{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_633","title":"Program planning and budgeting tool, FY 1996","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-04-28"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Program planning and budgeting tool, FY 1996"],"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/633"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["budgets"],"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\nID 1 Name BEASSESSMEJU OF PROCESS AnK ORGANIZATION 1994-95 % Complete 50% Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool Scheduled Start Mar 27 '94 Scheduled Finish Jun 30 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names_______ Williams.Matthis.Clowers' 2 Analyze, reassess, and revise planning organization and structure 25% Mar 27 '94 Jun 30 '95 Wiliiams.Matthis,Glowers 3 Revise, discuss, and reach consensus regarding format and tasking of 1994-95 Management Tool 100% May 25 '94 Jul 29 '94 Council,Cabinet,Bassa 4 Initial circulation of 1994-95 Management Tool 100% Jun 24 '94 Jun 30 '94 RECEIVES 5 Evaluate tasking of 1994-95 Management Tool weekly 72% Jul 15 '94 Jun 30 '95 fi azsi Jun 1 '94 Aor 28 '95 Aug 15 '95 7 Identify data to measure needs of district for FY 95-96 100% Jun 1 '94 Jul 29 '94 8 Revisit and analyze the results of the budgeting and planning priorities revealed from the 93-94 Needs Assessment Report 100% Jun 1 '94 Jul 29 '94 Bassa Council,Glowers Williams.Glowers Williams,Council Council,Cabinet Page 1 FY96 APR 2 8 1995 Office of Desegregation toinDfing April 28 'S5 J ELittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 9 Name Review/revise the mission statement and goals of the District % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 19 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 31 '94 Revised Finish Sep 6 '94 Resource Names Council,Cabinet IQ 100% Aug 1 '94 Nov 15 '94 Hurley 11 Define purpose and scope for Personnel Study 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 22 '94 Council,Hurley, Williams 12 Design data collection plan for study of Personnel Study 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 29 '94 Hurley,Gadberry 13 Assign responsibilities for study of Personnel Study 100% Aug 29 '94 Aug 29 '94 Hurley 14 Collect data from Personnel Study 100% Sep 2 '94 Sep 29 '94 Oct 21 '94 Hurley 15 Analyze data from Personnel Study 100% Sep 30 '94 Oct 24 '94 Hurley,Gadberry 16 Prepare Personnel Study Report 100% Oct 24 '94 Nov 14 '94 Hurley ie2 FY96 April 28295,ID 17 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 3 Name_________ _______________________ Report data findings from Personnel Study for merge into needs assessment listing STANFORD 8 TEST DATA STUDY Define purpose and scope for Stanford 8 Test data study Design data collection plan for study of Stanford 8 Test Assign responsibilities for study of Stanford 8 Test data Collect data from Stanford 8 Test Analyze data from Stanford 8 Test Prepare Stanford 8 Test Report % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 14'94 Scheduled Finish Nov 15 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Hurley 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aug 1 '94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 4'94 Clowers Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Clowers, Williams,Council Aug 16 '94 Aug 16 '94 Aug 30 '94 Sep 12'94 Oct 3 '94 FY96 Aug 30 '94 Aug 16 '94 Sep 9 '94 Sep 30 '94 Oct 14 '94 Clowers,Dunbar Clowers Clowers,Dunbar, Savage Clowers, Dunbar Dunbar April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 25 Name Report data findings from Stanford 8 for merge into needs assessment listing % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Oct 17'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Nov 4 '94 Resource Names Clowers,Dunbar 2S ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST (AMPTl DATA STUDY 100% Aug 1 '94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 4'94 C lowers 27 Define purpose and scope for AMPT study 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Glowers,Williams,Council 28 Design data collection plan for AMPT study of data 100% Aug 16'94 Aug 30 '94 Clowers,Penn-Norman 29 Assign responsibilites for AMPT data collection 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 16'94 Glowers 30 Collect data from AMPT 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 9 '94 Glowers, Penn-Norman 31 Analyze data from AMPT 100% Sep 12'94 Sep 30 '94 Clowers,Penn-Norman 32 Prepare AMPT Report 100% Oct 3 '94 Oct 14 '94 Penn-Norman Page 4 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 33 Name_______________ ___________________ Report data findings from AMPT for merge into needs assessment listing % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Oct 17'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Nov 4 '94 Resource Names Clowers,Penn-Norman 3A PRE MONITORING REPQBIS SWPY 100% Aug 1 'BA Oct 31 '94 Nov 4 '94 Glowers 35 Define purpose and scope for PRE Monitoring Reports Study 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Glowers,Williams,Council 36 Design data collection plan for PRE Reports Study 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 30 '94 Glowers 37 Assign responsibilites for PRE Monitoring Reports Study 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 16 '94 Glowers 38 Collect data from PRE Monitoring Reports Study 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 9 '94 Clowers,Smith 39 Analyze data from PRE Monitoring Reports Study 100% Sep 12'94 Sep 30 '94 Clowers,Smith 40 Prepare PRE Monitoring Reports Study Report 100% Oct 3 '94 Oct 14 '94 Smith Page 5 FY96 April 28 '95 ID 41 Name Report data findings from PRE Monitoring Reports Study for merge into needs assessment listing % Complete 100% Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool Scheduled Start Oct 17'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Nov 4 '94 Resource Names Clowers,Smith 42 SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SUBVEY ISC/HRl STUDY 100% Aug 1 '94 Nov 15 '94 Clowers 43 Define purpose and scope of SC/HR Survey 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Clowers,Williams,Council 44 Design data collection plan for study of SC/HR 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 30 '94 Clowe rs,Hobby 45 Assign responsibilities for SC/HR data collection 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 16 '94 Clowers 46 Collect data from SC/HR Survey 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 23 '94 Clowe rs,Hobby,Savage 47 Analyze data from SC/HR Survey 100% Sep 26 '94 Oct 14 '94 Clowe rs,Hobby 48 Prepare SC/HR Survey Report 100% Oct 17'94 Oct 28 '94 Hobby Page 6 FY96 April 28 '95 KLittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 49 Name_______________________________ Report data findings from SC/HR Survey for merge into needs assessment % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Oct 31 '94 Scheduled Finish Nov 15 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Clowers,Hobby 50 CURRICULUM AUDIT/ADE CURRICULAR STANDARDS 100% Sep 1-134 Nov 15 '94 Dec. 14 '94 Matthis 51 Define purpose and scope of Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% Sep 1 '94 Sep 16 '94 Councii.Wiiliams,Matthis,Curricuium Supervisors 52 Design plans for data collection for Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% Sep 16 '94 Sep 30 '94 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors 53 Assign responsibilities for data collection of Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% Sep 16'94 Sep 30 '94 Matthis 54 Collect data for Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% Sep 30 '94 Oct 31 '94 Curriculum Supervisors 55 Establish procedures for review and assessment of Curriculum Audit/Standards data 100% Sep 30 '94 Oct 31 '94 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors 56 Organize and label Curriculum Audit/Standards data-findings of Monitoring and Status Reports, Curriculum Objectives, Achievement 100% Sep 30 '94 Oct 31 '94 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Page 7 FY96 April 28 '95IO 57 Name______________________________ Relate/assess the data results back to the Curriculum Audit/Standards findings % Complete 100% 58 Analyze the effectiveness of revised curriculum/standards, policies, etc. 100% 59 Identify factors that facilitated attainment of curriculum/standards goals 100% 60 Identify obstacles that prevented curriculum/standards goal attainment 100% 61 Report data findings from Curriculum Audit/ADE Curricular Standards for merge into needs assessment 100% 62 Make recommendations for program additions/deletions/modifications 100% 2 PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULAS STUDY 100% 64 Define purpose and scope of Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% Page 8 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool Scheduled Start Sep 30 '94 Sep 30 '94 Sep 30 '94 Sep 30 '94 Nov 7 '94 Oct 31 '94 Aug 1 '94 Aug 1 '94 FY96 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Oct 31 '94 Oct 31 '94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 15'94 Nov 4 '94 Oct 31 '94 Aug 15'94 Revised Finish Dec 14 '94 Resource Names___________ Mafthis,Curriculum Supervisors Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Milhollen Milhollen,VVilliams,Council,Hurley,Gadberry April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 65 Name__________________________ Review/revise data collection plan for Proportional Allocation Formulas % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 15 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 19 '94 Revised Finish Aug 31 '94 Resource Names Milhollen 66 Assign responsibilities for Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% Aug 19 '94 Aug 19 '94 Milhollen 67 Collect data for Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% Aug 22 '94 Sep 9 '94 Hurley .Armstrong,Eaton,Neal,Milhollen,Gadberry 68 Analyze data from Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% Sep 12'94 Sep 23 '94 Milhollen,Armstrong, Eaton, Neal,Hurley, Gadberry 69 Prepare Proportional Allocation Formulas Report 100% Sep 26 '94 Oct 12'94 Milhollen,Hurley ,Armstrong,Eaton,Neal 70 Report data findings from Proportional Allocations Formulas Study for merge into needs assessment listing 100% Oct 13'94 Oct 31 '94 Milhollen 21 DISTRICTWIDE FACILITIES STUDY 77% Jul 15 '94 Nov 23 '94 Aug 15 '95 Milhollen 72 Define purpose and scope of Districtwide Facilities Study 100% Jul 15'94 Aug 15'94 Williams,Milhollen,Council Page 9 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 73 Name Design data collection plan for Districtwide Facilities Study % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 4 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 15 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Milhollen,Eaton 74 Assign responsibilities for the Districtwide Facilities Study 100% Aug 8 '94 Aug 15 '94 Milhollen,Eaton 75 Collect data for the Districtwide Facilities Study 50% Aug 15'94 Oct 21 '94 Aug 31 '95 Milhollen,Eaton 76 Establish Committee to study Districtwide Facilities 100% Nov 16 '94 Nov 16 '94 Eaton,Milhollen,Mayo 77 Prepare status report for the Districtwide Facilities Study (preliminary study for needs assessment) 100% Oct 24 '94 Nov 18 '94 Dec 21 '94 Milhollen,Eaton,Mayo 78 Report data findings from Preliminary Facilities Study for merge into needs assessment. 100% Nov 21 '94 Nov 23 '94 Dec 21 '94 Milhollen, Eaton,Mayo 22 DESEGREGATION MONITORING REPORTS AUDIT from PPM 100% Aug 1 '94 Dec 9 '94 Ma VO 80 Define purpose and scope of Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Mayo,VVilliams,Council Page 10 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 81 Name____________________________ Design data collection plan for study of Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 8 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 19 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Mayo 82 Assign responsibility for data collection of transcripts and Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit 100% Aug 16 '94 Aug 31 '94 Mayo 83 Collect data 100% Sep 1 '94 Oct 14 '94 Mayo 84 Review with Superintendent's Council and Attorneys 100% Oct 14'94 Oct 24 '94 Nov 4 '94 Mayo 85 Report Findings to PRE 100% Nov 22 '94 Dec 9 '94 Mayo 86 Request Program Managers merge new obligations with Program Budget Document 100% Nov 27 '94 Dec 9 '94 Mayo az COURT ORDERS AUDIT 100% Aug 1 '94 Dee 9 '94 Ma VO 88 Define purpose and scope of Court Orders Audit 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 15 '94 Mayo,Williams,Council Page 11 FY96 B April 28 '95r Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 89 Name Design data collection plan for the study of the Court Orders Audit % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 8 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 19 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Mayo 90 Assign responsibility for data collection of Court Orders Audit 100% Aug 16'94 Aug 31 '94 Mayo 91 Collect data 100% Sep 1 '94 Oct 14 '94 Mayo 92 Review with Superintendent's Council and Attorneys 100% Oct 14 '94 Oct 24 '94 Mayo 93 Report findings to PRE 100% Nov 22 '94 Nov 23 '94 Dec 9 '94 Mayo 94 Request Program Managers merge new obligations with Program Budget Document 100% Nov 27 '94 Dec 9 '94 Mayo 25 TOWN HALL MEETINGS 100% Dec 7 '94 Williams.Glowers 96 Define purpose and scope of Town Hall Meetings 100% Jul 15'94 Sep 5 '94 Williams,Glowers,Council, Modeste Page 12 FY96 April 28 '95 WBLittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 97 Name__________________ Review previous year's data % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Jul 15'94 Scheduled Finish Sep 5 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Modeste,Glowers 98 Review/revise data collection plan for Town Hall Meetings 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 25 '94 Glowers,Wagner 99 Set locations and schedule for Town Hall Meetings 100% Aug 25 '94 Aug 30 '94 Wagner.Modeste 100 Develop advertisement plan and schedule for Town Hall Meetings 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 15'94 Wagner 101 Prepare Town Hall Meetings' sample agenda 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 10'94 Glowers,Modeste 102 Review/revise data collection tool (matrix) for Town Hall Meetings 100% Sep 1 '94 Sep 15'94 Modeste,Glowers 103 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting I 100% Sep 12'94 Sep 15'94 Wagner,Modeste 104 Gonduct Town Hall Meeting I (Terry Elementary) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Williams,Board,Modeste Page 13 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 105 Name Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting I for input into matrix % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 15'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Wagner,Penn-Norman 106 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting II 100% Sep 12 '94 Sep 22 '94 Wagner,Modeste 107 Conduct Town Hall Meeting II (University Park Adult Center) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Williams,Board,Modeste 108 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting II for input Into matrix 100% Sep 5 '94 Nov 30 '94 Wagner,Penn-NoiTnan 109 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting III 100% Sep 12 '94 Sep 29 '94 Wagner,Modeste 110 Conduct Town Hall Meeting III (Pulaski Heights Jr High School) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Williams 111 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting III for input into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman 112 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting IV 100% Sep 12 '94 Oct 6 '94 Wagner,Modeste Page 14 FY96 April 28 '95S B Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 113 Name Conduct Town Hall Meeting IV (Fulbright Elementary) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 15'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams,Board, Modeste 114 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting IV into matrix 100% Sep 15 '94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman 115 Execute advertisement plan tor Town Hall Meeting V 100% Sep 12'94 Oct 13'94 Wagner,Modeste 116 Conduct Town Hall Meeting V (Martin Luther King Elementary) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wiiliams, Board, Modeste 117 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting V for input into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman 118 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting VI 100% Sep 12'94 Oct 20 '94 Wagner,Modeste 119 Conduct Town Hall Meeting VI (McClellan High School) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Williams, Boa rd,Modeste 120 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting VI into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman Page 15 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 121 Name Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting VII % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 12'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 27 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Wagner,Modeste 122 Gonduct Town Hall Meeting VII (Southwest Gommunity Genter) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 1 '94 Williams,Board.Modeste 123 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting VII for input into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 4 '94 Wagner,Penn-Noiman 124 Finalize and publish Town Hall Meeting Report, 1994-95 100% Nov 15'94 Nov 30 '94 Modeste,Lewis 125 Merge findings of Town Hall Meeting Report, 1994-95, into needs assessment listing 100% Nov 30 '94 Dec 7 '94 Glowers,Lewis 126 DISTRIGT DIALOGUES 100% Jul 15 '94 Dec 7 '94 Dec 15 '94 Williams.Glowers 127 Define purpose and scope of District Dialogues 100% Jul 15'94 Sep 5 '94 Williams,Glowers,Gouncil,Modeste 128 Review/revise data collection plan for District Dialogues 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 25 '94 Glowers, Wagner,Modeste Page 16 FY96 April 28 '95 'MlLittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 129 Name Set locations and schedule for District Dialogues % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 25 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 30 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Wagner 130 Develop advertisement plan and schedule for District Dialogues 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 10'94 Wagner 131 Prepare District Dialogues sample agenda 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 10'94 Glowers,Modeste 132 Review/Revise data collection tool (matrix) for District Dialogues 100% Aug 30 '94 Sep 10 '94 Glowers,Modeste 133 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue I 100% Sep 10'94 Sep 19'94 Wagner 134 Gonduct District Dialogue I (principals, Franklin Elementary) 100% Sep 15 '94 Oct 31 '94 Williams 135 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue I for input into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Nomian 136 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue II 100% Sep 19'94 Oct 1 '94 Wagner Page 17 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 137 Name_______________________________ Conduct District Dialogue II (Transportation) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 15'94 Scheduled Finish Oct 31 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams 138 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue II for input into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman 139 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue III 100% Sep 18'94 Oct 14 '94 Wagner 140 Conduct District Dialogue III (Administration) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wiliiams 141 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue III for merge into matrix 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman 142 Execute advertisement plan tor District Dialogue IV 100% Sep 19'94 Oct 31 '94 Wagner 143 Conduct District Dialogue IV (Classified) 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 7 '94 Williams 144 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue IV for input into matrix^ 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 31 '94 Nov 9 '94 Wagner,Penn-Norman Page 18 FY96 April 28 '95 -MLittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 145 Name Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue V % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Nov 8 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Wagner 146 Conduct District Dialogue V (Teachers) 100% Nov 8 '94 Nov 8 '94 Williams 147 Gather feedback from District Dialogue V for input into matrix 100% Nov 8 '94 Nov 8 '94 Wagner, Lewis 148 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue VI 100% Nov 3 '94 Nov 14 '94 Wagner 149 Conduct District Dialogue VI (Assistant Principals) 100% Nov 14 '94 Nov 14 '94 Nov 22 '94 Williams 150 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue VI for merge info matrix 100% Nov 14 '94 Nov 14 '94 Nov 28 '94 Wagner,Lewis 151 Finalize and publish District Dialogue Report, 1994-95 (delayed because of rescheduled meetings) 100% Nov 15 '94 Nov 30 '94 Dec 15 '94 Savage,Lewis 152 Merge findings of District Dialogue Report, 1994-95, into needs assessment listing 100% Nov 30 '94 Dec 7 '94 Dec 15 '94 Savage,Lewis Page 19 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 153 Name__________________________________ Gollect and merge issues from Goal-Setting Work Session (9-6-94) into needs assessment information at Board Retreat % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Dec 7 '94 Scheduled Finish Jan 26 '95 Revised Finish Dec 21 '94 Resource Names Glowers,Penn-Norman 154 Gonduct Board Work Session for data analyses studies, surveys, forums, dialogues, etc. 90% Dec 7 '94 Apr 28 95 Williams,Glowers 155 Gomplete needs assessment listing (extended evaluations and other relevant reports) 100% Dec 1 '94 Dec 7 '94 Deci 6'94 Glowers,Savage,Lewis 156 Publish Draft of Needs Assessment Report and disseminate to selected persons 100% Dec 14 '94 Dec 14 '94 Dec 21 '94 Glowers,Savage,Lewis 157 Finalize and publish Needs Assessment Report, 1994-95 100% Dec 15'94 Dec 15'94 Jan 6 '95 Glowers,Savage,Lewis 158 PROGRAM INVENTORY 100% May 1 '94 Sep 16 '94 Sep 16 '94 Glowers 159 Identify and revise DSeg and NonDSeg Programs 100% May 2 '94 Jun 13'94 Bassa,Milhollen, Ingram 160 Review and adjust primary and secondary leaders for DSeg and NonDSeg programs 100% Jun 6 '94 Jun 13'94 Ingram,Bassa Page 20 FY96 April 28 '95 41Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 161 Name_________________________________ Finalize listing/leaders of DSeg and NonDSeg Programs % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Jun 18'94 Scheduled Finish Jun 18 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Bassa 162 Generate a Program Inventory Report for 1994-95 100% May 1 '94 Jun 30 '94 Bassa 163 Review/revise Program Inventory following submisssion of budget to ADE 100% Aug 1 '94 Sep 16 '94 Glowers,Milhollen 164 PLANNING AND BUDGET GOALS 100% Aug 1 '94 Aor 26 '95 Matthis.Glowers 165 CABINET/COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 26 '94 Seo 1 '94 Matthis 166 Identify process for goal developmenUrevision 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 19 '94 Aug 30 '94 Matthis,Glowers 167 Determine date and site for work session 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 19 '94 Aug 30 '94 Matthis,Glowers 168 Identify materials for work session 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 19 '94 Aug 30 '94 lngram,Glowers Page 21 FY96 April 28 '95 r Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 169 Name Develop materials for work session % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 19 '94 Revised Finish Sep 1 '94 Resource Names Ingram,Glowers 170 Identify and notify participants for the work session 100% Aug 1 '94 Aug 19 '94 Aug 29 '94 Matthis,Glowers, Ingram 171 Conduct work session 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Sep 1 '94 Williams,Matthis,Clowers 122 GOAL-SETTING WORK SESSION 100% Aug 22 '94 Sep 6'94 Seo 6 '94 Metthis.Clowers 173 Identify process for Goal-Setting Work Session 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Aug 30 '94 Matthis, Ingram,Glowers 174 Identify participants for the Goal-Setting Work Session 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Aug 31 '94 Matthis,Clowers, Ingram 175 Identify and collect background materials for participants 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Sep 2 '94 Matthis,Clowers 176 Determine date and site for Goal-Setting Work Session 100% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Aug 30 '94 Matthis Page 22 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 177 Name Distribute background materials to the participants % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 22 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 26 '94 Revised Finish Sep 2 '94 Resource Names Matthis,Clowers 178 Conduct work session to develop review/revise mission statement, develop goals, and a list of issues that may enhance or restrict goal attainment 100% Aug 29 '94 Aug 31 '94 Sep 6 '94 Council,Cabinet 179 Identify materials for Board Work Session 100% Sep 2 '94 Sep 6 '94 Williams,Clowers 180 Establish date and site for Work Session 100% Sep 1 '94 Sep 6 '94 Williams,Clowers 181 Prepare materials for Board Work Session 100% Sep 2 '94 Sep 6 '94 Sep 12'94 Matthis,Clowers 182 BOARD WORK SESSION 100% Seo 5'94 Seo 26 '94 Matthis.Clowers 183 Distribute background materials to Board members 100% Sep 6 '94 Sep 7 '94 Sep 12'94 Matthis,Clowers 184 Review of preliminary list of issues tor needs assessment by Board 100% Sep 7 '94 Sep 15'94 Board,Williams Page 23 FY96 April 28 '95r Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 185 Name__________________________________ Define input requirements at Board work session (for broad-based feedback) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 5 '94 Scheduled Finish Sep 12 '94 Revised Finish Sep 14'94 Resource Names Board,Williams 186 Review/revise tentative mission statement and goals 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Board 187 Review DSeg and NonDSeg Program Inventory 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Board 188 Review identified proportional allocations 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Board 189 Establish written priorities 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Board 190 Identify additional extended program evaluation, if needed 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Nov 3 '94 Board 191 Identify strategies for funding shortfalls (Note: date extended to allow community input) 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Nov 23 '94 Board 192 Develop timeline for identification and researching of funding shortfall strategies (Note: date extended to allow community input) 100% Sep 15'94 Sep 15'94 Nov 23 '94 Board Page 24 FY96 April 28 '95B Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 193 Name Develop communication strategy for mission statement and goals % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 19'94 Scheduled Finish Sep 19'94 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams,Wagner 194 Distribute mission statement and goals 100% Sep 22 '94 Sep 26 '94 Sep 28 '94 Matthis,Wagner 195 Distribute list of priorities 100% Sep 22 '94 Sep 26 '94 Sep 28 '94 Board,Matthis,Glowers,Wagner 196 BOARD RETREAT WORK SESSION 100% Dec 8 '94 Apr 26 35 Wiliiams.Matthis 197 Determine date and site for Board Retreat 100% Dec 8 '94 Dec 8 '94 Williams,Board 198 Identify agenda items for Board Retreat 100% Dec 8 '94 Dec 15'94 Williams,Board 199 Establish agenda for Board Retreat 100% Dec 16 '94 Dec 20 '94 Williams,Board 200 Identify materials for Board Retreat 100% Dec 20 '94 Jan 6 '95 Williams Page 25 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 201 Name Gather and distribute materials for Board Retreat % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Jan 9 '95 Scheduled Finish Jan 10 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams, Matthis,Clowers,Milhollen 202 Conduct data analysis work session for Board Reatreat 100% Jan 9 '95 Jan 10 '95 Williams,Council 203 Conduct Board Retreat 100% Jan 24 '95 Jan 25 '95 Williams,Board 204 Report outcomes of Board Retreat 100% Jan 23 '95 Jan 26 '95 Williams,Board 205 Determine the need for an additional Board Retreat 100% Jan 23 '95 Apr 26'95 Williams,Council,Board 206 Conduct Board Retreat, if needed 100% Feb 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams,Board 207 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 100% Aug 1 '94 Jun 30 '95 Mar 1 '95 Matthis 208 Develop philosophy and/or objectives for programs and/or program modifications 100% Nov 16 '94 Nov 23 '94 Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen, Clowe rs Page 26 FY96 April 28 '95 BBaaBBBHBBB a Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 209 Name Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the process % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 14 '94 Scheduled Finish Nov 23 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Mllhollen,Clowers 210 Seek copies of source documents from experts, as needed 100% Nov 1694 Dec 2 '94 Matthis, Williams,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 211 Examine trends of experts in the designated fields, as needed 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 212 Organize a committee to develop educational specifications 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Williams,Matthis,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 213 Establish framework for curriculum offerings\nservices and support programs\npolicies for instructional delivery\nmaterials/supplies/ equipment\nstaffing needs and staff development needs\nbudget 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Williams,Matthis,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 214 Relate/reference recommendations from curriculum audit needs assessment results to established mission statement, goals, and DSeg Plan 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen, Clowers 215 Review recommendations from districtwide needs assessment in order to identify additional programs or program modifications 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Jan 13 '95 Matthis, Williams,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 216 Develop Business Case for program and/or program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Board of Directors 100% Dec 5 '94 Jan 6 '95 Jan 13 '95 Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen, Clowers Page 27 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 217 Name Review program and/or program modifications with Council (i.e., Business Cases) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Jan 9 '95 Scheduled Finish Jan 13 '95 Revised Finish Jan 27 '95 Resource Names Williams,Matthis,Mayo.Milhollen,Clowers 218 Develop business case for incentive schools' program modifications for submitting to Supt. and Council 100% Nov 16'94 Jan 31 '95 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors 219 Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept 100% Nov 16 '94 Jan 17'95 Williams,Council 220 Review of Outsourcing 100% Aug 1 '94 Jun 30 '95 Mar 1 '95 Williams,Milhollen,Mayo 221 SUBMIT BUSINESS CASE FOR PROGRAM AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO SUPERINTENDENT 100% Jan 23 '95 Feb 28 '.95 Matthis. Williams.Mayo.Milhollen.Clowers 222 Submit Business Case for program and/or program modifications to Board of Directors 100% Jan 23 '95 Jan 24 '95 Feb 8 '95 Matthis.Williams,Mayo.Milhollen.Clowers 223 First review of Business Cases by Board 100% Jan 24 '95 Feb 9 '95 Matthis, Williams.Mayo.Milhollen.Clowers 224 Conduct second program review-revisit-reevaluate 100% Feb 13'95 Feb 17'95 Matthis, Williams.Mayo.Milhollen.Clowers Page 28 FY96 April 28 '95  t B B B a a B B B I Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 225 Name Decide to add, implement, modify, or delete programs % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Feb 20 '95 Scheduled Finish Feb 28 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Matthis,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 226 BUDGETING 56% Nov 21 '94 Aug 25 '95 Milhollen.Gadberrv.Hurley 227 Develop budget preparation training material 100% Nov 21 '94 Nov 28 '94 Milhollen 228 Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels 100% Nov 28 '94 Nov 30 '94 Milhollen 229 Conduct budget preparation training sessions 100% Dec 1 '94 Dec 9 '94 Milhollen 230 Prepare initial hnancial forecasts for coming year 100% Dec 1 '94 Dec 31 '94 Milhollen 231 Budget managers submit 95-96 budget requests 100% Dec 12 '94 Jan 6 '95 Jan 13 '95 Milhollen 232 Begin budget development 100% Jan 7 '95 Mar 8 '95 Milhollen Page 29 FY96 April 28 '95 r Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 233 Name Prepare current year budget revisions % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Jan 9 '95 Scheduled Finish Jan 31 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Milhollen 234 Year to date revenue expenditure analysis 100% Jan 9 '95 Jan 31 '95 Milhollen 235 Revise financial forecast for coming year 100% Feb 24 '95 Mar 3 '95 Milhollen 236 Submit proposed budget to Board 100% Mar 9 '95 Mar 9 '95 Milhollen 237 Conduct Board Work Sessions on proposed budget 100% Mar 10'95 Mar 17'95 Board,Williams 238 Revise proposed budget, as needed 60% Mar 20 '95 May 10'95 Milhollen 239 Staffing 78% Jan 26 '95 Aug 1 '95 Hurley 240 First review of changes in course offerings by Board 100% Jan 26 '95 Jan 26 '95 Feb 9 '95 Board,Williams,Matthis Page 30 FY96 April 28 '95S B B B Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 241 Name Approval of course offerings by Board contingent upon adoption of business case % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Feb 9 '95 Scheduled Finish Feb 9 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Board,Williams,Matthis 242 Meeting with counselors and principals to review course offerings for 1995-96 100% Jan 30 '95 Feb 15'95 Matthis, Elston 243 Print course selection sheets 100% Jan 30 '95 Feb 15'95 Matthis 244 245 246 247 248 Page 31 / Counselors meet with students and complete course selection sheets Registrars tally course selections Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1995-96 Review course tallies for secondary. Note possible cuts based on courses requested. Make determination by subject area (secondary) of possible reductions and by projected elementary enrollment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Feb 16 '95 Mar 10'95 Principals,Counselors Mar 13 '95 Mar 31 '95 Principals,Registrars Apr 3 '95 Apr 3 '95 Apr 3 '95 FY96 Apr 21 '95 Apr 21 '95 Apr 21 '95 Gadberry,Hurley, Mayo Gadberry,Hurley, Ass't Superintendents Gadberry,Hurley,Ass't Superintendents April 28 '95r Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 249 Name__________________________________ Verification of need, based on manpower report and by program (program managers and principals) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Apr 3 '95 Scheduled Finish Apr 21 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Gadberry,Hurley .Assistant Superintendents 250 Check results of above 4 Items against known retirement, resignations, and intern positions 100% Apr 3 '95 Apr 21 '95 Gadberry,Huriey 251 Identify teachers for Reduction in Force (RIF), if needed 100% Apr 20 '95 Apr 28 '95 Gadberry,Hurley 252 Notify certified personnel of Reduction in Force (RIF), if needed staff reduction 100% Apr 14 '95 Apr 28 '95 Gadberry,Hurley 253 Recall from RIF, if needed 0% Jun 1 '95 Aug 1 '95 Gadberry, Hurley 254 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction 0% May 3 '95 Jul 15'95 Gadberry,Hurley 255 Prepare tentative budget 0% May 11 '95 May 11 '95 Milhollen 256 Board review of tentative budget 0% May 25 '95 May 25 '95 Board, Williams,Milhollen Page 32 FY96 April 28 '95 4:^BL B- B \" Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 257 Name Conduct Board Work Session on tentative budget % Complete 0% Scheduled Start May 29 '95 Scheduled Finish May 31 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams,Board 258 Recall from RIF, if needed 0% Jun 1 '95 Jul 15'95 Gadberry,Hurley 259 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) clean-up 0% Jun 16 '95 Jul 14 '95 Milhollen 260 Receipt of state-generated revenue numbers (payroll liabilities, adjusted supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perkins, M to M, JTPA, Voc Ed. Sp Ed, Chapters 1 and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC) 0% Jun 16 '95 Jul 14'95 Milhollen 261 Close-out of 1994-95 accounts: adjust physical inventory, (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, state grants, accruals 0% Jul 3 '95 Jul 20 '95 Williams,Council 262 Compute ending fund balance 0% Jul 21 '95 Jul 21 '95 Milhollen 263 Administrative review of final budget 0% Jul 21 '95 Jul 27 '95 Williams,Council 264 Submit final budget to Board 0% Jul 24 '95 Jul 24 '95 Williams Page 33 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 265 Name Board review and adoption of 95-96 final budget % Complete 0% Scheduled Start Jul 27 '95 Scheduled Finish Jul 27 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Board 266 Submit 95-96 final Budget to CourVParties 0% Aug 4 '95 Aug 22 '95 Williams 267 Submit 95-96 final budget to State 0% Aug 25 '95 Aug 25 '95 Board,Milhollen 268 MONITORING AND REPORTING QE DSES ANE NONDSEG PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS I1ST QUARTER: 2ND QUARTER: 3RD QUARTER: 4TH QUARTER) 83% Jun 1 '94 Aug 17 '95 Glowers 269 Obtain/Examine feedback from survey on the program budget document process 100% Jun 1 '94 Jul 31 '94 Bassa 270 Program budget document diskettes are returned to PRE for summer housing 100% Jun 9 '94 Jul 29 '94 Aug 12'94 Principals,Program Managers,Lewis 271 PRE performs necessary diskette management functions for the summer (i.e.,archival filing, achievement erasures, copying, etc,) 100% Jul 25 '94 Aug 31 '94 Sep 7 '94 PRE Clerical 272 Revise written program budget document instructions, as needed 100% Aug 8 '94 Aug 19 '94 Sep 9 '94 Glowers Page 34 FY96 April 28 '95 BBBSB\u0026amp;BBBISI B B. BL Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 273 Name PRE dispenses program budget document diskettes to principals and program managers % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Aug 18'94 Scheduled Finish Sep 2 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names PRE Clerical 274 Plan for maintenance education and reorientation regarding the program budget document process, using info which was provided by the survey 100% Jul 25 '94 Aug 30 '94 Sep 8 '94 Clowers 275 Conduct maintenance education workshops and reorientation sessions regarding the program budget document process for principals, clerical staff, program managers, primary and secondary leaders 100% Aug 31 '94 Sep 30 '94 Clowers 276 Disseminate written program budget document instructions to principals and program managers 100% Aug 31 '94 Sep 30 '94 Clowers 211 1ST QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS 100% Aug 8 '94 Nov 21 '94 Clowers 278 Advise program managers and principals on program budget document, if problems in data entry 100% Aug 8 '94 Nov 4 '94 Ass't Supts,Clowers,PRE Clerical 279 Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding achievement reporting in the PBD's 100% Aug 8 '94 Oct 14'94 Primary Leaders 280 Generate diskette management flow information to relative staff in School Operations and PRE office 100% Sep 19'94 Sep 23 '94 Clowers Page 35 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 281 Name Plan training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Sep 7 '94 Scheduled Finish Sep 23 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Clowers 282 Conduct training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect 100% Sep 26 '94 Sep 30 '94 Clowers 283 DSeg and NonDSeg diskettes returned to PRE 100% Oct 14 '94 Oct 14 '94 Nov 4 '94 Principals,Program Managers,Clowers 284 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% Oct 14 '94 Oct 28 '94 Nov 11 '94 PRE Clerical,Clowers 285 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% Oct 14 '94 Oct 28 '94 Nov 11 '94 PRE Clerical,Clowers 286 PRE develops relative narrative and the Controller provides financial Info for the Program Budget Document Reports 100% Oct 28 '94 Nov 4 '94 Nov 11 '94 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Clowers 287 PRE combines all relative info for the 1st Quarter Program Budget Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) 100% Oct 31 '94 Nov 4 '94 Nov 11 '94 PRE Clerical,Clowers 288 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people 100% Nov 7 '94 Nov 7 '94 Nov 11 '94 Clowers Page 36 FY96 April 28 '95B 8 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 289 Name______ Revise drafts % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 8 '94 Scheduled Finish Nov 8 '94 Revised Finish Nov 14 '94 Resource Names PRE Clerical,Glowers 290 Prepare for publication of Program Budget Document Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) 100% Nov 9 '94 Nov 11 '94 Nov 14 '94 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Glowers 291 Submit revised draft of Program Budget Document Reports to the Attorney for review/revision 100% Nov 11 '94 Nov 14 '94 Williams,Clowers 292 Submit 1st Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to the Court 100% Nov 18'94 Nov 18'94 Attorney 293 Return diskettes and paper copies to managers and principals 100% Nov 21 '94 Nov 21 '94 PRE Clerical 294 2ND QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET 100% Nov 14 '94 Feb 2Q '95 Feb 24 '95 ClQwers 295 Advise program managers and principals on Program Budget Document, if data entry problems 100% Nov 14 '94 Jan 13 '95 Jan 27 '95 Ass't Supts,Lewis 296 Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding 1st quarter achievement reporting in the PBD's 100% Nov 14'94 Jan 13 '95 Primary Leaders Page 37 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 297 Name Plan training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect % Gomplete 100% Scheduled Start Dec 5 '94 Scheduled Finish Dec 9 '94 Revised Finish Nov 30 '94 Resource Names Glowers 298 Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for completing the PBD to principals and program managers 100% Dec 5 '94 Dec 9 '94 Jan 4 '95 Glowers,Lewis 299 Gonduct training sessions for principals, program managers, and clerical staff 100% Dec 12 '94 Dec 16'94 Matthis,Glowers 300 Diskettes due back to PRE 100% Jan 13'95 Jan 13 '95 Principals,Prograrn Managers,Lewis 301 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% Jan 13 '95 Jan 27 '95 PRE Glerical,Glowers 302 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% Jan 13 '95 Jan 27 '95 PRE Glerical,Glowers 303 PRE revises narrative and the controller provides financial info for Program Budget Document Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) 100% Jan 27 '95 Feb 3 '95 PRE Glerical,Milhollen,Glowers 304 PRE combines all revised info for 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 100% Jan 30 '95 Feb 3 '95 PRE GlericaLGIowers Page 38 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 305 Name__________________________________ PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people and attorney % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Feb 6 '95 Scheduled Finish Feb 6 '95 Revised Finish Feb 14 '95 Resource Names Clowers 306 Revise drafts 100% Feb 7 '95 Feb 7 '95 Feb 17'95 PRE Clerical,Clowers 307 Prepare for publication of 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 100% Feb 8 '95 Feb 10 '95 Feb 20 '95 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Clowers 308 Submit revised draft of 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Report to the Attorney for review/revision, if revisions needed 100% Feb 10'95 Feb 13'95 VVilliams,Clowers 309 Submit 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Report to Court 100% Feb 17 '95 Feb 17'95 Feb 24 '95 Attorney 310 Return diskettes and paper copies to principals and program managers 100% Feb 20 '95 Feb 20 '95 Feb 24 '95 PRE Clerical an 3RD QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS 83% Feb 14 '95 May 22 '95 Clowers 312 Advise program managers and principals on the Program Budget Document, if data entry problems 100% Feb 14 '95 Apr 14 '95 Ass't Supts,Lewis Page 39 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool IO 313 Name Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding 2nd quarter achievement reporting in the PBD's % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Feb 14 '95 Scheduled Finish Apr 14 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Primary Leaders 314 Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for PBD completion to principals and program managers 100% Mar 7 '95 Mar 10 '95 Clowers 315 Diskettes due back to PRE 100% Apr 14 '95 Apr 14 '95 Principals,Program Managers 316 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% Apr 14 '95 Apr 28 '95 PRE Clerical,Clowers 317 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% Apr 14 '95 Apr 28 '95 PRE Clerical,Clowers 318 PRE revises narrative and the controller provides financial info for 3rd Quarer Program Budget Document Reports 0% Apr 28 '95 May 5 '95 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Clowers 319 PRE combines all revised info for 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% Apr 28 '95 May 5 '95 PRE Clerical,Clowers 320 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people 0% May 8 '95 May 8 '95 Clowers Page 40 FY96 April 28 '95 ILittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 321 Name Revise drafts % Complete 0% Scheduled Start May 9 '95 Scheduled Finish May 9 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names PRE Clerical,Clowers 322 Prepare for publication of 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% May 1095 May 12 '95 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Glowers 323 Submit revised draft of 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to the Attorney for review/revision, if revisions needed 0% May 15'95 May 18 '95 V\\/illianis,Clowers 324 Submit 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Court 0% May 19'95 May 19'95 Attorney 325 Return diskettes and paper copies to principals and program managers 0% May 22 '95 May 22 '95 PRE Clerical 325 4TH QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS 0% IVIaY..9as Aug ].7-'.2S Clowers 327 Advise program managers and principals on Program Budget Document 0% May 15'95 Jul 14 '95 Ass't Supts,Clowers,PRE Clerical 328 Primary leaders provide directions, formative and summative feedback to their secondary people regarding 3rd quarter and fiscal year achievement reporting in the PBD's 0% May 15'95 Jul 15'95 Primary Leaders Page 41 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 329 Name Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for completing the PBD to principals and program managers % Complete 0% Scheduled Start May 9 '95 Scheduled Finish May 15'95 Revised Finish Resource Names Glowers 330 Principals submit School Operations Diskettes to Ass't Supts 0% Jun 9 '95 Jun 16 '95 Principals 331 Programs' diskettes due back to PRE 0% Jul 14'95 Jul 14 '95 Program Managers 332 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 0% Jul 14 '95 Jul 28 '95 PRE Clerical,Glowers 333 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 0% Jul 14 '95 Jul 28 '95 PRE Clerical,Glowers 334 PRE develops relative narrative and the controller provides financial info for 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% Jul 28 '95 Aug 4 '95 PRE Clerical,Milhollen,Glowers 335 PRE combines all relatvie info for 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% Jul 28 '95 Aug 4 '95 PRE Clerical,Glowers 336 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people 0% Aug 7 '95 Aug 7 '95 Glowers Page 42 FY96 April 28 '95B B Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 337 Name______ Revise drafts % Complete 0% Scheduled Start Aug 8 '95 Scheduled Finish Aug 8 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names PRE Clerical,Clowers 338 Prepare for publication the 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% Aug 9 '95 Aug 11 '95 PRE Cierical,Milhollen,Clowers 339 Submit revised draft of 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Attorney for review/revision 0% Aug 11 '95 Aug 14 '95 Williams,Clowers 340 Submit 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Court 0% Aug 14 '95 Aug 17'95 Attorney 341 PRE houses diskettes as 1995-96 school year begins 0% Aug 14 '95 Aug 14 '95 PRE Clerical 342 100% May 27 '94 Jan 13 '95 Dec 14 '94 Matthis.Clowers 343 Review Desegregation Plan for potential target programs 100% Jul 1 '94 Nov 30 '94 Williams,Matthis,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers 344 Review Non-Desegregation Plan for potential target programs 100% Jul 1 '94 Nov 30 '94 Williams,Matthis,Mayo,Milhollen,Clowers Page 43 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 346 Name Begin program evaluation instrument and process % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Jun 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 15 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Council 346 Distribute program evaluation instruments and process 100% Jun 1 '94 Aug 31 '94 Clowers 347 Identify extended evaluation targets, if needed 100% Sep 6 '94 Jan 13 '95 Nov 21 '94 Matthis,Clowers, Williams,Mayo,Milhollen 348 Conduct required training sessions for use of process and evaluation criteria for designated staff, as necessary 100% Aug 8 '94 Aug 31 '94 Clowers 349 Develop process for council/cabinet review of program evaluations 100% May 27 '94 Aug 8 '94 Aug 24 '94 Clowers,Council 350 Program evaluations due from secondary or primary leaders 100% Oct 14 '94 Oct 14 '94 Nov 11 '94 Matthis,Clowers,Williams,Milhollen,Mayo 351 Notify appropriate staff to prepare Extended Program Evaluations 100% Nov 7 '94 Dec 7 '94 Clowers,Council 352 Use extended program evaluations to identify program additions, modifications, deletions 100% Oct 17'94 Nov 30 '94 Dec 19 '94 Matfhis,Clowers,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen Page 44 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 353 Name Notify appropriate staff to prepare Business Cases based on results of extended program evaluations % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Oct 17'94 Scheduled Finish Nov 30 '94 Revised Finish Dec 21 '94 Resource Names Matthis,Clowers,Williams,Mayo,Milhollen 354 86% Feb 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams 355 Plan for internal and external feedback (Set locations and schedule for internal and external feedback) 100% Feb 1 '95 Feb 28 '95 Williams,Modeste, Vann 356 PROVIDE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FEEDBACK 81% Feb 15 '95 May 1 '95 Vann.Modeste. Williams 357 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback. Session I 100% Feb 15'95 Apr 28 '95 Vann,Modeste 358 Conduct District Feedback, Session l(Principals) 100% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams 359 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback. Session II 85% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Vann,Modeste 360 Conduct District Feedback, Session II (Teachers) 0% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 May 2 '95 Williams Page 45 FY96 April 28 '95 I Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 361 Name Execute advertisement plan. Session III % Complete 85% Scheduled Start Mar 15'95 Scheduled Finish