. Strickland introduced her husband and thanked him for supporting her in her efforts on the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 5 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS V. Maureen Rose from Waste Management of Arkansas was present as Murfee Green, a character who promotes recycling education programs. She provided copies of educational materials WMA will distribute to our students promoting recycling. Dick Burchett introduced himself as a supporter of Metropolitan and the program offered there. He questioned the Board about the selection of Metro as a site for new alternative learning programs. Mr. Burchett stated that his wife is a teacher at Metro and that he lives in Bryant. Sandy Becker, chair of Strategic Planning Team 5, School and Community Partnerships, stated support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by Dr. Roberts. He welcomed Dr. Carnine to the District and pledged his support in the coming year. Mr. Becker encouraged the Board to continue to support the Strategic Planning process and continue to bring new opportunities to the students. The Board took a briefrecess and reconvened at 7:30 p.m. ACTION AGENDA A. Election of Officers Mr. Riggs opened the floor to nominations for the position of President of the Board. Mr. Berkley nominated Ms. Magness. Dr. Mitchell moved that the nominations be closed and that Ms. Magness be elected by acclamation. The vote was unanimous. For the position of Vice President, Ms. Strickland nominated Mr. Berkley. Mr. Riggs moved that the nominations close, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Riggs nominated Dr. Daugherty for the position of Secretary. He moved that the nominations close and that Dr. Daugherty be elected by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Approval of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Dr. Roberts presented a summary of the modifications to the Plan which had been provided to the Board at the August 28 Board meeting and urged the Board to approve the Plan for submission to the Court. He indicated that approval of this Plan by the Court would restore a common sense approach to educating the children of Little Rock and would result in a significant increase in the levels of parent and community involvement in the schools. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page6 Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to file the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court within the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A transcript of the Board member's comments regarding the approval of this Plan for submission is attached to these minutes. C. Approval of the 1996-97 Annual Report The District's 1996-97 Annual Report was printed as a part of the agenda and Suellen Vann, Director of Communications, was present to respond to questions. She reminded the Board that under Arkansas law, this report must be filed by October 1 of each year. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the report. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Approval of the Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook Dr. Roberts briefly reviewed changes that had been incorporated into this year's Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer, and members of the handbook committee were present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Gee moved to approve the handbook, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0 . Dr. Daugherty left the meeting and was not present for the remainder of the meeting. E. Goals 2000 Grant Application An application for a Goals 2000 grant had been submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education for a September 12 deadline. The Board was asked to approve maintenance of that submission. The grant would provide continuation funding for two professional development programs established in 1996 with Goals 2000 funding. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the submission. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. F. Ratification of Aides \u0026amp; Custodians Contract The Board was provided with information on the negotiated contract with District Custodians and paraprofessionals. Mr. Gadberry was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the contract agreements. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. G. Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services, 1997-98 The 1997-98 application for special education funding was presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the application for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page7 H. Resolution: Arkansas Public Schools Week Suellen Vann, Director of Communication, presented a resolution in support of the Arkansas School Public Relations Association celebration of Arkansas Public Schools Week, October 5-11, 1997. This year's theme is Everyone's Business ... Everyone's Future. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the resolution, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The resolution was approved, 6-0. I. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR McClellan High $100.00 cash First Commercial Bank Chicot Elementary $102.00 cash Loomis, Fargo \u0026amp; Company Franklin Incentive RCA VCR Connie Simpson Sears VCR Ellistine Gaddy Dell Computer System Arkansas Democrat Hall High Air Conditioner for Best Buy Field House Fulbright Elementarv Microwave/CBI class Easy Cash Pawn Shop Wilson Elementary Frigidaire Refrigerator Valerie Pearsall/Rich Roy Pulaski Heights Jr. High Four IBM Computer Arkansas Community systems, assorted Foundation software and accessories Eight IBM Computer PHJHPTA systems with uogrades Otter Creek Elementary Five IBM hard drives, Steve Aurillio, Alltel keyboards and monitors Mabelvale Elementary Apple II GS Computer Les \u0026amp; Jerri Sue Finch - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 8 J. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendations, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Financial Reports Financial information for the months of July and August were presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services, responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Budget Update The Board did not hear a budget update, but scheduled a budget work session for October 9, 1997. B. Board Goals Update The Board reviewed the status of the goals established May 22, 1997. Mr. Berkley and Ms. Magness will develop a strategy to begin reviewing and revising the Board policy manual over the next few months. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY The Board convened an executive session for the purpose of hearing a student disciplinary petition. Dr. Linda Watson presented a student reinstatement petition for Latesha West, who had been expelled from Southwest Jr. High School during the 1996-97 school year. Latesha had enrolled at the P.C. Juvenile Justice Center and had earned passing grades in that program. Dr. Watson recommended reinstatement on strict probation to a district junior high school. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the administration's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page9 ADJOURNMENT The Board returned from executive session at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /0. ).J. o/7 Riggs: Daugherty: Magness: Daugherty: Magness: Berkley: LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 TRANSCRIPT - BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS on Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Recommend by Superintendent Don Roberts MOTION: I move we approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to fi le the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court with in the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. Second. Is there any discussion? There is. I've looked at all the information that different groups have provided for us, I've talked with Dr. Roberts about the different things within the Plan, and I definitely support the Plan, but I don't want us to forget that there was a reason for this deseg. order in the first place. That there were problems that faced this district and this country that people were not willing to acknowledge or deal with and unfortunately it took going to court in order to get people to comply, and in order to do the right thing. And rather than do the right thing, some of the parents took their kids out of our schools. But even with that we still continue to educate kids in this district. By voting for this I'm not saying that I disagree with the efforts of Mr. Walker and individuals like him, because it was individuals like Mr. Walker that made the difference. It was his effort, and efforts of people and attorneys like him that began the change. But, after awhile after you've fought dragons for so long, when you go out you're looking for dragons even when there aren't any left. We are fortunate to have had Dr. Roberts for this last year. He's really made a difference. We look forward to the work of Dr. Carnine. But I don't want this Board, because we are going to be judged by what we are implementing here tonight. We can say last year - year before last that we didn't have anything to do with the old deseg plan. But this is ours and we are going to be judged by this. So it's going to be up to us to make sure that the things in here are implemented and done according to what the judge directs us to do. But again, I don't take anything away from the individuals who had to go out and fight to get individuals within this district, at one point, to comply and do the right thing. And, you know, as I said, I do support this. Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Berkley. I appreciate your comments Dr. Daugherty. I think we have to keep in mind that the whole purpose for the original desegregation litigation was to assure and demand equitable education. And we are in a different place than we were when this was initiated as a nation and as a city, and I want to say that I have never experienced anything in the schools that I've been to, the people I've talked to, anything other than a total commitment to that issue. Board members, teachers, principals, the superintendent, everybody who I've talked to realizes that it is a moral, ethical, right thing to do, and I congratulate Dr. Roberts on the development of this plan and on the community input that was required to develop it and I absolutely support it. LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 Page 2 Magness: Mitchell: Magness: Riggs: Thank you. Dr. Mitchell I simply want to say again that the best recruitment tool that the District can have is one where we are providing quality education for the children that we serve regardless to where they live and how they look. I'm just pleased that we now have something to submit to the court that really focuses on what we should be doing - - providing educational opportunities for the children and I'm glad that it's not detailed as to how it's going to be done, Dr. Roberts, because frankly, that's one of the things that impeded our progress before, that we were too specific, too detailed, I mean, in whatever you wrote in the plan the people expected for you to do it whether it worked or not. Or it if didn't work, you had to prove it didn't. And so in order for us to be effective at the schools, to provide the activities to devise the activities to use whatever educational programs that would better meet the needs of the children in that particular setting, that I think this is the best way to present it, and not go into any specific details so I support it and I'm glad that we are now focusing on what we ought to be doing and not just throwing out bait to try to lure people to the district. But show that our students are important . . . (End of tape 1 - remainder of Dr. Mitchell's comments are inaudible.) Mr. Riggs I certainly agree with the other Board members on what they've said about what we're trying to do tonight. I particularly empathize and understand some of the comments Dr. Daugherty made about the people in the past who have fought for the rights of our children and those people to me are heroes. The other thing that he said, that we have to be cognizant of, and I caution this Board or talk to you or maybe I will talk to you for the next year anyway - is that when we agree on this plan, if we pass this plan tonight, we are making a contract with the community to follow this, and they are going to hold us accountable, and not only do you make a contract for yourselves, but you make a contract for all the Boards that follow you. I've sat up here at this dais before, with Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee, and wondered who it was that put that past plan in place, and I can even remember some Board members saying \"Well, we didn't vote on it, so we're not going to do it.\" and we landed in Court. We accepted that, didn't we? That Board member's not on this Board right now. But I want to caution you about that, and as part of Board leadership the Board members that follow us -- that needs to be part of our policy that we teach them the obligations they have. You can't allow Board members to come onto this Board and not know the obligations that we are making for them tonight and for the next several years. So, particularly our three new Board members who are going to be here for at least three years, I want to encourage you to keep that thought in mind as you get new Board members on this Board, that part of their education process has to be that we show them the obligations that they have as a member of this Board. Lastly, I just want to say to this Board we are at a historic crossroads. Although we've had a lot of hoopla in town about what's going to go on in the city this week and next week, I believe ten years hence and probably twenty years hence a lot will be forgotten about the 40th anniversary of the desegregation of Central High. But the steps you take tonight, I think, will be remembered .. because you're taking, in my opinion, taking a good school district - one of the best in Arkansas - and making it a world class school district. And I think those are historic steps. LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 Page 3 Magness: Thank you. Any other comments? That was well said. Thank you all for your comments. We do have a motion on the floor - to approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to file the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court within the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. All those in favor (Unanimous vote.) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT September 26, 1997 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: SEP 2 6 i~~' Off\\C0r OtSEGR~Gfi.i\\Oi4 t/lOtliOR\\Wl I am enclosing minutes of LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on August 28 and September 11, 1997. 