May 1 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Vann,Modeste 362 Conduct District Feedback, Session III (Ass't Principals) 0% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 May 8 '95 Williams 363 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback. Session IV 100% Mar 1 '95 Apr 20 '95 Vann,Modeste 364 Conduct District Feedback, Session IV (Transportation) 100% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams 365 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback. Session V 100% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Vann,Modeste 366 Conduct District Feedback Session V (Administrative and Non-Certified) 100% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams 367 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback. Session I 100% Feb 15'95 Mar 15'95 Vann,Modeste 368 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session I (Fulbright) 100% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams Page 46 FY96 April 28 '95 inLittle Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 369 Name Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback. Session II % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Mar 15'95 Scheduled Finish Mar 31 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Vann,Modeste 370 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session II (SW Community Center) 100% Mar 1 '95 Apr 28 '95 Williams 371 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback, Session III 100% Mar 1 '95 Apr 24 '95 Vann,Modeste 372 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session III (University Park Leisure Center) 100% Mar 1 '95 Apr 24 '95 Williams 373 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback. Session IV 50% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Vann,Modeste 374 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session IV (Pulaski Heights) 0% Mar 1 '95 Apr 28 '95 May 10'95 Williams 375 Execute advertisement for Town Hall feedback. Session V 25% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Vann,Modeste 376 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session V (McDermott Elementary) 0% Mar 1 '95 May 1 '95 Williams Page 47 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 322 Name SUBMIT MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT IMANAGEMENT TOOLI TO COURT % Complete 71% Scheduled Start Jul 29 '94 Scheduled Finish Aug 31 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams 378 Submit July's monthly management report to Court 100% Jul 29 '94 Jul 29 '94 Williams,Attorney 379 Submit August's monthly management report to Court 100% Aug 31 '94 Aug 31 '94 Williams,Attorney 380 Submit September's monthly management report to Court 100% Sep 30 '94 Oct 3 '94 Williams,Attorney 381 Submit October's monthly management report to Court 100% Oct 31 '94 Oct 31 '94 Williams,Attorney 382 Submit November's monthly management report to Court 100% Nov 30 '94 Nov 30 '94 Williams,Attorney 383 Submit December's monthly management report to Court 100% Dec 30 '94 Dec 30 '94 Williams,Attorney 384 Submit January's monthly management report to Court 100% Jan 31 '95 Jan 31 '95 Williams ,Attorney Page 48 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 385 Name Submit February's monthly management report to Court % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Feb 28 '95 Scheduled Finish Feb 28 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams ,Attomey 386 Submit March's monthly management report to Court 100% Mar 31 '95 Mar 31 '95 Williams .Attorney 387 Submit April's monthly management report to Court 100% Apr 28 '95 Apr 28 '95 Williams,Attorney 388 Submit May's monthly management report to Court 0% May 31 '95 May 31 '95 Williams,Attorney 389 Submit June's monthly management report to Court 0% Jun 30 '95 Jun 30 '95 Williams,Attorney 390 Submit July's monthly management report to Court 0% Jul 31 '95 Jul 31 '95 Williams.Attorney 391 Submit August's monthly management report to Court 0% Aug 31 '95 Aug 31 '95 Williams ,Attorney 392 TASKS FOR SCHOOL CLOSINGS 75% Jul 1 '94 Jun 30 '95 Williams Page 49 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 393 Name ANALYZE DSEG PLAN FOR CHANGE/MODIFICATION % Complete 50% Scheduled Start Jul 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Jun 30 '95 Revised Finish Resource Names Williams 394 TASKS FOR COURT FILINGS 50% Jun 1 '94 May 31 '95 Williams 395 REGISTRATION AND RECRUITMENT TASKS 100% May 2 '94 Jan 30 '95 Mavo 396 100% May 2 '94 May 31 '94 Wagner,Mavo 397 Recommend adjusted dates based on last year 100% May 2 '94 May 6 '94 Wagner 39S Set locations for 4-year-old programs 100% May 9 '94 May 16'94 Mayo 399 Circulate tentative registration dates in memorandum requesting feedback from Superintendent's Council, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, and Support Administration 100% May 17'94 May 31 '94 Mayo 400 Present dates to Superintendent's Council for review 100% May 17'94 May 31 '94 Mayo Page 50 FY96 April 28 '95B  B Il Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 401 Name PUBLICIZE REGISTRATION DATES TO INTERESTED GROUPS % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Jun 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Jul 15 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Wagner 402 Include approved dates in school year calendar 100% Jun 1 '94 Jul 15'94 Wagner 403 Share with Student Assignment Office staff, all district adminsitrators, Parties in the case, MRC, and ODM 100% Jun 1 '94 Jul 15'94 Wagner 404 DEFINE TARGETED AUDIENCES FOR RECRUITMENT 100% Aug 15 '94 Dec 21 '94 Mavo 405 Review the Plan as it relates to student assignment and racial balance 100% Aug 15 '94 Aug 30 '94 Mayo 406 Review racial balances in each school 100% Sep 15'94 Oct 28 '94 Mayo 407 Collect private school directories 100% Nov 1 '94 Dec 9 '94 Wagner 408 Collect data on number of students not attending attendance zone school 100% Oct 17 '94 Dec 21 '94 Mayo Page 51 FY96 April 28 '95 Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool ID 409 Name Begin entering private school students into the computer % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 14 '94 Scheduled Finish Dec 21 '94 Revised Finish Resource Names Mayo 410 Analyze data on number of students not attending attendance zone school to develop strategies for balancing 100% Nov 1 '94 Dec 21 '94 Mayo 411 PREPARE AWARENESS MATERIALS FOR REGISTRATION 100% Seo 15 '94 Jan 30 '95 Wagner 412 Revise Student Assignment Handbook for schools 100% Nov 15'94 Dec 20 '94 Weidower 413 Schedule date for inservice for registrars and notify them 100% Nov 15 '94 Dec 20 '94 Weidower 414 Revise registration brochure 100% Sep 15'94 Nov 1 '94 Wagner 415 Revise Incentive School brochures, if appropriate 100% Sep 15'94 Nov 15'94 Wagner 416 Prepare PSA's 100% Nov 1 '94 Nov 30 '94 Wagner Page 52 FY96 April 28 '95Little Rock School District Program Planning and Budgeting Tool IO 417 Name Prepare posters and flyer(s) % Complete 100% Scheduled Start Nov 1 '94 Scheduled Finish Nov 30 '94 Revised Finish Dec 23 '94 Resource Names Teague 418 Schedule presentations to realtors, churches, businesses and other interested groups for January and early February 100% Nov 1 '94 Jan 30 '95 Rather 419 Plan and schedule \"kick-off\" event for registration 100% Nov 1 '94 Dec 20 '94 Rather 420 Send reminder memorandum to all district administrators. Parties in the case, MRC, and OOM of dates for registration including who can register, and how they can register 100% Jan 2 '95 Jan 15 '95 Mayo Page 53 FY96 April 28 '95 IO 1 Name ORGANIZATION 1994-95 2 3 4 5 \u0026amp; 7 i! I II tar 2nd Quarter Analyze, reassess, and revise planning organization and structure Revise, discuss, and reach consensus regarding format and tasking of 1994-95 Management Tool Initial circulation of 1994-95 Management Tool Evaluate tasking of 1994-95 Management Tool weekly Identify data to measure needs of district for FY 95-96 Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical % Complete 50% 25% 100% 100% 72% 97% 100% Noncritical Mar Apr | May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr 3rd Quarter I May I Jun Jul | Aug | Sep 4t Oct 4 Progress  Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 1 r ID 8 Name Revisit and analyze the results of the budgeting and planning priorities revealed from the 93-94 Needs Assessment Report % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Apr I May | Jun ~~Jul | Aug | Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 9 Review/revise the mission statement and goals of the District 100% Jil 100% 11 Define purpose and scope for Personnel Study 100% 12 Design data collection plan for study of Personnel Study 100%  13 Assign responsibilities for study of Personnel Study 100% I 14 Collect data from Personnel Study 100% 15 Analyze data from Personnel Study 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone H Summary Rolled Up  Page 2 JI jJrL-i uJUTui ID 16 Name Prepare Personnel Study Report 17 Report data Tindings from Personnel Study lor merge Into needs assessment listing la STANFORD fi TEST DATA SIUEY 19 Define purpose and scope for Stanford 8 Test data study 20 Design data collection plan lor study ol Stanford 8 Test 21 Assign responsibilities for study of Stanford 8 Test data 22 Collect data from Stanford 8 Test 23 Project FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Analyze data from Stanford 6 Test Critical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Noncritical ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4tli Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun Progress Milestone  Rolled Up fl Page 3 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct J iO. 24 25 26 27 Name PrepaiTstanloTd 8 Test Report Report data lindlngs from Stanford 8 for merge Into needs assessment listing 28 29 30 31 |ter % Complete Mar 100% 100% ARKANSAS mMUM FtRFOBMANCE: ItSI lAMPTl DAIA SIUDX DeTine purpose and scope for AMPT study Design data collection plan for AMPT study of data Assign responsibilites lor AMPT data colledion Colled data hom AMPT Analyze data from AMPT lflQ3i 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Ptojed FY96 Dale: 4/28195 Critical Noncrilical 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jun Progress  Milestone H 2nd Quarter Page 4 Summary Rolled Up  3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 41 Oct I 1 f B H H H H H H H ID 32 Name Prepare AMPT Report 33 24 35 36 37 38 39 B Si S Report data findings from AMPT for merge into needs assessment listing PRE MONITORING REPORTS STUDY Define purpose and scope for PRE Monitoring Reports Study Design data collection plan for PRE Reports Study Assign responsibilites for PRE Monitoring Reports Study Collect data from PRE Monitoring Reports Study Analyze data from PRE Monitoring Reports Study tar % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress - Milestone  Page 5 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Summary Rolled Up  atar 2nd Quarter ID 40 Name Prepare PRE Monitoring Reports Study Report % Complete 100% 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1 st Quarter __j______________________________ ------ ---------------- 2nd Quarter Mar Apr | May | Jun Jul | Aug | Sep Oct | Nov | Dec Jan | Feb ~a^ I May I Jui? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Report data findings from PRE Monitoring Reports Study for merge into needs assessment listing SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY (SC/HRI STUDY Define purpose and scope of SC/HR Survey Design data collection plan for study of SC/HR Assign responsibilities for SC/HR data collection Collect data from SC/HR Survey Analyze data from SC/HR Survey 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 6 l| rter ID 48 Name Prepare SC/HR Survey Report % Complete 100% Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 49 Report data findings from SC/HR Survey for merge into needs assessment 100% CURRICULUM AUDIT/ADE CURRICULAR STANDARDS 100% 51 Define purpose and scope of Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% 52 Design plans for data collection for Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% 53 Assign responsibilities for data collection of Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% 54 Collect data for Curriculum Audit/Standards 100% 55 Establish procedures tor revievr and assessment of Curriculum Audit/Standards data 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone H Page 7 a 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Summary Rolled Up QID 56 Name Organize and label Curriculum Audit/Standards data-findings of Monitoring and Status Reports, Curriculum Objectives, Achievement % Complete 100% tar Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Apr I May | Jun Jul | Aug | Sep~ Oct [ Nov | Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4t I May I Jun' Jul | Aug | Sep Oct 57 Relate/assess the data results back to the Curriculum Audit/Standards findings 100% 58 Analyze the effectiveness of revised curriculum/standards, policies, etc. 100% 59 Identify factors that facilitated attainment of curriculum/standards goals 100% 60 Identify obstacles that prevented curriculum/standards goal attainment 100% 61 Report data findings from Curriculum Audit/ADE Curricular Standards for merge into needs assessment 100% 62 Make recommendations tor program additions/deletions/modifications 100% I 63 PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULAS STUDY 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone B Summary Rolled Up  Page 8ter ID 64 Name Define purpose and scope of Proportional Allocation Formulas % Complete 100% Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May [ Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 65 Review/revise data collection plan for Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% I 66 Assign responsibilities for Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% I 67 Collect data for Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% 68 Analyze data from Proportional Allocation Formulas 100% 69 Prepare Proportional Allocation Formulas Report 100% 70 Report data findings from Proportional Allocations Formulas Study for merge into needs assessment listing 100% 21 DISTRICTWIDE FACILITIES STUDY 77% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress m Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 9ID 72 Name Define purpose and scope of Districtwide Facilities Study % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Jul I Aug I Oct I Nov | Dec ~Jan | Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter I May I Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep __ Oct 73 Design data collection plan for Districtwide Facilities Study 100% 74 Assign responsibilities for the Districtwide Facilities Study 100% I 75 Collect data for the Districtwide Facilities Study 50% 388^ 76 Establish Committee to study Districtwide Facilities 100% I 77 Prepare status report for the Districtwide Facilities Study (preliminary study for needs assessment) 100% 78 Report data findings from Preliminary Facilities Study for merge into needs assessment. 100% I 22 DESEGREGATION MONITORING REPORTS AUDIT from PPM 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone  Summary Rolled Up Q Page 10ID 80 Name Define purpose and scope of Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I JufT 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 81 Design data collection plan for study of Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit 100% 82 Assign responsibility for data collection of transcripts and Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit 100% 83 Collect data 100% 84 Review with Superintendent's Council and Attorneys 100% 85 Report Findings to PRE 100% 86 Request Program Managers merge new obligations with Program Budget Document 100% az COURT ORDERS AUDIT 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress - Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 11ter ID 88 Name 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 89 90 91 92 93 94 as Define purpose and scope of Court Orders Audit Design data collection plan for the study of the Court Orders Audit Assign responsibility for data collection of Court Orders Audit Collect data Review with Superintendent's Council and Attorneys Report findings to PRE Request Program Managers merge new obligations with Program Budget Document TOWN HALL MEETINGS Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 100% 4th Quarter 1st Quarter MaL_^] May | Jun ~Jul | Aug | Sep' Oct [ Nov | Dec Jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr 3rd Quarter 4t I May I Jun~ Jul | Aug | Sep Oct 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Progress H Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 12 IID 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Name Define purpose and scope of Town Hall Meetings Review previous year's data Review/revise data collection plan for Town Hall Meetings Set locations and schedule for Town Hall Meetings Develop advertisement plan and schedule for Town Hall Meetings Prepare Town Hall Meetings' sample agenda Review/revise data collection tool (matrix) for Town Hall Meetings Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting I Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter ------- ,________-    J______aner r Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | Dec\" | Feb | Mar I I I 2nd Quarter I May [ Jur? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Progress B Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 13ID 104 Name Conduct Town Hall Meeting I (Terry Elementary) % Complete 100% ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jut? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 105 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting I for Input into matrix 100% 106 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting II 100% 107 Conduct Town Hall Meeting II (University Park Adult Center) 100% 108 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting II for input Into matrix 100% 109 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting III 100% I 110 Conduct Town Hall Meeting III (Pulaski Heights Jr High School) 100% 111 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting III for input Into matrix 100% Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Milestone H Summary Rolled Up  Page 14ID 112 Name Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting IV % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 113 Conduct Town Hall Meeting IV (Fulbright Elementary) 100% 114 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting IV into matrix 100% 115 Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall Meeting V 100% 116 Conduct Town Hall Meeting V (Martin Luther King Elementary) 100% 117 Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting V for Input into matrix 100% 118 Execute advertisement plan (or Town Hall Meeting Vt 100% 119 Conduct Town Hall Meeting VI (McClellan High School) 100% Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone | B B S Jul [ Aug [ Sep ~Oct | Nov | Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Page 15 UMM Summary Rolled Up r I I I ter ID 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 Name 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting VI into matrix Execute advertisement plan tor Town Hall Meeting VII Conduct Town Hall Meeting VII (Southwest Community Center) , Gather feedback data from Town Hall Meeting VII tor input Into matrix Finalize and publish Town Hall Meeting Report, 1994-95 Merge findings of Town Hall Meeting Report, 1994-95, Into needs assessment listing DISTRICT DIALOGUES Define purpose and scope of District Dialogues Project FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncrilical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4th Quarter Mar ApTl May | Jun Jul | Aug | Sep Oct | Nov | Dec  1$t Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter I May I Jur? 3rd Quarter 4t Jul I Aug I Sep Oct Progress  Milestone  Rolled Up  Page 16ID 128 Name Review/revise data collection plan for District Dialogues % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep I 129 Set locations and schedule for District Dialogues 100% I 130 Develop advertisement plan and schedule for District Dialogues 100% 131 Prepare District Dialogues sample agenda 100% 132 Review/Revise data collection tool (matrix) for District Dialogues 100% 133 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue I 100%  134 Conduct District Dialogue I (principals, Franklin Elementary) 100% 135 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue I for input into matrix 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress M Milestone | Page 17 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Summary Rolled Up r ID 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Name Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue 11 Conduct District Dialogue II (Transportation) Gather feedback data from District Dialogue II for input into matrix Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue III Conduct District Dialogue III (Administration) Gather feedback data from District Dialogue III for merge into matrix Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue IV Conduct District Dialogue IV (Classified) Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Noncritical ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun Progress h Milestone  3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Jul I Aug I Se^ Oct | Nov [ Dec ~jan | Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter I May I Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Page 18 Summary Rolled Up 1 ID 144 Name Gather feedback data from District Dialogue IV for input into matrix % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 145 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue V 100% I 146 Conduct District Dialogue V (Teachers) 100% I 147 Gather feedback from District Dialogue V lor input into matrix 100% I 148 Execute advertisement plan for District Dialogue VI 100% 149 Conduct District Dialogue VI (Assistant Principals) 100% I 150 Gather feedback data from District Dialogue VI for merge into matrix 100% I 151 Finalize and publish District Dialogue Report, 1994-95 (delayed because of rescheduled meetings) 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical ^//////////^^^^^ Progress - Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 19r ID 152 Name Merge findings of District Dialogue Report, 1994-95, into needs assessment listing % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec  1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jut? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 153 Collect and merge issues from Goal-Setting Work Session (9-6-94) into needs assessment information at Board Retreat 100% 154 Conduct Board Work Session for data analyses studies, surveys, forums, dialogues, etc. 90% 155 Complete needs assessment listing (extended evaluations and other relevant reports) 100% I 156 Publish Draft of Needs Assessment Report and disseminate to selected persons 100% I 157 Finalize and publish Needs Assessment Report, 1994-95 100% I 158 PROGRAM INVENTORY 100% 159 Identify and revise DSeg and NonDSeg Programs 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress H Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 20ID 160 Name Review and adjust primary and secondary leaders for DSeg and NonDSeg programs % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun  161 Finalize listing/leaders of DSeg and NonDSeg Programs 100% 162 Generate a Program Inventory Report for 1994-95 100% 163 Review/revise Program Inventory following submisssion of budget to ADE 100% 164 PLANNING AND BUDGET GOALS 100% 165 CABINET/COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION 100% 166 Identify process for goal development/revision 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress m Milestone  3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Page 21 B S B B 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Summary Rolled Up ID 167 Name Determine date and site for work session % Complete 100% ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jur? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 168 Identify materials for work session 100% 169 Develop materials for work session 100% 170 Identify and notify participants for the work session 100% 171 Conduct work session 100% I 122 GOAL-SETTING WORK SESSION 100% 173 Identify process for Goal-Setting Work Session 100% I 174 Identify participants for the Goal-Setting Work Session 100% I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress H Milestone  Summary Rolled Up Q Page 22ID 175 Name Identify and collect background materials for participants % Complete 100% kef All. Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep I 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jut? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 176 Determine date and site for Goal-Setting Work Session 100% I 177 Distribute background materials to the participants 100% I 178 Conduct work session to develop review/revise mission statement, develop goals, and a list of issues that may enhance or restrict goal attainment 100% I 179 Identify materials for Board Work Session 100% I 180 Establish date and site for Work Session 100% I 181 Prepare materials for Board Work Session 100% I 182 BOARD WORK SESSION 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 23r ID 183 Name Distribute background materials to Board members % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Apr I May [ Jun Jul | Aug | Sep I 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr 3rd Quarter I May I Jun~ Jul | Aug | Sep __ Oct 184 Review of preliminary list of issues for needs assessment by Board 100% 185 Define input requirements at Board work session (for broad-based feedback) 100%  186 Review/revise tentative mission statement and goals 100% I 187 188 189 190 Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Review DSeg and NonDSeg Program Inventory Review identified proportional allocations Establish written priorities Identity additional extended program evaluation, if needed Critical Noncritical 100% 100% 100% 100% Progress B Milestone I Page 24 I I I I Summary Rolled Up QID 191 Name Identify strategies for funding shortfalls (Note: date extended to allow community input) % Complete 100% Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep I 192 Develop timeline for identification and researching of funding shortfall strategies (Note: date extended to allow community input) 100% I 193 Develop communication strategy for mission statement and goals 100% I 194 Distribute mission statement and goals 100% I 195 lae 197 198 Distribute list of priorities BOARD RETREAT WORK SESSION Determine date and site for Board Retreat Identify agenda items for Board Retreat 100% 100% 100% 100% I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress - Milestone  Page 25 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec I  Summary Rolled Up  1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Octr ID 199 Name Establish agenda for Board Retreat % Complete 100%  ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec I 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 200 Identify materials for Board Retreat 100% 201 Gather and distribute materials for Board Retreat 100% I 202 Conduct data analysis work session for Board Reatreat 100% 203 Conduct Board Retreat 100% I 204 Report outcomes of Board Retreat 100% I 205 Determine the need for an additional Board Retreat 100% 206 Conduct Board Retreat, if needed ( no additonal meeting needed) 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress M Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 26 9ID 207 Name % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Apr I May | Jun ~Jul | Aug | Sep 4t Oct 208 Develop philosophy and/or objectives for programs and/or program modifications 100%  209 Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the process 100%  210 Seek copies of source documents from experts, as needed 100% 211 Examine trends of experts in the designated fields, as needed 100% 212 Organize a committee to develop educational specifications 100% 213 214 Establish framework for curriculum offerings\nservices and support programs\npolicies for instructional delivery\nmaterials/supplies/ equipment: staffing needs and staff development needs\nbudget______________________ Relate/reference recommendations from curriculum audit needs assessment results to established mission statement, goals, and DSeg Plan 100% 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 27r ID 215 Name Review recommendations from districfwide needs assessment in order to identify additional programs or program modifications % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1$t Quarter Jul I Aug I SeF Oct | Nov | Dec \"jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 216 Develop Business Case for program and/or program modifications tor submitting to Superintendent and Board of Directors 100% 217 Review program and/or program modifications with Council (i.e., Business Cases) 100% I 218 Develop business case for incentive schools' program modifications for submitting to Supt, and Council 100% 219 Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept 100% 220 Review of Outsourcing 100% 221 SUBMIT BUSINESS CASE FOR PROGRAM AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO SUPERINTENDENT 100% 222 Submit Business Case lor program and/or program modifications to Board of Directors 100% Apr I May I Jun~ Jul | Aug | Sep 4t Oct Project. FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress Milestone Summary Rolled Up  Page 28ID 223 224 225 22fi 227 228 229 230 Name First review of Business Cases by Board Conduct second program review-revisit-reevaluate Decide to add, implement, modify, or delete programs BUDGETING Develop budget preparation training material Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels Conduct budget preparation training sessions Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 56% 100% 100% 100% 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun Progress a Milestone  3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Jan [ Feb | Mar  I I Rolled Up  2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Page 29 I Ir ID 231 Name Budget managers submit 95-96 budget requests % Complete 100% tar Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | Dec Jan [ Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 232 Begin budget development 100% 233 Prepare current year budget revisions 100% 234 Year to date revenue expenditure analysis 100% 235 Revise financial forecast for coming year 100%  236 Submit proposed budget to Board 100% I 237 Conduct Board Work Sessions on proposed budget 100%  238 Revise proposed budget, as needed 60% Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 30I 1 I ID 233 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 Name Staffing % Complete 78% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 First review of changes in course offerings by Board Approval of course offerings by Board contingent upon adoption of business case Meeting with counselors and principals to review course offerings for 1995-96 Print course selection sheets ' Counselors meet with students and complete course selection sheets Registrars tally course selections Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1995-96 Critical Noncritical 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Progress h Milestone I Rolled Up  Page 31 Ir ID 247 Name Review course tallies for secondary. Note possible cuts based on courses requested. % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 248 Make determination by subject area (secondary) of possible reductions and by projected elementary enrollment 100% 249 Verification of need, based on manpower report and by program (program managers and principals) 100% 250 Check results of above 4 items against known retirement, resignations, and intern positions 100% 251 Identify teachers for Reduction in Force (RIF), if needed 100% I 252 Notify certified personnel of Reduction in Force (RIF), If needed staff reduction 100% 253 Recall from RIF, if needed 0% 254 Notify classified personnel of staff redudlon 0% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress - Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 32T 1. I I I I I I 1 I I ID 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 Name Prepare tentative budget Board review of tentative budget Conduct Board Work Session on tentative budget Recall from RIF, It needed Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) clean-up Receipt of state-generated revenue numbers (payroll liabilities, adjusted supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perkins, M to M, JTPA, Voc Ed. Sp Ed, Chapters 1 and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC) Close-out of 1994-95 accounts: adjust physical inventory, (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, state grants, accruals Compute ending fund balance Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun Progress n Milestone H 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov [ Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun I I 8 3rd Quarter 4t Jul I Aug I Sep Oct I Page 33 Summary Rolled Up r ID 263 Name Administrative review of final budget % Complete 0% ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 0 4t Oct 264 Submit final budget to Board 0% I 265 Board review and adoption of 95-96 final budget 0% I 266 Submit 95-96 final Budget to Court/Parties 0% 267 Submit 95-96 final budget to State 0% I 2fia MONITORING AND REPORTING OF DSEG AND NONDSEG PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS (1ST QUARTER: 2ND QUARTER: 3RD QUARTER: 4TH QUARTERI 83% 269 Obtain/Examine feedback from survey on the program budget document process 100% 270 Program budget document diskettes are returned to PRE for summer housing 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone H Summary Rolled Up Q Page 34ID 271 I I I 272 273 274 275 276 221 278 Name_______________________________ PRE performs necessary diskette management functions for the summer (i.e ,archival filing, achievement erasures, copying, etc,) % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug [ Sep Oct | Nov | H 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter I May I Jui? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct Revise written program budget document instructions, as needed PRE dispenses program budget document diskettes to principals and program managers Plan for maintenance education and reorientation regarding the program budget document process, using info which was provided by the survey Conduct maintenance education workshops and reorientation sessions regarding the program budget document process for principals, clerical staff, program managers, primary and secondary leaders__________________ Disseminate written program budget document instructions to principals and program managers 1ST QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS Advise program managers and principals on program budget document, if problems in data entry 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone H Rolled Up  Page 35 Ir ID 279 Name Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding achievement reporting in the PBD's % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | Dec Jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 280 Generate diskette management flow information to relative staff in School Operations and PRE office 100% I 281 Plan training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect 100% 282 Conduct training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect 100% 283 DSeg and NonDSeg diskettes returned to PRE 100% 284 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% 285 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% 286 PRE develops relative narrative and the Controller provides financial info for the Program Budget Document Reports 100%  Apr I May I Jijn~ Jul | Aug | Sep 41 Oct Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 36ID 287 Name PRE combines all relative info for the 1st Quarter Program Budget Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug [ Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec I 288 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people 100% I 289 Revise drafts 100% I 290 Prepare for publication of Program Budget Document Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) 100% I 291 Submit revised draft of Program Budget Document Reports to the Attorney for review/revision 100% I 292 Submit 1st Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to the Court 100% I 293 Return diskettes and paper copies to managers and principals 100% I 294 2ND QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 37 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jut? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Octr ID 295 Name Advise program managers and principals on Program Budget Document, if data entry problems % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter 1 st Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Jan | Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 296 Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding 1st quarter achievement reporting in the PBD's 100% 297 Plan training sessions on the Program Budget Document and WordPerfect 100% I 29S Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for completing the PBD to principals and program managers 100% I 299 Conduct training sessions for principals, program managers, and clerical staff 100% I 300 Diskettes due back to PRE 100% I 301 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% 302 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% 1 Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress a Milestone  Rolled Up  Page 38ID 303 Name PRE revises narrative and the controller provides financial info for Program Budget Document Reports (DSeg and NonDSeg) % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb [ Mar  304 PRE combines all revised info for 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 100% I 305 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people and attorney 100% I 306 Revise drafts 100% I 307 Prepare for publication of 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 100% I 308 Submit revised draft of 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Report to the Attorney for review/revision, if revisions needed 100% I 309 Submit 2nd Quarter Program Budget Document Report to Court 100% I 310 Return diskettes and paper copies to principals and program managers 100% I 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jui? 3rd Quarter Jul [ Aug I Sep 4t Oct Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress b Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 39r ID au Name 3RD QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS % Complete 83% tar Mar 2nd Quarter Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep ~0d | Nov | Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I JurT 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 312 Advise program managers and principals on the Program Budget Document, it data entry problems 100% 313 Primary leaders provide directions and feedback to their secondary people regarding 2nd quarter achievement reporting In the PBD's 100% 314 Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for PBD completion to principals and program managers 100% I 315 Diskettes due back to PRE 100% I 316 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 100% 317 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 100% 318 PRE revises narrative and the controller provides financial info for 3rd Quarer Program Budget Document Reports 0% 3 Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress m Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 40I ID 319 Name PRE combines all revised info for 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports % Complete 0% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter 1 st Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Jan | Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter I May I Jut? a 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 320 PRE disseminates drafts of reports to selected resource people 0% I 321 322 323 324 Revise drafts Prepare for publication of 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports Submit revised draft of 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to the Attorney for review/revision, if revisions needed Submit 3rd Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Court 0% 0% 0% 0% I I I I 325 32fi I fl B I Return diskettes and paper copies to principals and program managers 4TH QUARTER PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT REPORTS Project. FY96 Dale 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical 0% 0% Progress  Milestone H Summary Rolled Up  Page 41 I r ID 327 Name Advise program managers and principals on Program Budget Document % Complete 0% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Apr I May | Jun ~ul | Aug | Sep 328 Primary leaders provide directions, fonnative and summative feedback to their secondary people regarding 3rd quarter and fiscal year achievement reporting in the PBD's 0% 329 Disseminate \"reminder\" instructions for completing the PBD to principals and program managers 0% 330 Principals submit School Operations Diskettes to Ass't Supts 0% 331 Programs' diskettes due back to PRE 0% I 332 PRE performs check-in procedures and data clean-up on diskettes 0% 333 PRE generates hard copies of diskettes 0% 334 PRE develops relative narrative and the controller provides financial info tor 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports 0% 0 Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone | Summary Rolled Up H Page 42 4t OctI ID 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 Name PRE combines all relatvie info for 4lh Quarter Program Budget Document Reports PRE disseminates drafts of reports Io selected resource people Revise drafts Prepare for publication the 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports Submit revised draft of 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Attorney for review/revision Submit 4th Quarter Program Budget Document Reports to Court PRE houses diskettes as 1995-96 school year begins PROGRAM EVALUATION Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 0% ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May [ Jun 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep Oct | Nov | 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Progress  Milestone I Summary Rolled Up  Page 43 Apr I May I JurT Jul | Aug | Sep 0 I I 0 0 I 4t OctID 343 Name Review Desegregation Plan tor potential target programs % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Apr [ May | Jun Jul | Aug | Sep Oct | Nov | Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 344 Review Non-Desegregation Plan for potential target programs 100% 345 Begin program evaluation instrument and process 100% 346 Distribute program evaluation instruments and process 100% 347 Identify extended evaluation targets, if needed 100% 348 Conduct required training sessions for use of process and evaluation criteria for designated staff, as necessary 100% 349 Develop process for council/cabinet review of program evaluations 100% 350 Program evaluations due from secondary or primary leaders 100% I Project\nFY96 Date\n4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress - Milestone  Summary BF******^^^^ Rolled Up  Page 44I ID 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 Name Notify appropriate staff to prepare Extended Program Evaluations Use extended program evaluations to identify program additions, modifications, deletions Notify appropriate staff to prepare Business Cases based on results of extended program evaluations Plan for infernal and external feedback (Set locations and schedule for internal and external feedback) PROVIDE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FEEDBACK Execute advertisement plan for district feedback, Session I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 100% 100% 86% 100% aisi 100% Progress H Milestone | Summary Rolled Up  Page 45r ID 358 Name Conduct District Feedback, Session l(Principals) % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar Apr | May [ Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 359 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback, Session II 85% 3 360 Conduct District Feedback, Session II (Teachers) 0% 361 Execute advertisement plan. Session III 85% 362 Conduct District Feedback, Session III (Ass't Principals) 0% 363 Execute advertisement plan tor district feedback. Session IV 100% 364 Conduct District Feedback, Session IV (Transportation) 100% 365 Execute advertisement plan for district feedback, Session V 100% I Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone H Summary Rolled Up  Page 46ID 366 Name 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 Conduct District Feedback Session V (Administrative and Non-Certified) Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback, Session I Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session I (Fulbright) Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback, Session II Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session II (SW Community Center) Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback. Session III Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session III (University Park Leisure Center) Execute advertisement plan for Town Hall feedback. Session IV Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical % Complete 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% ler Mar 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Apr I May | Jun ~Jul | Aug | Sep Progress Hi Milestone H Page 47 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec Summary Rolled Up  1st Quarter 2nd Quarter Jan I Feb [ Mar Apr [ May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct r ID 374 Name Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session IV (Pulaski Heights) % Complete 0% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Jur? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 375 Execute advertisement for Town Hall feedback. Session V 25% 376 Conduct Town Hall Feedback, Session V (McDermott Elementary) 0% 322 SUBMIT MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT (MANAGEMENT TOQLI TO COURT 71% 378 Submit July's monthly management report to Court 100% 379 Submit August's monthly management report to Court 100% 380 Submit September's monthly management report to Court 100% 381 Submit October's monthly management report to Court 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress h Milestone H Summary Rolled Up  Page 48I ID 382 Name Submit November's monthly management report to Court % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr 383 Submit December's monthly management report to Court 100% 384 Submit January's monthly management report to Court 100% I 385 Submit February's monthly management report to Court 100% I 386 Submit March's monthly management report to Court 100% 387 Submit April's monthly management report to Court 100% 388 Submit May's monthly management report to Court 0% 389 Submit June's monthly management report to Court 0% 3rd Quarter I May I Jun~ Jul | Aug [ Sep I Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress m Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 49 __ OctID 390 Name Submit July's monthly management report to Court % Complete 0% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb [ Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep I 391 Submit August's monthly management report to Court 0% I 392 TASKS FOR SCHOOL CLOSINGS 75% 393 ANALYZE DSEG PLAN FOR CHANGE/MODIFICATION 50% 394 TASKS FOR COURT FILINGS 50% 395 REGISTRATION AND RECRUITMENT TASKS 100% 396 SET REGISTRATION DATES 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone B Summary Rolled Up  Page 50 a 4t Oct a a a a B B aI ID 397 Name Recommend adjusted dales based on last year % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun I 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4t Oct 398 Set locations for 4-year-old programs 100%  399 400 Circulate tentative registration dates in memorandum requesting feedback from Superintendent's Council, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, and Support Administration__________________ Present dates to Superintendent's Council for review 100% 100% 401 PUBLICIZE REGISTRATION DATES TO INTERESTED GROUPS 100% 402 Include approved dates in school year calendar 100% 403 Share with Student Assignment Office staff, all district adminsitralors. Parties in the case, MRC, and ODM 100% Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress M Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 51r ID 404 Name DEFINE TARGETED AUDIENCES FOR RECRUITMENT % Complete 100% ter Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1 st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr 3rd Quarter I May I Jun~ Jul | Aug | Sep 4t Oct 405 Review the Plan as it relates to student assignment and racial balance 100% 406 Review racial balances In each school 100% 407 Collect private school directories 100% 408 Collect data on number of students not attending attendance zone school 100% 409 Begin entering private school students into the computer 100% 410 Analyze data on number of students not attending attendance zone school to develop strategies for balancing 100% Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress  Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 52IO 411 Name EBEEABE AWARENESS MATERIALS EQR REGISTRATION ter 2nd Quarter % Complete Mar Apr | May | Jun 100% 412 Revise Student Assignment Handbook for schools 100% 413 Schedule date for inservice for registrars and notify them 100% 414 Revise registration brochure 100% 415 Revise Incentive School brochures, if appropriate 100% 416 417 418 Project: FY96 Date: 4/28/95 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Jul I Aug [ Sep Oct | Nov | 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar Apr 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4t I May [ Jun Jul [ Aug | Sep Oct Prepare PSA's Prepare posters and flyer(s) Schedule presentations to realtors, churches, businesses and other interested groups for January and early February Critical Noncrilical 100% 100% 100% Progress  Milestone I Summary Rolled Up  Page 53ID 419 Name Plan and schedule ''kick-off event for registration % Complete 100% ler Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May | Jun 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep 4th Quarter Oct I Nov I Dec 1st Quarter Jan I Feb | Mar 2nd Quarter Apr I May I Juf? 3rd Quarter Jul I Aug I Sep __ Oct 420 Send reminder memorandum to all district administrators, Parties In the case, MRC, and ODM of dates for registration including who can register, and how they can register 100% Project: FY96 Dale: 4/28/95 Critical Noncritical Progress Mi Milestone  Summary Rolled Up  Page 54\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_502","title":"Incentive Schools: Oversight Committee","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-04-14/1995-04-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Oversight Committee"],"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/502"],"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\nAPR 1 8 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation monitoring OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: !