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 REC IVE-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS oc 2 9 t!l97 mliCECF MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 15, 1997 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 1997, at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley John Riggs, IV Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Four members of the Board were present\nDr. Daugherty, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland were absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING \"ft\n:1T~'UI1!~\\S The meeting was called for the purpose of reinstating students who had been suspended or expelled previously and for conducting student disciplinary appeal hearings. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 15, 1997 Page2 ACTION: Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer, presented information on the recommendation for expulsion from Central High School of student Antoine Shephard. Dr. Watson had upheld the school's recommendation and Antoine's mother, Ms. McDonald, asked to appeal that decision to the Board. Antoine (and his brother, Corey) had been involved in a major fight at school on September 30, 1997, and had both been charged with inciting to riot. Dr. Watson had recommended placement in the Juvenile Justice Center, Step-One Alternative Program. The superintendent recommended upholding the schools petition for expulsion and concurred with the alternative placement recommended by Dr. Watson. Mr. Riggs made a motion to uphold the administration's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Ms. McDonald withdrew her request for a hearing on Corey Shepherd's expulsion recommendation. The Board was also presented with a list of students who were recommended for placement in alternative settings, but who had not requested a hearing before the Board. Additional information was requested from the Student Hearing Officer before action by the Board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr .Riggs. (1d~ ,( /m-Ld',Y -l'dc---=: ~J~Magness, President APPROVED: lo -\n3. 1: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 REC IVED NOV 2 5 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, October 23, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Marva Pearson, Teacher Ex-officio Hanna Dolle, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex-officio members of the Board were also present: Hanna Dolle, student at McClellan, and Marva Pearson, teacher at Baseline. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of September 18, and a special meeting on October 15, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts introduced Daryl Newcomb, a teacher at Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School. Ms. Newcomb was recently selected by Entergy Arkansas as an Outstanding Teacher of the Year for 1997. She was also named as a finalist for the 1998 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. A superintendent's citation was presented to Claudia Rodgers, physical educ~tion teacher at Dunbar Junior High School. Ms. Rodgers was recently honored by the Association of Teacher Educators as the Outstanding Cooperating Teacher of the Year. Dr. Roberts presented a citation to Frances McCorkle in recognition of her selection as a participant in the Fulbright Memorial Fund Teacher Program. Ms. McCorkle will visit Japan for three weeks next fall. Representatives from Centro Hispano were honored for volunteer hours contributed to help Chicot Elementary School families during the opening of school this fall. Karen Latch, teacher at Williams Magnet Elementary School, received a Superintendent's citation for recently being named as a recipient of the Arkansas Retired Teachers Association Parsons-Burnett Scholarship. The $1,000 award is for continuing education. The superintendent recognized a number of people who contributed to the Central High School Fortieth Anniversary recognition programs. Central staff members Rudolph Howard, Nancy Rousseau and Brenda James were present to accept citations of appreciation for the time they contributed to making the events a success. Mr. Howard also received a certificate of appreciation from the White House Communications Agency in recognition of his assistance to the presidential staff. Vicki Saviers, Cynthia East, Billie Rutherford, and Jeannie Andrews, PT A officers at Central High School, were recognized for the time they devoted to planning the many activities that were scheduled at Central over the last month. Doug Eaton and staff members at Plant Services were recognized for their extra efforts in ensuring that all of the maintenance projects were completed before the Central High School anniversary events. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 3 Several months oflandscaping projects were coordinated by Jerry Compton of ServiceMaster Management Services. ServiceMaster donated $10,000 to make improvements to the front lawn at Central High School\nthe district matched this amount and much of the work was done by volunteers from Merlin E. Seamon Associates, Master Gardners, and 4-H Club members. Southwestern Bell and its employees were given citations recognizing their donation of $100,000 worth of Internet access wiring at Central High School. Members of the Southwestern Bell Pioneers and the Communications Workers of America volunteered their time to install the wiring during their off hours. The final citations were given to the ex-officio Board members for the month of October\nMarva Pearson, teacher from Baseline Elementary, and Hanna Dolle, student from McClellan High School. The final presentation was to Board member John Riggs, who was recognized for his year of service as president of the board. The other members of the Board presented him with a gavel. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator for the District, recognized recently formed partnerships between schools and community businesses. Those partnerships include: ITT Technical Institute, represented by Kevin Standiford and Dr. Pat Honeycutt, partnering with McClellan High School, represented by Patricia McMurray and Jodie Carter Little Rock Hilton, represented by Sandra Anthony, Anrianne Beck and Tracy Bennett, partnering with McClellan High School, represented by Patricia McMurray and Jodie Carter ITT Technical Institute, represented by Kevin Standiford and Dr. Pat Honneycutt, partnering with Metropolitan Vocational Center, represented by Michael Peterson Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page4 C. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden thanked Dr. Roberts for serving as superintendent during the past year and for providing positive leadership for the District. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin spoke on behalf of the faculty at Metropolitan, some of whom are opposed to placement of the ALE program on the Metro campus. He stated that the community would be opposed to having alternative education students at that site and that some of them would probably transfer their students out of the district. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. D. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty acknowledged that there were concerns about placement for students with disciplinary problems and students who merely had problems learning in the regular classroom setting. He stated that the proposed alternative programs were geared to address the needs of the individual students. Dr. Mitchell issued a challenge to parents and teachers to form partnerships to provide children with the things they really need in order to succeed in learning. She stated that children do best in school when parents, teachers and the community cooperate as a support team. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Riggs thanked the Board for allowing him to serve as president for the past year. He congratulated three people who have recently been publicly recognized for outstanding service to the school district\nMarian Lacey for receiving the Milken Award, Diane Vibhaker for being recognized by the Arkansas Times as a \"hero\", and Don Roberts who has worked with the Board over the past year to ensure that they had a productive year while searching for a new superintendent. Mr. Berkley congratulated Mr. Howard and the Central High School staff for providing a positive focus on Little Rock schools during the recent national media focus. Ms. Magness thanked the staff and volunteers at Central High School for the work they had done over the past few months preparing for the 40th year commemoration events. Ms. Magness had attended a coffee at Wilson Elementary School, read to first grade students at Watson Elementary School, and attended a sixth grade musical production at the PT A open house at Jefferson Elementary. She complimented the good behavior of Dunbar band students who marched in the red ribbon parade, and thanked Mike Peterson and the Culinary Arts students at Metro for hosting the October agenda meeting. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Todd Skaggs introduced himself as a former culinary arts student at Metro. He spoke in opposition to placing alternative education students at the Metro campus. Michael Drake spoke in support of the Pankey property deed extension. He is a member of CANDO, an alliance of fourteen west Little Rock churches, which has pledged their support to the building of a Pankey Community center. Sandy Becker thanked the Board for continuing their support of the Pankey community in their efforts to build a community center. He serves as pastor of a church in that community. Wali Caradine, with Architectural Innovations Group, is working with the Pankey Community to develop the plans for building a community center. He provided information on plans that must be approved by the city planning commission. Ray Walters serves as a mentor to students at Metro. He asked the board not to approve plans to place an alternative program at Metro. Rick Evans teaches at Metro and expressed concerns about placement of ALE students at the Metro campus. He stated that area students and those from Bryant and Bauxite would pull out of the Metro Vocational programs if alternative students were assigned to attend there. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page6 Tracy Hairston, a student in the Metro extended day program, asked the Board to consider other placement for the ALE students. Larry Lee stated that training provided at Metro is not available anywhere else. He suggested that the students at Metro attend there because they want to be there and that Metro would not \"work\" for ALE students who are forced to attend the programs or who do not have a choice about where they are assigned. David McCree teaches radio and television broadcasting at Metropolitan. He asked the Board not to assign ALE students to Metro programs in the middle of the school year and stated that courses offered there require that students be there from the beginning of the semester. He stated that vocational education does not have a good reputation and that the public perception of having an ALE program will impact negatively on the success of Metro. Selma Douglas addressed the board as a 43-year resident of the Pankey community. She provided historical information on the land that has been proposed for development as a community center site. Robert Savary, who serves on the Metro Board, stated that proposed changes to the Metro program will be a detriment to the school's success. He asked the Board not to approve the recommended ALE programs. V. ACTION AGENDA Mr. Riggs asked the Board to reorder the agenda to allow Item \"F\" to become Item \"A\" on the action agenda. There were no objections to his request. A. Resolution: Beacons/School-Based Community Centers Dorothy N ayles, representing New Futures, made a brief slide presentation to update the Board on a proposal for operating school-based community centers. The Board was asked to adopt a resolution supporting the school-based community center concept which promotes collaboration with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth, and the Pulaski County United Way. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the resolution, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 7 B. Central High Architectural Conservation Planning Grant The Board was asked to approve submission of a planning grant to the Getty Grant Program of Los Angeles. The application request is in the amount of $25,000 for planning restoration and architectural conservation of Central High School. Ms. Gee moved to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. The Board elected to take action on items C, D, and E with a blanket motion C. National Science Foundation Grant A grant application was submitted to the National Science Foundation to establish a fiveyear program to increase enrollment in upper level mathematics and science courses. First year applicants are allowed up to $200,000 for start up activities and recipients are allowed to apply for up to $800,000 in years two through five. The Board was asked to approve the submission. D. Vital Link Grant The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application to the Little Rock Education Commission for financial support in the amount of $35,000 for the Vital Link Program. This funding would pay transportation costs for the summers of 1998 and 1999. E. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Applications As a recipient of federal funds, the district is required to implement a comprehensive drug abuse prevention program in grades K-12. The 1997-98 allocation will be in the amount of $166,696.00, and the Board was asked to approve the application for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mrs. Elston was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve items C, D, and E. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Resolution: Arkansas Drug Free Youth and Red Ribbon Campaign In support of the National Red Ribbon Campaign for Drug Free Youth, the Board was asked to adopt a resolution endorsing Red Ribbon Week and urging all citizens to make a commitment to drug free education and to the future of our children. Dr. Mitchell moved to adopt the resolution. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 8 G. Pankey Community Center - Approval to Amend Deed An amended deed for property previously transferred to Pankey Community Improvement Association, Inc. was presented for the Board's approval. The PCIA asked the Board to extend the requirement to construct a building for educational and/or community center purposes to January 1, 2000. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the deed amendment. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of the amended deed is attached to these minutes. H. Service Learning Sites A listing of Service Learning Sites recommended by the Arkansas Division of Volunteerism was presented for the Board's approval. In addition to approval of the sites listed, the Board was asked to approve Central High MuseumNisitors Center and Advocates for Battered Women as Service Learning Sites for LRSD students. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the service learning sites listing. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. I. Alternative Learning Environment Proposal for 1997-98 The Superintendent asked the Board to approve Alternative Learning Environment sites at the Alternative Learning Center, Forest Heights Jr. High School, Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center, Penick Boys Club, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dr. Roberts responded to questions from the Board. Dr. Daugherty, Mr. Berkley and Mr. Riggs spoke in support of the motion\nMs. Gee spoke in opposition. Ms. Strickland made the motion to approve the proposal, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. The Board took a briefrecess at 8:45 p.m. and returned at 8:50 p.m. Dr. Daugherty did not return from recess. J. 1997-98 Budget Submission The Board was asked to approve draft 7 of the proposed 1997-98 budget which was reviewed extensively at the work session on October 9, 1997. The revised figures included recommendations from the work groups, computer technology training time for teachers, and increased funding for the ALE programs. A $2,000,000 draw from the settlement loan fund was reflected in the submission. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the revised budget. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page9 K. Interim Millage Adjustment The board was asked to approve a resolution setting the personal property and real property rates at 41 .40 mills. The State of Arkansas requires the Board of school districts in Pulaski County to certify their applicable tax rates to the County Clerk prior to the regular November quorum court meeting. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the resolution, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried 6-0. L. 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 6-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR VIPS Program $1,000 for Vital Link Entergy Corp McDermott Elementary $9,000 for construction McDermott PT A of a retaining wall Pulaski Heights Elementary Kenmore Refrigerator \u0026amp; Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Sidney Ogden 12 x 12 carpet Computer/Monitor/ Ms. Mildred Cooper Printer/Software 100 primarv chairs Pulaski Heights PT A Chicot Elementary $240 cash to fund field Anonymous trips M. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 10 N. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of September was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services, responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Articulation Agreement - ITT Technical Institute An agreement with ITT Technical Institute was reported for the Board's information. Through this agreement, students will receive advanced college credit for 1st year Drafting and Design, 2nd year Engineering, Drafting and Design, and 1st and 2nd year Electronics Technology courses taken at Metropolitan. B. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update for the month of October was printed in the Board's agenda. There were no additional questions. C. Board Goals Update The Board goals, established May 22, 1997, were provided for review. There were no additional questions or comments. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY Dr. Linda Watson presented a student appeal petition for an expulsion recommendation from Central. The student, Brandon Davis, was represented by Attorney Michael Booker. Clay Fendley from the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm was present for the District. Brandon was charged with inciting to riot for an incident involving a group of students at Central High School on September 30, 1997. Witnesses to the incident were present: Andrea Smith, Security Guard, Little Rock Police Resource Officer Mobley, and Eric Brandon, teacher and coach at Central. In addition, Rudolph Howard, principal and Brenda James, assistant principal, were present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 11 All of the witnesses indicated that the incident was, or appeared to be gang related. Brandon denied any participation in gang activity at Central and denied that he had participated in the fight. Brandon's mother, Sharon Davis, was present and asked the Board to reinstate Brandon to Central High School. Keith Richardson was also present to speak on Brandon's behalf and to appeal to the Board to allow Brandon to return to school. Although the school administration agreed that Brandon had not participated in the actual fighting, they determined that he had been a party to the escalation of the fight by flashing hand signals that were, or appeared to be, gang-related. The Superintendent recommended the Board uphold the administration's request for expulsion. Ms. Gee moved to discuss the matter in executive session. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" vote. The Board returned from executive session at 10:35 p.m. to report that no action had been taken. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the administration's recommendation for expulsion. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Gee spoke in opposition to the motion\nMr. Berkley spoke in support of the expulsion recommendation. The motion for expulsion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Ms. Gee and Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" votes. On another student disciplinary action, Dr. Watson presented a request for reinstatement for Tommy Glaspie. Tommy had been expelled from Southwest Jr. High School in February 1997. He completed the 1996-97 school term at the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Center. He presented a request for reinstatement to the Little Rock School District for placement in the 10th grade. Based on the information presented, Dr. Watson recommended reinstatement on strict probation, with assignment at McClellan High School. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reinstatement petition. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Dr. Mitchell moved for adjournment at 10:43 p.m., seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimouslv. ~?J~ -M-i-ch-e-al-D-au-gh-erty-,-~.-~.e.. ,,_e_~ Resolution A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL-BASED COrv1:MUNITY CENTER CONCEPT\nDIRECTING THE CONTINUANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PARTNERSIDP WITH THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to support the development of quality programming for the youth in our City\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to promote the development of collaborative efforts with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth and the Pulaski County United Way\nand Whereas, the School District supports the utilization of existing resources, i.e. public school facilities and existing programming to develop community-based initiatives that strengthen school, family and community linkages\nand Whereas, the School-Based Community Center concept is a comprehensive, year-round, after-school, neighborhood-based, safe haven for children and family support, located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Little Rock School District Board of Directors supports the concept of School-Based Community Centers and directs the Superintendent to work with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth and the Pulaski County United Way to develop ideas for programs, funding, and operation of these community-based centers in the public schools. Little Rock School District Board of Directors 1 ( ' w ~ )?h_.