( An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to \"intrigue' the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is \"unwilling or unable\" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc: Chris Heller John WalkerAPR 1 19% t^^-^i^SSSSSSSfe^ ^^WWiWxSiJ*^ Office Of Dectigregaior .vioinvynriy EY.l. LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 To\nAnn Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 received  CHAMQERS OF SUSAN WRIGHT APR 19 1995 U. S. DfSTRICT JUDGE From\nReturn  Keep or Recycle 0 Post-It\" F.Y.I. pad 7668 L Re\nSuggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to \"intrigue\" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is \"unwilling or unable\" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc\nChris Heller John WalkerJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELE.l-iONE (501) 374\u0026lt;3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKSa RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. FACSIMILE COVER TO: MS. ANN BROWN FAX #: 371-0100 I FROM: JOHN W. WALKER, ESQ. DATE\nApril 20, 1995 SUBJECT: I PAGES: NOTES\nThe information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please Immediately notify us by teisphone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.JOHN w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Bro.wway Ltitle Rock. askans.as 72206 Telephone (SOI) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER R.ALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTS AUSTIN PORTER. JR. April 20, 1995 Ms, Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown\nI am in receipt of Dr, Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995, I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr, Heller, I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. I am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which I may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The District's attitude and noncompiiance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second, Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along 'z/ith one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is THE SUPERINTENDENP. Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Littte Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Soard of Education has final autiicrity over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenay - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams' opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications, I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of his concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If t am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion in\u0026lt;3 lOiUi Page Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20. 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unegual and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am sure that Mr. Heiler and Dr. Williams wilt share them with the members of the Board. Very truly yours, hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Henry WHliaras  Mr. Chris Hefleri Arkansas Democraf^^C^azgttg ( SATURDAY, APRIL 22,1995 . iMi* D/tf\u0026gt;b NMMoaoers. Inc.. C0OW14M O UW' Newspapws. Williams against incentive school panel BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams vehemently opposes creating an independent committee to oversee the districts five incentive elementary schools In a sharply worded April 14 letter to the federal Office of De- segregation Monitoring, Williams said such an oversight committee would dilute and fragment the school boards and superintendents authority. But John Walker, an attorney for black families in the districts 12-year-old desegregation lawsuit, responded Thursday in his own stinging letter that having an independent committee is critical because the superintendent is deliberately trying to weaken and dismantle the schools. The five incentive elementary schools, located in east and central Little Rock, get extra money for programs to improve the achievement levels of black children and to attract white children to the hard-to-desegre- gate buildings. Test results from the schools have been mixed and only one of the five schools has achieved a good mix of black and white children in the past four to six years. The oversight committee issue arose at an April 10 federal court hearing on the Little Rock districts 1995-96 budget. The district budget includes a staff reduction at the incentive schools, which Walker questioned. Walker suggested to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright that an independent committee, similar to the existing Magnet Review Committee oversees the magnet that schools, might benefit the incentive schools. Wright, intrigued by the idea, asked the parties to consider'it. The two letters sent to the Monitoring Office indicate the friction that exists between the two most influential men in the Little Rock School District. Walker said in his letter that an oversight committee should be considered only a temporary measure, because the district needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. He accused Williams of placing novice principals at incentive schools. He added that the superintendent assigned one principal to an incentive school with what Walker called an obvious intent to encourage the principal to resign. His greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from the superintendent and the board, Walker said about the superintendent. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by district staff as being , models of desegregation and | achievement, Walker said. Parents see them the same ' way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock superintendent nor the Little Rock board of education has final authority over their budget and operation. In his letter, Williams said that Walker has created the impression that the incentive school principals are incompetent. which does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. He said oversight groups restrict the districts decisionmaking authority but are unaccountable to voters.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 23. 1995 To: LRSD Board of Education Members Bobby Lester James Smith Gene Wilhoit Elizabeth Boyter Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Rochelle From: n Brown Subject: Correspondence regarding incentive school oversight committee Last week 1 received a letter from Hank Williams in which he expressed his concerns about a suggestion, recently made during a hearing in Judge Wrights court, that the parties consider establishing a committee to oversee the incentive schools. Dr. Williams copied that letter to Chris Heller and John Walker. Mr. Walker then sent me a letter responding to Dr. Williams comments. Those letters became the subject of a news article in Saturdays Arkansas Democrat Gazette when Mr. Walker publicly released the correspondence. Enclosed are copies of both letters. If the parties should choose to contemplate the idea of an incentive school oversight group, you will want to consider the opinions expressed in the correspondence, and, of course, to include both Dr. Williams and Mr. Walker in any subsequent discussion. Enc. CC: Chris Heller John Walker Hank Williams ksn * APR 8 1995 Sia, .)SS!SiSS3S5\u0026amp;^ .x^SW^ Otfice oi Dessgregaiicn ,Vg LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to \"intrigue\" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is \"unwilling or unable\" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc: Chris Heller John WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 ISV APR 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring. April 20, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am in receipt of Dr. Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995. I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr. Heller. I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. I am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which 1 may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The District's attitude and noncompliance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second. Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along with one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is \"THE SUPERINTENDENT\". Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement. Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Board of Education has final authority over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenzy - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications, I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of his concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If I am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion inPage Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20. 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unequal and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances. I submit that the Incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am sure that Mr. Heller and Dr. Williams will share them with the members of the Board Very truly yours. Id ^hn W. Walker JWW:js\nc\nDr-Hnnrv Williams Mr. :h\nHollerDate: Eu F.Y.I. \"st 0^ Arm i?s Ef Barry Bill Bob 0^ Horace Margie Melissa Polly Linda Return to:Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: April 23, 1995 To: LRSD Board of Education Members Bobby Lester James Smith Gene Wilhoit Elizabeth Boyter Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Rochelle From: in Brown Subject: Correspondence regarding incentive school oversight committee Last week 1 received a letter from Hank-Williams in which he expressed his concerns about a suggestion, recently made during a hearing in Judge Wright?'court, that the parties consider establishing a committee to oversee the incentive schools. Dr. Williams copied that letter to Chris Heller and John Walker. Mr. Walker then sent me a letter responding to Dr. Williams comments. Those letters became the subject of a news article in Saturdays Arkansas Democrat Gazette when Mr. Walker publicly released the correspondence. Enclosed are copies of both letters. If the parties should choose to contemplate the idea of an incentive school oversight group, you will want to consider the opinions expressed in the correspondence, and, of course, to include both Dr. Williams and Mr. Walker in any subsequent discussion. Enc. CC: Chris Heller John Walker Hank WilliamsAPR 1 8 19% r LnTLE Rock School District Office of OesegreydiiGr: .v.uiiii-jiiriy OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to \"intrigue' the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is \"unwilling or unable\" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Aritansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc\nChris Heller John WalkerR Awaa *55/ -ji -A JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 APR 2 0 1995 Otfice of Desegregation Monitoring April 20, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: 1 am in receipt of Dr. Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995. I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr. Heller. I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. 1 am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which I may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The Districts attitude and noncompliance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second, Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along with one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is \"THE SUPERINTENDENT\". Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement. Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Board of Education has final authority over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenzy - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications. I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of hrs concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If I am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion inPage Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unequal and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances, I submit that the incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am. sure that Mr. Heller and Dr. Williams will share them with the members of the Board Very truly yours. /ohn W. Walker u \u0026lt; JWW:js co: Dr Henry WiiliarriS Mr. hris Holler\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1249","title":"Proceedings: ''Budget Hearing''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-04-10"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Budget Hearing''"],"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/1249"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1588","title":"Court filings concerning Incentive school and program management, incentive school staffing, project management tools, and Little Rock School district in contempt of court","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":["1995-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School employees","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Incentive school and program management, incentive school staffing, project management tools, and Little Rock School district in contempt of court"],"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/1588"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["120 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1021","title":"\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1994-95, First Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1994-95, First Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1021"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_955","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-04/1995-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/955"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1492","title":"\"Request for Proposal (RFP95-014), Student Transportation Services, Little Rock School District,\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995-03-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School buses","School management and organization","Transportation--Buses--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["\"Request for Proposal (RFP95-014), Student Transportation Services, Little Rock School District,\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1492"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1247","title":"Proceedings: ''Budget Hearing''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-03-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Budget Hearing''"],"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/1247"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["197 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_637","title":"'Preliminary Facilities Study: A Special Report, Superintendent of Schools,'' by Director of Facility Services","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-03-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["'Preliminary Facilities Study: A Special Report, Superintendent of Schools,'' by Director of Facility Services"],"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/637"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District\nI APR 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PRELIMINARY FACILITIES STUDY A SPECIAL REPORT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARCH 17, 1995 BY DIRECTOR OF FACILITY SERVICES PRELIMINARY FACILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 15, 1995 I I TOPIC PAGE 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. GENERAL DISCUSSION 3 III. CONCLUSION 17 IV. RECOMMENDATION 21 ENCLOSURE PAGE ZONE DESCRIPTION ENCLOSURE #1 FACILITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY ENCLOSURE #2 UPDATED FACILITY COSTS ENCLOSURE #3 OCTOBER 1, 1994 ENROLLMENT ENCLOSURE #4 LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT ENCLOSURE #5 {I 1) I 1 u f. 2) irP I II PRELIMINARY FACILITY STUDY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARCH 15, 1995 OBJECTIVES OF THE STDDY\nThis Preliminary Facility Study is to provide general information to the Superintendent and staff regarding an assessment of our facilities. It is intended to be used to determine a general impact on the community of school utilization. The study is a forerunner to the in depth Facility Study to be completed over the next six (6) months. and is intended, solely, to provide preliminary information for which general trends, assumptions and directions may be derived. The study approaches the facts primarily from a planning standpoint and looks at two (2) general areas: Facilities (their age, condition and operational costs)\nand. Student and Population Demographics of the City. The assessments and recommendations drawn from these two (2) areas provide generalizations within the study perimeters. METHODOLOGY\nThe methodology of this Preliminary Study is essentially to draw together raw data concerning facilities and demographics, use a generic measure for identifying the specific study areas, display these in a matrix, and in an overall fashion, evaluate the facilities. The demographic data was drawn on two (2) levels: 1) Student Populations and Capacities over the last seven (7) years\nkindergarten enrollment trends over the last five (5) years\nand, 2) General Demographic Trends within the City of Little Rock. A) Demographics\nIn studying the demographics, the City was divided into fourteen (14) general areas. These general areas, as identified on Enclosure #1, are neighborhood groupings which are drawn along predominant geographic features dividing neighborhoods and try to encompass, or align, as closely with census tracts and attendance zones as possible. The purpose for dividing the City into these thirteen (13) sections was primarily so that a smaller number of demographic areas and groupings of schools could be dealt with. Since there is no exact correlation between attendance zones for our schools and zone blocks for census purposes, the neighborhood delineation is considered a reasonable demarkation line. General analysis of demographic data will be based on the students attending the schools within these fourteen (14) zones and the demographics of the census blocks within the same zones. It should be pointed out that the basis of this philosophy is simply that all the children in this identifiable area are school children within the 1i system and are considered only in relationship to the closest school and not the school they attend. This appears to discount the issue of bussing, but for the limited purposes of this study, allows us to look at school-age children in relation to demographics and in relation to the closest school they could possibly attend were they assigned to an area school. B) Facilities\nFacilities were analyzed by looking at eighteen (18) separate areas and grouping those areas (5) general as shown on the Matrix 2). The areas of into five Facilities categories (Enclosure #2) . consideration within the general titles are as follows: 1) Site i Considers size of facility and acreage, its location, and aannaallyyssiiss of the play area, the parking and drives. 2) II II II Renovation: Considers maintenance and repair work in four (4) general areas: (3) Roofing. Exterior Building (1) HVAC\n(2) Flooring\nConstruction\nand, (4) II 3) Oporades\nsupport An upgrade is considered \"new work\" to academic programs and consists of an evaluation of the administrative areas, classrooms and trailers. (See Enclosure #3). lighting. and restroom facilities 4) General Support\nConsists of an evaluation of the fire alarm system, the energy management system, the security, to include building integrity and Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements, and cafeteria and kitchen. 5) Operational Costs\nOperational costs considers all elementary schools as being equal and weighs them against the average student cost, regardless of the school pprrooggrraamm.. Numbers above five (5) indicate operational average. costs below District-wide DCE/rlh/facstu 2 BS GENERAL DISCUSSION: l ZONE A\nZone A is in the northwest corner of the City of Little Rock and includes Terry and Fulbright Elementary Schools. An analysis of Fulbright Elementary School shows that it rides above the District-wide average. in siting and renovation costs Its high scores indicate that few renovations are required and adequate site facilities are available. Upgrading costs are also high indicating that no new additions need to be made to the school at this time. Its general support figures are also slightly above average with only the need for an energy management system bringing the score down. Its total evaluation shows that it ranks above the average schools in the District. Terry Elementary School is comparable to Fulbright in that there is sufficient property available for expansion, and it is one of the most cost-efficient schools per capita to operate in the District. capacity of Zone A is 1,055 students. The total The enrollment in '94-'95 was 1,110 with the difference being compensated for by trailers at both Fulbright and Terry Elementary Schools. The demographic analysis indicates that this area of population expanded an average of sixty-two percent (62%) between 1980 and 1990. This is also supported by the growth in kindergarten-eligible children between 1988 and 1994 . Growth in this area has been primarily singlefamily dwellings with some apartments. It can reasonably be expected that growth in this area will continue over the next ten (10) years. Although bordered on the north by the physical restriction of the Arkansas River, further expansion west along the main corridor of Highway 10 will allow for further development, both residential and commercial. This is an area that will warrant close observation over the next couple of years. At present, we have maxed out the capacity of- the two (2) elementary schools in this area, and given the anticipated growth based on the I record of growth between 1980 and 1990, we can reasonably expect that additions may have to be made to Terry Elementary School and Fulbright Elementary School, or a 111 new school constructed to meet the growing demands of this part of the city. ZONE B\nThis zone includes Jefferson, Williams Magnet Elementary Schools, slightly east of Zone A. Brady, McDermott and and is located (  Jefferson Elementary School would be considered an 3 I average elementary school with an overall evaluation of five (5), its weakest areas being the upgrade costs for the facilities needed to enhance its academic programs. Its operational are below the District-wide costs and there is the average, sufficient property should expansion be needed at this school. an Brady Elementary School is rated slightly above average. Its upgrading costs to expand much needed academic is its lowest score. There is sufficient property there to also expand this school if it were necessary. areas McDermott Elementary School is considered to be a better- than-average school. Its low operating costs make this a very efficient facility to run. There is property for additional expansion, but this may be done at the of much-needed playground and parking space. expense Williams Elementary School is one of the least efficient to operate on a per capita basis. This is due, in large part, to the amount of money spent in the magnet program to support these children. Its average score in renovation and upgrades are due to a backlog of maintenance and repair that are necessary at this school. There is sufficient space for expanding this school should it be justified. Throughoutthe period of 1980-1990, this part of Little Rock exhibited a slight decrease in population of About one percent (1%). The numbers of eligible kindergarten children remain relatively constant from 1988 to 1994 with a sharp decrease between 1991 and 1994. The area is an older section of town which is relatively stable, and a^transient population out does not predominate in this The zone has the capacity to seat 1,993 children, and in 1994-1995, 1,878 were enrolled. This indicates that there is some seating available in this area. area. 1,878 were enrolled. ZONE C\nZone C is in the north central part of Little Rock and includes Forest Park, Fair Park, Woodruff and Pulaski Heights Elementary Schools. Forest Park Elementary School, because of its size and enrollment, is one of the cheapest operational schools in the District. its average scores in renovation and upgrade are due to the backlog of maintenance and its low score in site is because it is land-locked, and there is capability to expand this facility. no Its overall evaluation makes it slightly above the average. Fair Park Elementary School is an average school to operate, but ranks below average because of the extremely 4IT r ( low ratings in its site, general support. its upgrade costs, and its Park Analysis in Enclosure #3. I direct your attention to the Fair Fair Park has serious handicaps due to the backlog of maintenance and the fact that the school cannot be expanded beyond its present Trailers at this site are allowing the District to meet the minimum educational needs at this time.  The school is an average school as far as efficiency goes, but there are three (3) areas that rank capabilities. below average, not including its overall ranking. Woodruff Elementary School is in the southern part of Zone C. It is considered an average school with a slightly above average operating cost. Its low ranking in siting is because the facility is land-locked and expansion beyond its present bounds is impossible without further acquisition of property. It is considered an average school as far as renovation and upgrade concerned. However, there are serious areas that should be attended to (see Enclosure #4). is The small classroom size at Woodruff makes this school a serious candidate for close scrutiny in future years. ' ilLl, maintain the statewide average class size due to small classrooms makes this school over-staffed in relation to students as compared to other schools. The inability to Pulaski Heights Elementary School, close to the central portion of Zone 3, is an older school, but is extremely cost efficient to operate. Its overall ranking is above average with only renovation costs being below average, and this is due to the backlog of maintenance and repair. Pulaski Heights, too, is land-locked, and even though the site is considered average, there is little to no room to expand beyond the present trailers that are located there. The lack of parking space and trafficability hamper this school, and it has probably been maxed out at its current size. During the period of 1980 to 1990, this area exhibited a slight decrease-in population of approximately one point five percent (1.5%). This is in slight contrast to the kindergarten-age children between 1988 and This could indicate a slight rise in births as opposed to an influx of people. A change in percent is probably attributed to older home-dwellers selling their property and moving out, and young home-dwellers having more children. 1994. Zone C is a relatively stable area in Little Rock, there is little room for expansion. as There are no large nor parks that can be redeveloped. parks that are available vacant lots. The are necessary green areas to 5 AZONE D\nsupport residential communities. Zone D is the inner core, intercity area of Little Rock. It includes Mitchell, Rightsell, M.L. King, Gibbs Magnet, Rockefeller and Washington Elementary Schools. It is, essentially, that area bounded on the east by 1-630, on the south by the city limits, on the west by the railroad tracks, and on the north by the Arkansas River, includes the large office and commercial area of downtown It is, It Little Rock. Because it is the core of the city, it has the oldest facilities. and those requiring the most upkeep, addition to being the smallest and most inefficient to run. in Mitchell Elementary School is an extremely small, old school. The District has put a vast amount of money into this school to maintain it as called for under the Desegregation Plan. Overall, this school is one of the most costly to operate in the District with its operating costs approximately thirty-four percent (34%) above the District-wide average. This, in part, is due to the funding necessary to support incentive schools. However, all of these schools, for the purpose of this study, are treated equally.  Its low scores in site, upgrading and general support are due to its location and the This, tremendous backlog of maintenance and repair, and diw things necessary to bring it up to the standards of and those Year 2000 school. a Its overall rating is below the District-wide average. Mitchell Elementary School's most noted handicap is its inability to expand, or its adaptation into a modern school. Although it can its inability to expand. Although it accommodate the essential programs at this time, __ _ difficult to determine, with the change in the academic programs, whether or not the school will be able to it is maintain its viability as a school building, small, expensive to operate, and it lacks expansion capability. as It is and it limited Rightsell Elementary School, built at approximately the same time, is also a very inefficient school to operate. Its operating costs, too, are extremely high, being over thirty percent _ (30%) of the District average, attributable to incentive school costs. in Its low scores site and upgrading are due to the fact that this school, too, is land-locked and has limited space for expansion, and limited space to meet its current needs. too. The upgrade costs consists of those costs to bring this school in line with the Twentieth (20th) Century, overall ranking of below average is an accumulation of the aforementioned. Rightsell Elementary School, like Mitchell,is a beautiful old building, but has probably outlived its usefulness as an elementary school. Its It most 6I L certainly has viability and consideration for commercial or administrative capability, but due to perceived or unknown changes in academic programs, its viability as an elementary school is very questionable. M.L. King Elementary School, slightly difficult to analyze. completed in 1993, is It is considered to be an average operating cost which is in excellent physical condition. It, virtually, has no backlog of maintenance and repair, and its overall rating is one of the highest in the District.  '  ' at this capacity. time, it It has capability for expansion, and, is running below its authorized Gibbs Elementary School, inefficient standpoint. schools to also, run is from one an of the most operational again, because of the cost of the magnet Its high scores in upgrading and site indicate that it has the capability of expansion and is fairly well maintained. - -  - program. It lacks for nothing except media space, and its backlog of maintenance and repair is as indicated in Enclosure #3. It has an overall rating right at the District-wide average. Rockefeller Elementary School is another extremely costly school to operate. The amount of money to support this program makes the per capita charge extremely high, facility, itself, is in relatively good shape. __ ____ for nothing to meet its academic needs, and its backlog of maintenance and repair centers around the need for a The It Jacks new heating/ventilation system. adequate with possibilities for expansion, overall rating is above the School District Its site is considered and its average. Washington Elementary School is efficient school a to operate approximately five percent with relatively cost- its (5%) below the costs being District average. Its high scores in site renovation and upgrade costs indicate that the school lacks for nothing to meet its academic ndeds. It is maintained very well, and there sufficient grounds to conduct the present academic program. Its overall score is one of the higher is in the District. Zone D has exhibited a population approximately twenty-three point two percent decrease of between 1980 ad 1990. (23.2%) This is due, in large part, to a moving population, probably, within the City of Little Rock. It is, generally, an older area, with an older. average age population, and a decreasing birth rate. This would be indicated by the kindergarten availability figures between 1988 and 1994 showing a decrease in 7kindergarten-aged children which, in this case, I believe is commensurate with the decrease in population in that families of childbearing age are relocating out of this area. This trend has continued for at least ten (10) years, and unless something is done on the part of the City, or by private industries. to stabilize population, this is likely to occur in the future. the As families move out, close scrutiny must be paid to the schools in this area. At the present time, we have the capacity to seat 2,942 children, and in 1994-1995, our enrollment was 2,435, or a difference of over five ZONE E\nhundred (500) students. extremely close scrutiny. This is an area that requires and serious consideration should be made at this time to realign these schools due to the perceived decrease in population and lessening of school-aged children. Zone E is an area located to the east of the inter city immediately east of 1-630. Magnet Elementary Schools. It includes Booker and Carver Booker Magnet Elementary School, because of its magnet status, is also extremely costly to operate. Its overall evaluation is at the District-wide average, and this is predominantly because the school is in relatively good shape, but has some deficiencies in the general support area, predominantly a weakness in the energy management and fire alarm systems. Carver Magnet Elementary School is also very costly to operate. condition. This school is considered to be in excellent Except for minor upgrades necessary to enhance the media center, all other areas are far above the District-wide evaluation. average to include its overall During 1980 to 1990, this area exhibited a sixteen point two percent (16.2%) decrease in population. The trend has been toward an out migration as children complete school and a lack of expansion because of the airport and industrial facilities on the east and south part of this zone. 1,269 children. The area has the capacity of seating The 1994-1995 enrollment was 1,161 for a difference of over one hundred (100) seats. The slight decrease in population is mirrored by the decrease in available kindergarten children between 1988 and 1994. Although east Little Rock, to include Zone F discussed below. together have a great potential for further development. This has not been the case in the last ten (10) years. The industrial development and expansion of the airport has had a tendency to have a negative effect on residential movement within this area except to leave the area. The lack of an area school in Zone E complimented by the small shadows of Carver is probably 8   sufficient to meet our current needs. sutticient However, this area also requires close scrutiny over the next couple of years. ZONE F\nZone F is the far eastern part of the city between the southern city limits and the Arkansas River and bordered on the west by the airport.  There is one elementary school in this area, Badgett Elementary School.  Badgett Elementary School has an extremely high operating cost for the number of students. In addition, serious upgrades are needed to bring this school in line with Twentieth {20th) Century standards. Its average ranking in renovation indicates that it has serious maintenance li M and repair problems, as do other schools in the District. Its general support and site evaluations are slightly above the average, with the most detrimental being the lack of a modern fire alarm system, and its low rating in cafeteria capabilities. Its overall evaluation of four (4) ranks with a couple of other schools as being the lowest in the District. n M n II During the period of 1980 to 1990, this portion of Little Rock exhibited the greatest decrease in population, that being thirty-eight percent (38%). Although this was predicted to be a growth area in the 1980 census, the lack of home-sites, its remoteness from the inner city area, its lack of city services such as bussing, and the expansion of the airport have led to a general decrease in residential home-sites around Badgett Elementary The zone has a seating capacity of 257, and in 1994, 177 children were enrolled. This is compared to the kindergarten-aged children identified between 1988 School. and 1994. II II Although there is a slight increase, there is a serious decrease between 1990 and 1994, indicating that the trend in the last five (5) years has been an out migration, or a serious lowering of the birth rate due to the increasing age of remaining inhabitants. My preliminary analysis as a planner is that Zone F will continue to become more industrialized in the future. inhabitants. This form of economy has gotten a foot-hold in the south and east part of Zone E and has extended through Zone F, culminating with the Little Rock Port which was constructed on the eastern area of Zone F. indicate a general trend to expand this predominantly commercial property. This would area into ( The Little Rock School District would be well wise to watch this area. A small, inefficiently run school in an area with sharp decreasing population and very little hope for a change in demographic settlement patterns would necessitate that this school be considered for 9a closure.  ZONE G\na Zone G is on the far western side of the City of Little Rock and includes only Romine Elementary School. It is, essentially,  an area west of John Barrow Road to the city limits. Romine Elementary School is extremely costly to operate and is one of the least cost-efficient schools of It is, a all the District's area schools. Its average ratings in renovation and upgrade are as a result of monies put into that school to meet the interdistrict concept over the last couple of years. Yet, it was not sufficient to raise it above the District-wide a average. Zone G has a seating capacity of 487 students, and the a '94-'95 enrollment was 323, capacity. indicating ample seating a   The most promising note of this area is the population growth between 1980 and 1990 of approximately twenty percent 20%) . This is also reflected by the availability of kindergarten students which, after taking a sharp decrease in 1989, has risen above its 1988 level. This, as compared to a steady decreasing enrollment from 1988 to 1994, would indicate that persons moving into this area are not attending Romine Elementary School, but rather are going to other LRSD schools, or private schools. (20%).   Although there are no significant shortfalls at Romine which would necessitate serious consideration for either closure or expansion of this school, close monitoring is necessary to insure that this school is attracting its fair share of inhabitants. \"  school. Being an interdistrict part of the decrease in enrollment must be  attributed not so much to the lack of area students going to this school, but a lack of interdistrict students being transferred in. but a lack of interdistrict students ZONE H\n Zone H is a small area immediately to the east of Barrow Road. It includes Wilson and Bale Elementary Schools. Wilson Elementary School is right at the District-wide Road. Its low ranking and general support is due primarily to its lack of an energy monitoring system and its low rating in security, ADA and cafeteria average. low capabilities. security. and as far as It is right at the District-wide average operational cost is concerned, and is considered about average as ...  ' maintenance and its need for expanded facilities. far as its backlog of Bale Elementary School is above the District's operating costs at approximately eight percent (8%). rating of average is primarily because the Its overall site is 10enhanced because of its location and work done over the last couple of years, its decrease in backlog of maintenance, and its average ratings in general support. The site has the capability for expansion and can be enhanced quite easily. Between 1980 and 1990, this area exhibited a decrease in population of approximately two point six percent (2.6%). This is not reflected in the numbers of kindergarten children during this period of time of 1988 to 1994. Although there was a decrease in 1990, there was a sharp increase in 1991, and it has remained at least constant over the last couple of years. The area itself lacks the ability to expand because of green areas immediately to the west. The change in population is probably due to an out migration of elderly inhabitants not completely countered by relocations into the area of people of childbearing age. The zone has the capacity to seat 795 students, and in '94-'95, had an enrollment of 654. This means there appears to be some capacity available in these schools. Both of the schools have exhibited a I decline in enrollment over the last five (5) to six (6) years to their present enrollment figures. Because of I the relative stability of this area, and the rationale between out-migration of older people, these schools can expect to either level off or have slightly decreasing populations in the next couple of years. ! ZONE I\nZone I is an area to the west of the inner city and includes Franklin, Garland and the recently removed Stephens Elementary School. Franklin Elementary School is one of the least cost- efficient schools to run, primarily due to the monies spent to support the incentive program. ratings in renovation indicate that there is a backlog of maintenance and repair of significant items, and its Its average slightly above average ratings in siting and upgrading are due to work necessary in those areas to support the academic program. Overall, it ranks right at the District average. Garland Elementary School is one of the most costly schools in the District to operate, due largely, in part, to its decreasing numbers and high per capita cost to support the incentive school considered extremely poor and program. is Its commented site on is in Enclosure #3, as is the renovation and upgrading costs. Its overall ranking is below the District average. Zone I, between 1980 and 1990, showed a decrease in population of approximately eighteen percent (18%). The District has a seating capacity, without Stephens Elementary 11School, of 732, and in 1994-1995, enrolled 725 students. We must remember in considering Zone I that Stephens Elementary School Children have been absorbed in surrounding schools, primarily Franklin and Garland. Some children have been moved to other areas. This number is available from Student Assignments. Generally speaking, this area is showing a sharp decrease in population, and this is mirrored by the decrease in availability of kindergarten-aged children between 1988 and 1994. When Stephens was removed and the District had the capability to absorb the other children in its existing schools, it showed that available seating is prevalent to allow the District to make closures a consideration in trying to balance student populations to demographic needs. Zone I is immediately adjacent to Zone D discussed previously. A comparison should be made in demographics between Zone I and Zone D which, together, would show a decrease in population. This is serious and should warrant the District to re-look at its attendance zones in this area and its need for the number of schools to meet the future growth, or lack thereof, in the central core area. II ZONE J: Zone J is in the north part of southwest Little Rock. It includes Meadowcliff, Western Hills and Dodd Elementary Schools. II Meadowcliff Elementary School is a very cost-efficient school to operate. Enhancements this last year in the heating / air conditioning system have lowered our bill II substantially. Its overall ranking of above average is due, primarily, to its low operating costs, its expansive site and its decrease in the backlog of maintenance and repair. II Although there are some items identified in Enclosure #3 as being necessary to support the academic program, it average facility. is generally considered to be an above fl Western Hills Elementary School is also considered above average, and is less costly to operate. All the areas viewed rank above the District-wide average due, largely in part, to major renovations completed in 1991. Dodd Elementary School, in far west Little Rock, is one of the least costly schools in the District to operate. Its total evaluation of seven (7) ranks the highest, and that's due, in large part, to the positive ratings in the general support areas and its low operating costs. There is room on the site to expand, and only minor renovations and upgrades are necessary to keep the school in line 12I I with current academic needs. This zone, between 1980 and 1990, showed a decrease of approximately ten percent (10%) in population. tracks very closely to the stabilized population between This 1988 and 1994. Although there were slight peaks in the number of kindergarten-aged children, it has remained. essentially, the same. The zone has the capacity to seat 1,121 children, and the 1994-1995 enrollment was 1,026. The slight decrease in population is primarily because of the lack of development in this area as most of the effort has been in west Little Rock, north of this zone. It is anticipated that in the out years, development into Pulaski County, along the 1-430 corridor, could cause a substantial in the numbers of school-aged children and families. All of these schools possess the capability to be expanded to some degree, and observation increase M of population trends is warranted adequate seating in the out years. so as to insure ZONE K\nII Zone K is in the northeast corner of southwest Little Rock. It includes Wakefield and Geyer Springs Elementary Schools. II Wakefield Elementary School is one of the more cost- efficient schools to operate\nhowever. its overall II evaluation and District average is due to the need to upgrade this school to meet academic standards and its relatively low scores in its general support areas (primarily, in its lack of an energy management system and its low scores in * II adaptability). fire alarm system and ADA II Geyer Springs Elementary higher in the District. School ranks as one of the the It is slightly below District-wide average to operate and has an extremely high score in its ability to meet the academic standards II because of its upgrades in 1992. Its low backlog of maintenance and repair and its attractive site make this one of the better schools in the District. Zone K exhibited a decrease of six point five percent (6.5%) in its population between 1980 and 1990. This is countered by a sharp increase between 1988 and 1994 of kindergarten-aged children. This would indicate a migration out of elderly families countered by a birth rate of families of child-bearing age. The zone has the M capacity to seat 820 students, and in 1993-1994, had an enrollment of 713. Even though each school has shown a decrease in population over the last couple of years. a M change could be expected if the numbers of kindergarten children rise as they have in the last couple of years. 13 ZONE L\nZone L is in the far, southwest corner of Little Rock. It includes only Otter Creek Elementary School. It is that area to the east and north of 1-630 and 1-430. ZONE M\nOtter Creek Elementary School is one of the least costly schools to operate in the District. This fact, coupled with its low backlog of maintenance and repair. its attractive site and its lack of need to support its educational program rank this schools in the District. as one of the higher Zone L had a population increase of approximately eleven point six percent (11.6%) between 1980 and 1990. kindergarten-aged children have constant throughout this period of time. The remained relatively The school has enjoyed a relatively stable enrollment over the last couple of years and is slightly above its capacity. Attractive home-sites and neighborhood communities in this area make this a potentially expansive area in the future\nhowever, it is severely limited in that it is up against the city limits and restricted by the interstate. Possible commercial and industrial development along the interstate will probably restrict residential development in this area, hence, I would estimate that the population will remain relatively constant over the next couple of years. Zone M is the largest land area and comprises most of southwest Little Rock. It includes Mabelvale, Chicot, Watson and Cloverdale Elementary Schools. II Mabelvale Elementary School is slightly below the District-wide average to operate, hence its above average score. Its ability to expand, its lower than average II backlog of maintenance and repair, and lack of need of work to meet its academic program make this school slightly above the District average. II Chicot Elementary School was evaluated as if the building was completed based on the current design. It is anticipated that Chicot would be about an average operating cost because of the new mechanical systems, but there would be increases in the scores dealing with its site, its renovations, and upgrades. consider this to be an above average school. Hence, we would   n n n  Watson Elementary School is also an above average school. Its slightly below average operating costs, coupled with its above average evaluation of its site, renovations and upgrades counter the deficiencies in its general support areas which, predominantly, are the lack of an energy 14I management system and a low score in ADA adaptability. Cloverdale Elementary School, with its enhancements in 1992, make this one of the more cost-efficient schools to operate. average Its overall evaluation is above the District and this is due, largely in part, to its I enhancements in the general support area, its expansive site and its low backlog of maintenance and repair and need for additional academic areas. I Between 1980 and 1990, Zone M exhibited a decrease in population of approximately eight point seven percent (8.7%) . This is not reflected in its I kindergarten-aged children between 1988 and 1994. increase of This I could be due, largely in part, to the large number of single-family dwellings and apartments in this area which give lead to the settlement of inter-district movement in that single-parent families with small children could be relocating into this area and the larger, more stabilized families are moving out. This zone has the capacity to seat 2,057 students, and in 1994-1995, had an enrollment of 1,796, which leaves ample room for expansion. these schools has exhibited a slight decrease Each of in population over the last couple of years. This is commensurate with elementary school children being at a higher number than the numbers of new kindergarten students. I This area is quite expansive and services a large square mile area. Consideration of evaluating these schools in conjunction with the schools identified in Zone N is plausible because of population in southwest Little Rock. the low-density ZONE N\nZone N is the eastern portion of southwest Little Rock. It includes only Baseline Elementary School. Baseline Elementary School is below the District-wide average in as far I overall above average. as operating costs and is ranked Its average site conditions are countered by its. lack of need for maintenance and repair, and its lack of need for additional areas to meet its academic programs. During the period 1980 to 1990, Zone N exhibited a population decrease of approximately ten point two percent (10.2%) . This, also. is countered by the increase in kindergarten-aged children between 1988 and 1994 . Generally, as was the case with Zone M, southwest Little Rock has exhibited an increase of families with small children. The general decrease in population over the last ten (10) years is not likely to be reflected in the 1990 to 2000 census if the number of kindergarten- aged children is an indicator of population growth. The 15I I zone has a seating capacity of 3 90, and its enrollment in 1994-1995 was 326. The school has been showing a  decrease in enrollment over the last five (5) to six (6) years. This may indicate an increase in availability of  kindergarten children, but they are not attending this school. I I I I I  I 16 IGENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS    I 1. CONCLUSIONS\nAn analysis of the limited demographic data and interpretation of kindergarten enrollment and general trends indicate that the City of Little Rock is not exhibiting movement patterns unlike the current nationwide trends. As was stated in the 1988 Facility Study demographic data indicates that the population of core areas of many cities are declining, and residents are moving to the outskirts of the city and into suburban areas. Despite inmigration, the total enrollment in most given areas of the inner cities has declined. II Current nationwide are at work\". In Little Rock, similar factors Demographic data completed in 1990 indicates that the perceptions in the 1988 study were correct, but not The perceived movement and settlement in the west entirely. part of the city has been due, both to the population shift and the subsequent annexation of property by the City of Little Rock. ' - - The decline of the inner city area and the movement of persons of child-bearing age out of this area was also foreseen in 1988 and verified with the census completed in 1990. The assumption of further development in east Little Rock predicted in the 1988 study has not come about as of yet. Further industrial development has probably been the factor in negating residential increases in this area. There is insufficient data to explain the decrease in population in southwest Little Rock. It could possibly be that southwest Little Rock is becoming, perhaps blacker in its population density, and that there is an out-migration of whites, but this is only an assumption. Sufficient data is not available to draw this conclusion. Regardless of the reasons, the School District must recognize that there is a changing face to the demographics of the City of Little Rock and that the simple movement of populations is causing a polarization at both the social and socio-economic levels. I would question whether or not the District's responsibility is to overly react to that polarization, but As we rather react to the impact on the educational process. strive to meet our desegregation goals, it sometimes causes us to look past our educational requirements as being more important than trying to desegregate each of our facilities.  