\"[?f-c~/ Micheal Daughi,\u0026amp;cretary Whereas, Arkansas' youth have a right to be educated in an environment conducive to learning\nand Whereas, all schools and administrative buildings of the Little Rock School District are designated as Drug Free Zones\nand Whereas, programs such as D.A.R.E., Just Say No, T.R.U.C.E., Peer Helpers and Student Assistance which promote drug awareness and prevention for youth, have been implemented in Little Rock public schools\nand Whereas, during the week of October 25-31, 1997 special emphasis will be placed upon drug free youth with the observance of National Red Ribbon Week\nand Whereas, a joint effort must be made by parents, schools, and the community working together toward a common commitment for preparing our children to be tomorrow's leaders, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District endorses National Red Ribbon Week and urges all citizens to make a commitment to drug free education and to the future of our children. Adopted this 23rd day of October, 1997. I , :?zz/4,~e: -C,4s,z?r5 Micheal Daugherty, Secretary LTITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT October 28, 1997 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: REC!Ei,,eo OCT 2 9 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Na I am enclosing minutes of LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on September 18 and October ,5, 1997. Please let me know ,f you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 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 November 20, 1997 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 199U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrJORU The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, November 20, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Jeanette Stephenson, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call. Dr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell were absent. The Ex-officio student representative Jeanette Stephenson, student at Parkview, was also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of October 23 were presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Magness requested a correction to the minutes, which was noted. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the minutes as edited. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: Ms. Magness recognized Lillie Carter, principal of Pulaski Heights Elementary School, who introduced the P. H. music teacher, Leeta Robertson, and kindergarten teachers, Ms. Willis and Ms. Neal. Kindergarten students performed a \"pipe\" demonstration of musical notes sounded by varying lengths of plastic pipe. A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Carnine presented a citation to Ms. Gail McKinnon, AP English teacher at Hall High School. Ms. McKinnon was recently selected to serve a second year as chief reader for the SAT II: Writing Essay in Wilmington, Delaware. Jodie Carter, principal of McClellan High School, was called to accept a certificate of recognition from the Arkansas Famous and Historic Tree Program (AFHTP) for a flowering dogwood which was planted on the campus of McClellan in 1970 during the first \"Earth Day.\" This tree, named the Marylou Andreelli Tree in honor of its' donor who was a McClellan Humanities teacher, was recently registered as official #0004 in the AFHTP. Gwen Efird, coordinator of Health Services, presented plaques and certificates of recognition to school nurses who were nominated for their commitment to students in the District. The first year nurse award was presented to Patricia Brown, who serves students at Bale Elementary and Southwest Jr. High. Stevie Cherepski was the recipient of the School Nurse of the Year Award. Ms. Cherepski provides nursing services to students at M. L. King Elementary School. In addition, six nurses were presented with certificates of recognition for their nomination in the school nurse of the year program. They were: Ann Callaway, Garland Elementary School\nBeverly Heron, Terry Elementary and Parkview Magnet Schools\nCarla Kelley, Henderson Health Science Magnet Jr. High School\nMarsha Mahan, Romine and Western Hills Elementary Schools\nLavelle Rollins, Franklin Elementary School\nand Uvita Scott, Booker Magnet Elementary School. The final citation was presented to the ex-officio student representative to the Board for the month of November, Jeannette Stephenson, from Parkview Magnet High School. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Dan Farley, representing Arkansas Friends for Better Schools, made a presentation recognizing Diane Vibhaker as a Public School Hero. Ms. Vibhaker was selected for the numerous volunteer services she provides to the District and for her commitment to public education in the city.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page 3 B. P ARTNERSIDPS Lee Ann Matson represented the VIPS office for recognition of newly established partnerships between area businesses and schools. The following school/business partnerships were presented for the Board's approval. All About Travel in partnership with Fulbright Elementary School, represented by Mac Huffman Baptist Medical Center, represented by Colleen Woodruff, Sandra Brown and Missy Nesterenko, in partnership with Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Junior High School, represented by James Washington and Mickey Bates Dr. Beatrice Reed, Optometrist, was present to accept a certificate recognizing her partnership with McClellan Business/Community Magnet School, represented by Jodie Carter and Wanda Baskins FOXY 99.5 Radio Station, represented by Jeff Hedman, in partnership with McClellan Business/Community Magnet School, represented by Jodie Carter and Wanda Baskins Aristotle Internet Services, represented by Tara Perrin, in partnership with Washington Magnet School, represented by Jennifer Lindsey Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. C. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden had no formal report, but welcomed Dr. Carnine to the District. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter, president of the CTA, welcomed Dr. Carnine to Little Rock and remarked that he felt positive about their first two meetings. He stated that teachers were looking forward to technology training, scheduled to begin in January. He noted concerns from the building level, including: 1) implementation of direct deposit of payroll\n2) the inadequate pool of substitute teachers\nand 3) the number of grievances which had been filed recently with the CT A.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page4 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council Doris Williams thanked the Board for supporting the PTA Council and for attending Council meetings whenever possible. D. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee congratulated Essie Middleton and Becky Rather for the successful 6-7 grade transition meeting which was held on November 9, at Forest Heights Jr. High School. She also remarked that the recent Board retreat was very beneficial. Ms. Gee also made a statement regarding the number of complaints she had received regarding the poor service by Laidlaw this year. She wanted parents to be assured that the District was aware of their concerns and would be looking at a number of options for transporting students next school year. Ms. Strickland thanked Ms. Magness for facilitating the Board retreat and stated that it was a wonderful way for Board members to communicate better with each other. Ms. Magness was wearing a Baseline Elementary sweat shirt and stated she had visited that school to observe the Success for All program. She had also visited Gibbs Magnet Elementary School's international festival which focused on Bolivian culture and featured food, dress, and lifestyle displays. She also commented on the success of the transition meeting at Forest Heights Jr. High School, and thanked the City of Little Rock Board of Directors who attended the recent joint meeting with the District Board. Ms Magness had prepared a summary report on the Board retreat which was distributed to other Board members.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page 5 IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES V. V. The National Dunbar Alumni Association presented plans for improvement of the Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School campus. Elise Argue, president of the Dunbar PTSA, and Dr. Erma Glasgow Davis, president of the National Dunbar Alumni Association, requested the District's financial support for the project, which is estimated at approximately $53,000. The Alumni association is contributing $10,000 to the PTSA for the project, which they hope to have completed by July 1999, when the National association meets in Little Rock. Chris Cooper presented the landscape plans and explained the proposal for improvements in the landscaping and structural modifications to the sidewalks and irrigation system. Zenobia Harris, parent, and Victoria Boykins, student, spoke in support of the proposal and asked for the Board's consideration. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Don Campbell spoke to the Board regarding the District's practice of prohibiting suspended and expelled students from getting credit for school assignments. He provided letters supporting his request for the Board to reconsider the portion of the handbook which addresses this issue. ACTION AGENDA A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 5-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Baseline Elementarv $450 for field trips Waste Management of Ark. Mann Magnet School Miscellaneous clothing Sheila Ballard items for the Drama Dept. Athletic Department $1,500 Randy Johnson/Alltel Corp. McClellan Community School $100 to Teachers of Sidney A. Moncrief Tomorrow  - REGULAR BOARD l\\1EETING November 20, 1997 Page6 M. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5~0. N. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of October was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Truancy Report Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, provided a report on truancy during the first nine week period of this school year. She also provided background information on the truancy center previously operated by the District, and current efforts to reduce truancy. The Dropout Center coordinates efforts to have students picked up by the LR Police Department and delivered to the nearest secondary school. B. Discipline Report Linda Watson provided a summary report oflong term expulsion and alternative school placements for the current school year. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page? ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned at 7:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Ms. Strickland. 1fb.1!7:.p?!i.~ APPROVED: /3-, IC-17 I JI.. , ?\nu.~, /~ ,{_ ~ Micheal Daugherty, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 ECEnteo JAN 2 7 199B OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, December 18, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Board President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Fatimah McKindra, Student Ex-officio Gordon McIntyre, Teacher Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call. Dr. Daugherty arrived at 6:18 p.m.\nMs. Strickland was absent. The ex-officio student representative, Fatimah McKindra from Central High School, and ex-officio teacher representative, Gordon McIntyre, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of November 20, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: Students from the Rockefeller Show Choir, directed by Ms. I. J. Routen, performed for the Board. The children were dressed in their pajamas, robes and slippers, and sang several non-traditional Christmas songs. A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Carnine presented citations to the ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of December, Fatimah McKindra, from Central High School, and Gordon McIntyre, from Brady Elementary. B. P ARTNERSIDPS Debbie Milam recognized representatives of area businesses and schools who had recently established partnerships. The following school/business partnerships were presented for the Board's approval. Jostens Learning, represented by Jim Hardwick, in partnership with Chicot Elementary School, represented by Jane Harkey and Leola Fields Barnes \u0026amp; Noble Booksellers, represented by Kathy Johnson, in partnership with Mabelvale Elementary School, represented by Donna Clark Party City, in partnership with Romine Elementary School, represented by Karen Greenlee Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Skip Marshall had no formal report, but brought holiday greetings on behalf of the ODM staff. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Clementine Kelley attended the meeting representing the CT A. She had no formal report but brought season's greetings to the Board and administration. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page3 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. D. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee wished fellow Board members a happy holiday and thanked the student performers for their presentation. She encouraged everyone to move forward to become the best they can be. Dr. Daugherty expressed disappointment in the recent fire that occurred at Franklin Incentive School. He asked the Board to consider implementing a reward system to encourage citizens to come forward and name the person or persons responsible for this fire and other vandalism damage to District property. Ms. Magness thanked District staff members who responded promptly to the fire at Franklin\nmany people worked over the weekend to ensure that school could be in session Monday morning. She had recently attended the Forest Heights Junior High School Career Day activities. Ms. Magness thanked the student groups who performed at the recent Arkansas School Board's Association convention, and commended Marian Lacey for representing the District in a presentation at that same convention. She extended a special thank you to the Chamber of Commerce for inviting Board members to the recent annual meeting and luncheon. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Jerry Cohen from MEMS Ambulance Service made a brief presentation highlighting some of the educational activities that MEMS provides for our students. Students are allowed to tour ambulances, and paramedics provide safety and educational activities to prevent drinking and driving. MEMS employees also work with the medical professions students at Metro to encourage further education in the paramedical field. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page4 V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Don Campbell asked the Board to respond to his presentation at the November Board meeting asking for assistance in allowing suspended and expelled students to make up their course work. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Dwight D. Eisenhower 1997-98 Professional Development Grant The Board was asked to approve maintenance of the December 1 submission of the 1997- 98 Title II, ESEA, D. D. Eisenhower grant proposal. Funding from this grant would provide professional development in math, science, and social studies activities in the amount of $141,798. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the submission. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. B. Adult Education Direct \u0026amp; Equitable Proposal A request to the Arkansas Department of Education for funding in the amount of $56,623 to serve educationally disadvantaged adults will be submitted upon approval by the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the submission, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried, 6-0. C. Adult Education Institutional/Correctional Proposal The Board was also asked to approve a grant submission to the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $56,241 to fund adult education services to institutionalized/ correctional adults. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the submission. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Approval of AP Art History Course/Parkview Magnet The principal and staff of Parkview Magnet High School requested the Board's approval of the addition of an AP Art History course at Parkview beginning with the 1998-99 school year. The course would follow the curriculum established by the College Board and would compliment other visual arts specialty courses at Parkview. Dr. Anderson responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the course. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page 5 E. Age Requirements for Compulsory Attendance Under the terms of Act 1230 of 1997, the enrollment age for students in Arkansas is set as five (5) years of age on or before September 15, instead of the current date of October 1. There is a provision in this act that allows school districts in the state having 50% or greater student population eligible to receive free or reduced lunches, to elect to use any other date between September 1 and October 1. Upon approval by the Board, the LRSD will file for this waiver to maintain the current enrollment date of October 1. Other Districts within Pulaski County have also elected to maintain the October 1 enrollment date. Mr. Riggs moved to approve submission of the waiver application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. F. Grant Application: Arkansas Abstinence Education (Project FATE) G. Grant Application: Avon Kids Care Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade The Project FATE grant application would provide $35,000 for implementation of an early intervention program in sexual abstinence at Otter Creek Elementary School for 5th grade female students and their parents. Otter Creek is partnering with the Southwest Community Center and the McClellan Community School to implement this program. The Avon Breast Cancer Awareness and Education Grant requests $48,637 for the development of a program for female students at Forest Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. The application would include a partnership with the city-wide Healthy Family Celebration, the Witness Project, the Encore Program at the YWCA, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Arkansas Department of Health, CARTI, and St. Vincent's Infirmary Medical Center. Mr. Riggs requested that these two grant applications be approved by a combined motion. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. H. Waiver from State Standards for Senior High Athletic Eligibility A proposal, submitted by Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics, petitions the Arkansas Department of Education to approve a waiver from recently adopted standards for academic requirements for participation in competitive interscholastic activities. The request for a waiver is to be filed with a plan to implement a supplemental instruction program for students who fall within the guidelines. That plan was presented in draft form for the Board's approval. Assistant Superintendent Victor Anderson was present to respond to questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve submission of the plan and waiver application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page6 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 Mr. Riggs. The motion carried 6-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOLJDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary NC Color Video Alan Robinette and Monitor and VCR Brentano's Bookstore Mabelvale Jr. High Seven office chairs Joy Ballard/Superior Federal Bank Rightsell Elementary Four NCR Computer Rodney Slater, Secretary of processors, monitors US Department of and keyboards Transoortation Parkview Magnet High School 23 pairs of tennis shoes Derrick Fisher/LA Lakers and LRSD Athletic Deot. through \"Skechers\" Mitchell Incentive School $1,000 for purchase of Wal-Mart, Inc. dance and drill team costumes Pulaski Heights Jr. High Microwave Oven A vis Mitchell Mabelvale Jr. High $50.00 gift certificate Wal-Mart/Baseline store $25 .00 gift certificate Wal-Mart/Landers store J. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendations. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. K. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of November was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the reports as presented. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page? VI. REPORT AGENDA Bond Fund Status Report As requested by the Board, a Bond Fund report was printed in the meeting agenda. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions from the Board. The Board asked Mr. Milhollen to provide additional information and a brief oral report at the next meeting. Desegregation Update As requested, the District enrollment report as of December 15, 1997, was printed in the agenda. Ms. Acre was present to respond to questions. She was asked to prepare an enrollment comparison as of October 1 for each year for the next meeting. Board Goals Update The Board goals were printed in the agenda. There was no additional discussion. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7: 15 p.m., Mr. Riggs made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 8:15 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. APPROVED: / - .\n\u0026gt;__~ -Cj 8\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":63,"next_page":64,"prev_page":62,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":744,"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}}]}}