We should also recognize that population movement will not only be reflected in the schools, but will also be reflected in the communities. Businesses and churches are examples of enterprises that will become polarized and reflect their neighborhood. This, neighborhood concept. in itself. is the foundation of the If the District appears to be reacting counter to the neighborhood concept by offering educational 17  opportunities in old neighborhoods, resisted by all levels of the population, security^ to stay at home, in the community, in familiar surroundings with friends, will predominate and will negate voluntarily moving just because seats are available in schools. they are going to be seats The sense of group of schools together in If the District antagonizes this process by moving children for desegregation purposes, it creates a false impression of where the vacancies are within the District. Subsequently, the method of analyzing a \u0026lt;_ _ __L__1_ relation_to the surrounding community is a viable approach to rmining required capacities and gives more credit to the demographic data.  I In conclusion, I believe it is possible for the District to meet its goals and objectives of being the primary educator for the city and be able to continually strive towards a desegregated educational atmosphere as long as it determines the aspects of the society that it can control. The School District will not necessarily be an attractor for people to move into certain areas as much as it will be a detractor if the schools are associated with unsafe or declining communities. or to The School The issue of bussing is difficult to factor in when only doing Moving students, because they elect to go to a school, e., a magnet or incentive, or interdistrict, for the purpose of trying to racially balance a school add to the complexity of where there is existing space within the District. If children in a given zone are clustered in the schools in that zone, the issue of bussing would have to be re-looked only in light of general racial balance as it would be interpreted that children attending schools closer to home would be their preference. a preliminary report. i.e., If children a a I When we factor in the issue of financial stability, operating costs and general age and condition of the facilities, we must group together our zones so that a more equitable spread of students and resources can be achieved. For that purpose, recommendations are based on a larger grouping of zones. The 1988 Facility Study indicated ----------------------------------------------------------------J J, in part, that the District should weigh the prudence of spending large sums of money to conse^e buildings with limited enrollment and less adequate facilities as against providing larger schools with superior facilities that can be staffed so there is room to work and the extensive specialized staff would be fully utilized, statement holds true today even more so because of the shifting populations and the additional age of the buildings. That The opportunity exists within the District to consolidate 18 schools in a much more efficient manner of utilization. to possibly construct new schools to give decaying areas better educational facilities, and to consider expanding schools to  meet the demographic needs. It is this tie-in that would join our decreasing enrollments, decaying facilities with our future facility needs. This Preliminary Study did not include an indepth analysis of the District's administrative facilities. -   The District has  numerous special-purpose facilities to house its Facilities Services Directorate, Directorate of Procurement and Materials Management Services, Safety and Security Department, Food Services Department, and Transportation Department.  remainder of the District's administrative functions performed at the Board of Education building. The are its Annex, Student Assignments Office, and the Instructional Resource Center. I Although not an administrative facility, an analysis was not made of the Adult Education Facility or Alternative Learning Center. with regard to the special-purpose administrative areas, such as Facilities Services and Transportation, require enhancements to meet their operational needs. current they may well and future With regard to the administrative space, a more indepth utilization survey should be made of both the administration building and the annex. A survey done in early 1980 indicated that the annex was no longer needed, and the School Board elected to excess this property. At the present time, is only occupied at approximately seventy-five percent (75%). The building, located in the close proximity to the Board of Education Building, appears to be a renovated it warehouse with no windows and limits on its expansion, addition, there is no off-street parking. In The administrative building appears to be able to meet the current needs of exception of the Board Room. the existing staff. with the possible The rise and increase over the last couple of years in the Little Rock School District educational matters-.has many times caused a serious overcrowding in the Board Room. Perhaps an examination could be made as to whether or not this portion of the building could be expanded. The Little Rock School District currently leases a building at the corner of 6th and Ringo for the Instructional Resource Center. This organization was previously housed in the Lee Elementary School which has since been closed and excessed by The principal reason for relocating the the District. organization was to put them in a safer, more viable facility. However, the cost to run the IRC exceeds $160,000 in facility costs alone. consideration should be given to Serious relocating the IRC and terminating this lease if further 19initiatives are taken to close schools as indicated in the following Recommendation Section. Many of the Little Rock School District schools which are being recommended for closing could possibly be adapted to house the Instructional Resource Center. This would be done at a savings to the District of at least the lease cost. 20L ( 2 . RECOMMENDATIONS\nIn analyzing Zones I and D together, we find a very serious problem in that we have the worst combination of decreasing enrollment and decaying facilities. schools are located in this section of town, Our oldest and where our population decrease is the highest. Additionally, these areas are predominantly black. If we capitalize on the decreasing enrollment by consolidating schools which are under-utilized. or by replacing worn-out facilities with new modern facilities, we have an attempt at accomplishing the best of both worlds in that we would be providing modern, up-to-date facilities with better educational predominantly minority areas. programs in our We would also be decreasing our overall operating costs by building better-utilized, energyefficient facilities. As such, assessing I would recommend that the District consider re- its attendance zones around the old Stephens Elementary School, such that zones would be consolidated to include the children of Stephens, Elementary Schools into a new facility. Garland, and Mitchell Neither Mitchell nor Garland possess the capabilities to be expanded to re-seat the displaced Stephens children. As indicated in the individual sheets, the sites are not adequate and the facilities require far too much work to be expanded. The opportunity exists to build a new, modern, up-to-date school,with a capacity of as high as 700 (if this meets the enrollment zone predictions). We would then, upon completion of this school and relocating the students, dispose of the Garland and Mitchell properties. My further recommendation would be to attempt to sell the Mitchell property as it most assuredly could be used, or renovated into apartment housing or office space, and that Garland be sold in the same manner. I would further recommend that consideration be given to closing Rightsell Elementary School and that children in this area, if it can be agreed upon by the parties, be assigned to the new Martin Luther King Elementary School or possibly Rockefeller Elementary School. M.L. King, although an interdistrict school, has not been completely utilized. If there IS not a serious increase in the number of inter-district white children into the school within the very near future, the school will be continued to be operated at approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of its capacity. This would appear to be a contradiction to the desegregation goals in that we would be deliberately creating a predominantly black school. But the issue here deals with the limited success of King as an inter-district school and the needs of the children in the surrounding area. If King will not accommodate all of the children in the Rightsell attendance zone, then consideration should be given to expanding Rockefeller Elementary School to make the additional accommodations. I 21In examining Zones E and F, we find a predominantly commercial area that has not developed as per the expectations and predictions of the mid '8O's. The one area school in this area, Badgett Elementary School, is very much under-utilized and extremely cost-inefficient to operate. If the area does not show any promises of further residential development, I would recommend that this school be considered for closure and that an examination be made of both Booker and Carver Elementary Schools to determine if the expansion of a shadowzone to Carver, and the initiation of a shadow-zone to Booker would not accommodate the children in this location. Again, this is capitalizing on the present capacity rates of ninety- six percent (96%) and eighty-seven percent (87%) respectively. The final determination as to the relocation of these children would have to be made after closer scrutiny was done of the attendance patterns to these schools and their success as magnet schools. If this is not possible, then an analysis must be made as to which schools, or school, to assign the Badgett children. possible. Zones A, G \u0026amp; L are the zones that possess the greatest possibility for increased enrollment in the District, as these are the sections of Little Rock that have exhibited the greatest population growth. This area must be closely watched over the next couple of years. Within each zone. Zones A and L are fast approaching maximum capacity, or exceeding, it, at this time. Only Zone G, which includes Romine Elementary were School, has additional capacity. Before expansions considered to Fulbright and Terry, I think a concerted effort must be made to maximize Romine Elementary School. is to remain an inter-district school, If Romine district attraction is not strong in this area. and if the interthen this should be considered the alternative location for expansive This will hinge greatly on the ability of Romine's success as an inter-district school. seating in west Little Rock. Should Romine become more successful in the future, then the District must seriously consider additions to Fulbright and Terry, and eventually we must examine the possibility of a new elementary school in west Little Rock. and is addressed in the Inter-District Plan. This was understood The area of southwest Little Rock containing Zones J, K, M and N has exhibited a decrease in population ranging from six point five percent (6.5%) to ten point two percent (10.2%) an area basis. on If the capacities of these schools continue to range from eighty percent (80%) to ninety-seven percent (97%) , then we will have to give serious consideration to closing one of the schools in this area. If that consideration is made, I would recommend a further analysis of those four (4) subdivided into J-K and M-N. areas An attendance zone analysis should be done to determine which schools in those areas 22 should be considered for closing. At the present time, I have no firm recommendation to make as to which school. The area that contains Zones B, C and H is a relatively stable area with an average decrease in population of around one percent (1%) to one point five percent (1.5%) . However, there are numerous elementary schools in this area, ranging in capacity from seventy-five percent (75%) to one hundred two percent (102%). This area presents the greatest possibility for an integrated atmosphere in all of Little Rock. there are schools However, in this area that have outlived their usefulness, are costly to operate, small, cannot be expanded, and the immediate neighborhoods and zones do not support their Fair Park Elementary and Woodruff Elementary Schools fall in this category. existence. be given to closing Serious consideration should one preferably Fair Parle Elementary. (1) of these two (2) schools. The recent expansion and monies dedicated to Woodruff, although the school is not very cost-efficient to run, would warrant that it be given a higher consideration to remain open. Fair Park, on the other hand, is a^ small school, with a large backlog of maintenance and repair, and could be closed to support the economic initiatives of the District without, I believe, detrimentally affecting the racial balance of all the other schools in this This, however, must be further examined by Student Assignments. area. This preliminary study begs many issues, inability and the lack of time to explore indepth further demographic data. Student Assignment data, and weigh it much more closely to the desegregation efforts of the Little Rock Because of the School It is hopeful that it will provide preliminary information to the Superintendent and staff regarding perceived facility actions that are recommended to District. occur in the near future.  DCE/rlh/zone 23ZONE DESCRIPTIONS ZONE A\nZONE B\nZone A is an area west of the line drawn north and south along Highway 430 to the 630 Interchange, and then west and north to the city limits. Fulbright Elementary Schools. It includes Terry and Zone B is an area running east of a line running north and south along 430 to the intersection of 630, then east to University Boulevard, extending north to the river. It includes Jefferson, Brady, McDermott and Williams Magnet Elementary Schools. a ZONE C\nZone C is the area east of University Avenue running north and south to 63 0, running east on 630 to the railroad tracks that approach the river, and then following the city limits along the Arkansas River. It includes Forest Park, Fair Park, Woodruff and Pulaski Heights Elementary Schools. ZONE D\nZone D is essentially inter-city area. It is the area east of the continuation of the railroad tracks near Central High School, south to the city limits, and east along 1-30, and north to the river. It includes Mitchell, Rightsell, M.L. King, Gibbs Magnet, Rockefeller and Washington Elementary Schools. ZONE E\nZone E is located east of 1-630 from a line drawn north and south on 630, south to the city limits, and then east to a north-south line immediately east of the aizrport, to the northern city limit. It includes Booker, Carver Magnet Elementary Schools. ZONE F\nZone F is an area to the east of a line drawn north and south on the east side of the airport, following the south-eastern boundary of the city limit east to the Arkansas River, and back to the originating point, includes Badgett Elementary School. It ZONE G\nZone G is an area to the west of Barrow Road, extending from 1-630 to Asher, along Asher across 430, and then north along the city limits, to where it joins in to the extension beyond 630. School. It includes Romine Elementary ZONE H\nZone H is an area to the east of Barrow Road, south to Asher Boulevard, then east to University, north to 630. It includes Wilson and Bale Elementary Schools. ZONE I\nZone I is an area to the east of University between 630 I and Asher Boulevard, east to the railroad tracks by Central High School. It includes Franklin, Stephens, and Garland Elementary Schools.ZONE J\nZone J is an area south of Asher, bounded on the east by 630, on the west by the city limits, where they meet at It the interchange in the southwest part of the city, includes Meadowcliff, Western Hills and Dodd Elementary Schools.  ZONE K\nZone K is an area east of University, bounded on the south by 1-630, around to the railroad tracks, and on the north by Asher. It consists of Wakefield and Geyer Springs Elementary Schools. ZONE L\nZone L is west of 630 to the city limits and consists of Otter Creek Elementary School. ZONE M\nZone M is an area south and east of 1-630 to the city limits, bounded on the west by Geyer Springs Boulevard. It consists of Mabelvale, Chicot, Watson and Cloverdale Elementary Schools. ZONE N\nZone N is an area east of Geyer Springs Boulevard, south to the city limits. Baseline Elementary School. around to 630. It includes of  2I ____J 1 Q 1 S zz^ 1 I ^CS^DV a, Cmak^ leOenneB. ^etninut'' L r 7 o: ittle Rock School District/ A, mo A.PMori^ I'Miiii ft: 1 Dkm O Dodd Scheel I r 'UaHwNejMSdl^ C tjun B Iffl \u0026lt;V! g^Si LwfTS^ iT 1 /) i!iw lUsnet WMtnriHli] itien. Be( SOMoi 52- rJwiflM 1. .i\u0026gt;ii ij ijwT otiKainSaM ' Jitko^Scm' TT IE E f * ,1 J / I' I leScErScKMlb' 3 I ---fj 3''' ittle h\" I ock School Distnct_ iJjHSehart'h % JU i i '+ ZT= a I Mil ('. I iknaiSc^ : n iZ'^! \\1^ulaski\"County Special School District .( r i !FACILITIES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY\nSchool Site Renov. Upor. Gen. Sup. Oper Cost Ttl Eval Badgett 6 5 4 6 1 4 Bale 7 6 4 5 3 5 Baseline 5 6 8 6 7 6 Booker 8 6 7 4 1 5 Brady 6 6 5 6 8 6 Carver 9 9 10 7 2 7 Chicot 8 9 8 9 5 8 Cloverdale 6 6 6 7 8 1 Dodd 6 7 1 6 8 1 Fair Park 3 5 3 4 5 4 Ft. Park 4 5 5 6 10 6 Franklin 6 5 6 7 3 5 Fulbright 8 5 8 6 8 7 Garland 4 5 5 6 1 4 GeyerSpgs 7 9 10 8 6 8 Gibbs 1 6 7 5 1 5 Jefferson 6 5 4 5 7 5 King 8 9 10 9 5 8 ! Mabelvale McDermott Meadowclif Mitchell OtterCreek Pul. Hts. Rightsell Rockfeller Romine Stephens 7 1 6 4 8 5 4 8 7 7 6 6 6 7 1 4 8 6 5 10 7 8 4 3 9 5 4 8 5 10 5 7 5 4 6 5 5 6 6 9 1 8 9 1 9 9 1 1 1 5 6 7 6 4 8 6 4 6 5 8 4, Terry Wakefield Washington Watson West Hills williams Wilson Woodruff NOTE\n8 5 8 7 8 8 5 3 7 6 9 7 8 5 8 5 6 4 10 7 7 5 6 5 7 4 8 5 1 7 4 6- 10 8 6 6 1 4 5 6 8 5 8 6 e 6 5 5 Areas are evaluated with one (1) being the lowest, ten (10), highest. DCE/rlh/eaton Ha a aa 1 i 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS\nNAME OF SCHOOL\nBADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Badgett Elementary School is located in the east side of town. It is a single-story building with approximately 23,000 square feet. This school is about thirty-five (35) years old, and was last renovated in 1965. school is in a remotely populated area. There is ample ground for expansion and the (2) trailers on-site being used There are presently two as teaching areas. and the following projects are considered necessary for the further use of this facility: PROJECTS\nCOST i Providing adequate office, counselling, and media space Waterproofing facility 150,000 45,000 R Fire alarm system 15,000 R Lighting retrofit Asbestos removal 150,000 250,000 R HVAC Repairs HVAC Heat Repairs/Replacement 10,000 75,000 R General groundwork (playground, parking lot, etc.) 20,000 R ADA adaptations 40,000 R TOTAL $755,000 R I DCE/rlh/updateCOMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nBALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Bale Elementary School sits in the western center of the city. is approximately 33,600 square feet. It The school was last renovated in 1968 . The facility requires some major repairs. It is generally lacking in administrative and media center space, and has some trailers for additional classroom space. The heating system has been replaced, and window air conditioners being the primary ventilation system, years old. The school is approximately thirty-four (34) PROJECTS\nCOST Sitework, seeding, playground equipment 75,000  Lighting, plumbing fixtures Exterior door replacement Energy management system Intercom system ADA adaptations Roof replacement TOTAL DCE/rlh/update 150,000 8,000 45,000 5,500 55,000 115,000 $453,500 2I 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS\nNAME OF SCHOOL\nBASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Baseline Elementary School is located in the southwest portion of the city. The pri--n-c-i-p--a-l s-t-r-u-c-t ure was comp.let.ed. in 1958 and was last renovated in 1975. It is approximately 50,500 square feet. Some work has been done at Baseline over the last couple of years to enhance lighting and general grounds. PROJECTS\nCOST New electrical service 15,000 ADA adaptations 40,000 HVAC replacement 200,000 Energy management system 15,000 Fire alarm system 15,000 TOTAL $285,000 DCE/rlh/update ( 3 COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nBOOKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Booker Elementary School is located on the east side of Little Rock. is approximately 74,500 square feet. The original building was constructed in 1963 and there was a remodeling in The elementary school was adapted from a junior high school. There is sufficient grounds around the school to include a track and football field, and ample room for.- expansion. 1973 . It PROJECTS\nCOST Intercom system 6,000 ADA adaptations 30,000 HVAC repairs 50,000 Energy management system 45,000' Fire alarm system 15,000 General sitework 5,000 TOTAL $151,000 II II DCE/rlh/update 4 ICOMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nBRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Brady Elementary School built 1960 and comprises The school was last renovated in Work has been done at Brady over the last couple of years, pax'ticularly in the grounds area, and some heating/ventilation work\nalthough more is needed. - - - was approximately 36,200 square feet. 1963 . in and years, The school lacks sufficient media center, administrative and health room space, as do many of the The school is located in the west other schools in the District, central section of Little Rock. PROJECTS\nCOST Lighting retrofit 150,000  HVAC replacement 75,000 ADA adaptations 30,000 Asbestos removal 35,000 TOTAL $290,000 DCE/rlh/update 5 I ICOMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nCARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Carver Magnet Elementary School approximately 61,700 square feet. was built in 1989. It is It was built to replace the old Carver School at Sth and Apperson and is located in the east side of the city. The school, generally, is in good condition and lacks only a few major repairs. PROJECTS! COST Energy management system 45,000 ADA adaptations 20,000 Media Center expansion 50,000 TOTAL $115,000  DCE/rlh/update 6COMMENTS\nI 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Chicot Elementary School burned in October of 1994. The appraisal noted here, and its rating on subsequent sheets, io baocd un me re-configuration as it was originally constructed, only with walls. The school is located in western Little Rock, is based on the 1974 . cafeteria. and was built in Its last renovation was in 1994, with the addition of a The school has ample room for expansion, and only lacks for administrative space and a general lay-out that although it's conducive to the academic program could be enhanced upon in new . The school is approximately 60,000 square feet. construction. DCE/rlh/update 7COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Cloverdale Elementary School is approximately thirty-five (35) years old. 7 ''--- It IS located in the southwest section of Little Rock and comprises 33,300 square feet. Its last major renovation was in 1991 when kindergarten rooms and cafeteria and kitchen were added to the school. The site is generally flat and has drainage problems, but otherwise is conducive., to the education There is ample room for expansion, if necessary. process. PROJECTS: COST Site drainage and improvement 20,000 ADA adaptations 40,000 Lighting retrofit 150,000 New gas piping 25,000 TOTAL $235,000  DCE/rlh/update 8COMMENTS! 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nDODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dodd Elementa^^ School is located in the southwest quadrant of the The original school is approximately twenty-five (25) and the main portion of the building around twenty (20) Renovations were last completed in 1992. 46,700 square feet. city. old, old. years years  The building is Dodd suffers from the lack of a sewer system and IS the only school in the District on a septic tank, room for but only with major engineering work relocate the septic system. General grounds improvement is needed, especially in the area of parking lot and general There are trailers and an accessory wooden building to\"meet the educational needs. expansion, There is to appearance. PROJECTS\nCOST Asbestos removal 200,000 I Energy management system 20,000 . HVAC replacement 200,000 ADA adaptations 31,000 I Intercom system 7,500 Sewer work 25,000 I TOTAL $483,500 I I I I I DCE/rlh/update 9 II JI 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR I COMMENTS\nNAME OF SCHOOL\nFAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Fair Park Elementary School is located in the north central section city. The school was originally constructed in 1929, with additions in 1937 and 1950. The last renovation was in i Qsn The of the city. The last renovation was in 1980. school is approximately 29,000 square feet. scnooi IS approximately 29,000 square feet. It is located in a residential area, but on an extremely small site. I..________ ' ^ three (3) trailers used to supplement the -  There is no teacher parking and general access from major streets is limited by narrow side streets. the school, In addition to academic program. PROJECTS\nCOST Administrative, classroom, and media center additions 300,000 Roof replacement 150,000 Energy management system UB 20,000 Heat/Ventilation work 65,000 Asbestos removal 95,000 ADA adaptations 50,000 Fire alarm system 15,000 Lighting retrofit 100,000 TOTAL $795,000 ID III 10 10 DCE/rlh/update 10COMMENTS: I I I I I I I I 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOT. Forest Park Elementary School was originally built in 1913 a frame construction building, located of the city. It is , -- -in the north-central part The school was last renovated - - ----   approximately 28,900 square feet. The Forest square feet. in 1980 and comprises extremely restricted and has two (2) academic program. Park site is trailers to supplement the , . . - - The grounds do not drain well, and there is limited space for playgrounds.  addition, there is no parking. General access to the site is acceptable. PROJECTS: COST General sitework Roof replacement Energy management system ADA adaptations Heating replacement Waterproofing TOTAL DCE/rlh/update 11 25,000 100,000 20,000 175,000 65,.000 45,000 $430,000COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Franklin Elementary School was constructed in 1949 and is located in the central part, of the city. It was last renovated in 1990 and comprises square feet. The school is generally accessible and enhancements have been made to the front approximately 68,500 feet. area, parking lot, driveways and grounds. Portions of the building have been re-roofed and certain classrooms have had interior enhancements such as carpeting and tile. The school is one of many considered ADA inaccessible at the present time. PROJECTS\nCOST Sitework 50,000 Exterior roofing 100,000 Lighting retrofit 150,000 Heating replacement 100,000 Energy management system 20,000 ADA adaptations 100,000 Waterproofing 65,000 TOTAL $585,000 DCE/rlh/update 12COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Fulbright Elementary School is located in the western portion of It was originally constructed in 1979 and there have the city. been no ma.jor renovations since. The school is 66,900 square feet. The site is limited in that it is beginning to erode and sitework is necessary. The school is considered easily accessible from the surrounding residential generally, ADA accessible. neighborhood. and the building is, PROJECTS\nCOST Site development 65,000  Energy management system Roof replacement L 45,000 190,000 I ADA adaptations 20,000 I TOTAL $320,000 I I I I I DCE/rlh/update 13COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: GARLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Garland Elementary School was originally constructed in 1922 and had renovations as late as 1989. This school is located in the central portion of the city and comprises approximately 38,600 square feet. The site of Garland is extremely small. Most of it has been developed into general play area with some parking. There have been some additions to the building to assist in the academic area\nhowever, the facility is seriously lacking in standardized classroom sizes, media center space, administrative and health room facilities. There In addition, there are numerous structural maintenance and repair items which should be completed, and it would be extremely difficult to This facility is old current codes. bring it in line with  PROJECTS\nCOST Energy management system 20,000 R ADA adaptations 170,000 H Lighting retrofit 150,000 Administrative and media center expansions 270,000 H New electrical service 200,000 Heating/ventilation replacements 350,000 H TOTAL $1,160,000 H n H DCE/rlh/update 141995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR I COMMENTS 2 NAME OF SCHOOL: I GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Geyer Springs Elementary School is located in the southwest portion the_ It underwent a major renovation in 1991, and it is approximately 42,000 square feet. The school is located on a small site\nhowever, with the new additions in 1991 and the removal of trailers, the school is considered manageable and meets the School District's academic needs. of the city. PROJECTS: COST I ADA adaptations 20,000 TOTAL $20,000 I I I DCE/rlh/update I I I 15COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nGIBBS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Gibbs Elementary School is located in the central portion of the city and was originally constructed in 1-9-5-3-. There have been no major renovations since that date. Gibbs is co-located with Dunbar Junior High School and immediately adjacent to the Gibbs Community Center. Its location and site make it well-suited for an The Its it well-suited for elementary school as all is located in a residential area. school lacks for expansion to administrative and media center space, but is considered, generally, to be in average condition. PROJECTS\nCOST New media center 200,000 Energy management system 45,000 ADA adaptations 60,000 TOTAL $305,000 DCE/rlh/update 16 COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Jefferson Elementary School is located in the north-central section of the was originally constructed in 1967 and a renovation is planned for 1995. city. It in The school is approximately 43,500 The Jefferson site is an extremely poor site for an The school was adapted to this site as opposed to designing the school to be conducive to the educational needs. The school sits on eight (8) different levels which would make it extremely difficult to adapt to the handicapped child. continuity of general lay-out, other than all classrooms feed from square feet. elementary school. There is no a central corridor. Renovations have been completed in 1991 and 1992 with re-roofing and some interior work to include and tiling. carpeting PROJECTS: COST Replace exterior windows 150,000 Plumbing replacement 150,000 HVAC replacement 285,000 Fire alarm system 15,000 II Waterproofing 65,000 Energy management system Heating system replacement 20,000 35,000 Iv ADA adaptations 200,000  TOTAL $925,000 DCE/rlh/update 17 COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nM.L. KING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The new Martin Luther King Elementary School is located in the central Little Rock area. It is aonroximatelv 77.nnn II It is approximately 72,000 square feet, .. - . The school is-considered to be able meet all academic needs of the programs. Insufficient property i available to the School District for its construction in some support areas, such as parking and playgrounds, and are located on There are no major projects pending for this facility. and was completed in 1993. its construction in ! to was leased property. n r   tl bl [i n II IR DCE/rlh/update  18COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Mabelvale Elementary School was constructed in 1980. It is located in the southwest portion of the city and is approximately 55,600 square feet. The facility is a single-story, brick structure and has ample grounds for expansion. There is one two- story section. square feet. and it is ADA accessible. one PROJECTS\nCOST Sitework 14,000 Asbestos removal 25,000 Energy management system 45,000 HVAC replacement 130,000 II ADA adaptations 50,000 II TOTAL $264,000 h M n  DCE/rlh/update  I 19 hCOMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nMCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL McDermott Elementary School is located in the northwest section of the city. no major The school has ample grounds, but situated in an area which makes playground accessibility and drainage a continuous problem. The school was constructed in 1967 and there have been renovations since that date. is PROJECTS\nCOST HVAC controls 50,000 Energy management system 20,000 Roof replacement 120,000 II ADA adaptations 50,000 M TOTAL $240,000 II II n n II DCE/rlh/update  20 ICOMMENTS\n199-5 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AITO MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Meadowcliff Elementary School was built in 1956 and there was a - -  The school is in the southwest portion of the city, and is approximately 37,000 square feet. major addition in 1962. I - -------- The school is located in a residential area, but traffic routing around the school is not conducive to school support. _L__ ____ routed around the school which makes it very inconvenient and dangerous to the children. Parking is limited and bus access should be renovated. The traffic must be Parking is limited and bus  Recent renovations include some groundswork and the replacement of the heating/ventilation system. The area is considered lacking in media center space and administrative and health room areas. PROJECTS: COST Energy management system 20,000 Asbestos removal 250,000 ADA adaptations 120,000 Flooring replacement 25,000 IC General sitework Fire alarm system 50,000 25,000 h Administrative,, media center expansion 300,000 n TOTAL $790,000  DCE/rlh/update  ( 21COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nMITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Mitchell Elementary School is located in the central portion of the The original structure was built in 1908, and there were renovations as late as 1991. city. I This school is approximately 39,000 This school suffers from being an old building. Construction today would never be built the way this school was. It is a wooden-frame building with a brick exterior. Press-metal ceilings have become extremely difficult to maintain, and in future they will have to be completely removed and the school re-insulated. Plumbing leaks on all floors and the possible rotting of wood floors due to the capping of tile and carpet add to the maintenance problems of this building. located in a residential area, is extremely small, and a limited area available for parking and playground. The school, additionally, would be very hard to adapt for handicapped children. square feet. years. entire The site, although is PROJECTS\nThe school. COST I Energy management system 45,000 Interior flooring 10,000 HVAC replacement 50,000 Waterproofing 40,000 Plumbing replacement 120,000 Lighting retrofit 150,000 Fire Code compliance 200,000 n ADA adaptations 230,000  Ceiling replacement 200,000 TOTAL $1,065,000 DCE/rlh/update 221995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR   n 11 If n II   COMMENTS: NAME OF SCHOOL\nOTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Otter Creek Elementary School is a small school located in the western part of the city. It is approximately 36,500 square feet located in a and was built around 1979. The facility is residential area with easy access and plenty of area for expansion? Although some minor sitework is needed. meets the academic standards. the school, generally, PROJECTS\nCOST Energy management system ADA adaptations Sitework TOTAL DCE/rlh/update 23 45,000 30,000 15,000 $90,000COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Pulaski Heights Elementary School is co-located with Pulaski Heights Junior High School. The facilities were originally completed in 1921 and minor renovations were completed in 1971. Approximately 58,000 square feet is dedicated to the elementary school. Pulaski Heights is located in a residential area but has completely maximized its site. The addrition of trailers this year to support the academic program has posed a serious handicap on the school's ability to provide adequate parking. Playground expansions in the last couple of years have met the needs of the children, remains a problem. yet general trafficability around the school still The facility is old and is maintainable due to heating replacements which have been completed over the last couple of years. PROJECTS: COST Auditorium relighting 30,000 Fire alarm system 10,000 Energy management system 25,000 Waterproof ing 40,000 ADA adaptations 220,000 Lighting retrofit 70,000 TOTAL $396,000 DCE/rlh/update 24COMMENTS: 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nRIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Rightsell Elementaory School is a small intercity school that constructed in 1906 with renovations as late as 1991. - - was is approximately 36,600 square feet. The building The school is located in a residential area on an extremely small site with little room for expansion and inadequate space for parking or playground area. In addition to wings added in 1991, there is also a trailer to meet further academic needs. Rightsell, being an incentive school, has had much money put into it over the last couple of years, such that the list of major repairs has now diminished. However, critically needed areas, such as additional media center space, health room space, specialized classrooms and administrative space make the school extremely limited in its overall abilities. It is a small school, and although it is in fairly good shape, it has almost outlived its usefulness as an educational facility. to expand on the site is a major detriment to further The inability enhancements at this location. program PROJECTS! COST Sitework and drainage 40,000 Code compliance constiruction 150,000 h Energy management system ADA adaptations 20,000 230,000 n Plumbing replacements 125,000 II Fire alarm system 20,000 TOTAL $585,000 DCE/rlh/update 25 h1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS! NAME OF SCHOOL\nROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Rockefeller Elementary School is located on the eastern side of the central Little Rock area. The school was constructed in 1980, and is approximately 64,500 square feet. It is a single-story building that is readily accessible but located in a decaying residential -area. It is bordered on one side by State property, which limits its expansion in that direction, and by city streets on the other sides.  The school has continued to have serious heating / ventilation problems. funding. and they will persist without adequate  PROJECTS\nCOST II Energy management system HVAC replacements 50,000 300,000 11 ADA adaptations 25,000 II TOTAL $375,000 II n n DCE/rlh/update 26 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS\n NAME OF SCHOOL\nROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  Romine Elementary School was originally constructed in 1961 and added to in 1993. The school is approximately 42,300 square feet. It is a single-story building with a flat roof and window air  conditioners throughout most of the facility. It is located in a residential area with ample space for expansion. accessible and has sufficient parking and playground area. It is readily II PROJECTS\nCOST site improvements 25,000  Re-roofing 65,000 Flooring 10,000 Energy management system 20,000  HVAC replacement 60,000 ADA adaptations 70,000 II New electrical service 85,000 II TOTAL $335,000 II n  DCE/rlh/update 27 b 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR  COMMENTS! NAME OF SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  Stephens Elementary School is assessed, dealing with new construction. based on assumptions and readily accessible to the students. The site is in a residential area The most significant H handicap is a small site which will require innovative design to meet academic needs. The proposed new school to be constructed in 1995-1996 will take advantage of off-site parking and off-site n playground areas. The new Stephens Elementary School is estimated to be approximately 70,000 square feet and located in the intercity area. II II II II II n DCE/rlh/update n I 281995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR  COMMENTS\n NAME OF SCHOOL\nTERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  Terry Elementary School is a single-story facility in western It was originally built in 1964 and additions made in 1966 and 1978. Little Rock. were feet. The school is approximately 45,300 square As other elementary schools, it has limited administrative H n and health room space and media center space. However, considered sufficient to maintain this .academic program. _______ sufficient parking, and the site is large enough to allow for expansion. PROJECTS\nspace. it is There is COST n HVAC controls 100,000 Energy management system 30,000 II ADA adaptations 30,000 II Waterproofing 25,000 TOTAL II $185,000 n n  DCE/rlh/update 29 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS\nNAME OF SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  Wakefield Elementary School is located in southwest Little Rock. It was originally constructed in 1959 with minor additions as late as 1975. The school is approximately 37,400 square feet, single-story building with the major addition being a detached facility at a different elevation. It is a  Although sufficient land is available, it is extremely poorly drained and very rocky soil, and could inhibit further expansion of this school. The school is located in a residential area and access is considered easy by foot traffic and by bus. n There is insufficient parking available to meet this school's needs. PROJECTS: COST n Flooring 20,000 Site and exterior work 160,000 II Relighting 150,000 n Heating repairs 100,000 Energy management system 45,000 n Intercom 8,000 ADA adaptations 100,000 II Fire alarm system 10,000 n TOTAL $593,000   DCE/rlh/update 30  1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR  COMMENTS I  NAME OF SCHOOL\nWASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Washington Elementary School is located in the eastern side of central Little Rock and was rebuilt in approximately 90,000 square feet. 1989, and it is building which is readily adaptable. The facility is a single-story  walking, and by vehicular traffic. easy access by students acceptable playground area and parking facilities. .It is considered to have an  PROJECTS\nCOST Energy management system 20,000 il ADA adaptations 20,000 II TOTAL $40,000 n II II n n n DCE/rlh/update 31 ha  t  1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR  COMMENTS\nNAME OF SCHOOL\nWATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II Watson Elementary School was constructed in 1967 and is located in southwest Little Rock. It is approximately 54,000 square feet and II is a single-story building with adequate property for expansions, if necessary. The school is fairly well laid out, and it is considered to have adequate parking and playground areas. II PROJECTS\nCOST Paving repair 10,000 II Energy management system 45,000 HVAC replacement 75,000 II Asbestos removal 200,000 II ADA adaptations 60,000 Waterproofing 25,000 II TOTAL $415,000 II II n  DCE/rlh/update 32COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nWESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Western Hills Elementary School was constructed in 1966 and received a major addition in 1991. 42,000 square feet. The school is approximately residential It is a single-story facility located in a area of southwest Little Rock. The school has sufficient property available for expansion and is considered readily accessible. PROJECTS\nCOST HVAC controls 30,000 Energy management system 20,000 Asbestos removal 210,000 ADA adaptations 60,000 Lighting 40,000 TOTAL $360,000 DCE/rlh/update 33COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL: WILLIAMS MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Williams Magnet Elementary School is located in western Little Rock. a single-story facility It was originally constructed in 1959 and there was an administrative addition in 1994. is approximately 47,200 square feet. The school I Williams has sufficient property for expansion, but is not laid out conducive to support a modern educational program. Its central corridors are hampered by steps which will effect ADA adaptations. In addition, the academic program of the school has placed some restrictions on the ability to maximize its space in the most sufficient manner. PROJECTS: COST New gutters and downspouts, window replacement 175,000 Energy management system 20,000 ADA adaptations 120,000 Media center expansion 180,000 TOTAL $495,000 DCE/rlh/update 1 34 ilH 1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMMENTS\n NAME OP SCHOOL: WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II Wilson Elementary School was constructed in 1927 with additions in 1946 and 1949 and some final additions in 1980. located in the northern part of southwest Little Rock II n ana ana some final additions in 1980. The school is and is approximately 37,000 square feet. Z_ 1___________ for room with expansion, but limited parking^ for staff and faculty Sitework is required because of the underlying rock proximity to streets which hamper drainage. It has a generally adequate site strata and PROJECTS\nCOST Additional parking 40,000 Waterproofing 20,000 Intercom 7,500 ADA adaptations 80,000 Heating control repair 180,000 Energy management system 45,000 Fire alarm system 20,000 TOTAL $397,500 DCE/rlh/update 35COMMENTS\n1995 UPDATE OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RENOVATION AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NAME OF SCHOOL\nWOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Woodruff Elementary School was originally constructed in 1911. There were expansions throughout the year, and the latest addition was in 1991. The school is now 38,000 square me scnoo feet. Woodruff Elementary is a two-story brick structure which consists of extremely small classrooms and limited administrative and media center space. The site has been maximized with school building and play space, and there is little-to-no parking for staff and faculty. It is in a residential area and access is considered center space. reasonably easy. little-to-no parking for staff PROJECTS\nCOST Repointing walls and waterproofing 30,000 Energy management system 20,000 HVAC repairs 110,000 ADA adaptations 250,000 Fire Code compliance 150,000 Waterproofing 25,000 TOTAL $585,000 DCE/rlh/update 36LMto Aec* teI CMvVW October 1,1994 Enrollment Comparison October1993 Octobtr 1,1994 Dilltnnct Cental HS\" FvHS HalHS UcCtelviHS\" ParloiietiHS' Sub-Total 1228 596 586 666 463 sms' wtoMegnetell 3076  CkhrerOale JH Dunbar JH\" Forest Heiglils Ji HenOersonJH\" UabeMeJH UannJH' Pulaski Heights JH SouthenstJH Sub-Total 566, 439 575 678 453 494 434 524 4163  618 314 362 213 315 1822 1507 130 251 195 210 197 341 351 141 1816  33 8 26 7 10 86 76 5 11 18 27 4 16 5 14 5 1879 918 976 886 788 5447 4659 701 701 788 915 654 851 790 679 wtoMigntH 3669\nBailgetl Bate I Booker\" i Zener' Ztrioot I CknerOele I DoM___________ Fair Park Forest Perk FrankUn\" | Fulbtighl I Geda^ | Gejer Springs Gibbs' JeHerson king- Mabekrele UcDermott UeedotKfff UitcheiP Otter Creek ! Pulaski Heights Pightselh Rockelelier'' Rortane- ! Stephens' 7erry ! WakeHetd ! Washington- | tVatson Western HXs WUliams'________ Wilson Woodrull Special Schools Sub-Total wio Magnets Grand Total eko Uagnets ..s XIS u n m 6S% 64.92% 60J)4%| TsITg 58.76% 5 J 1040 631 669 684 435 64S7%\n 3459 66.02%! 3024 80.74%! 62.62%1 72.97% 74.10%! '691^ 58.05% 54.94% 77.17% 521 468 565 661 417 456 431 487 tool 60791 6848%|1 4006 548 279 326 203 328 1684 1356 119 227 197 229 161 366 334 105 1738 1475\n84j 5228\n70.18%! 3550i 1372 132 225, 265 321 263 325 356 304 189 200 200 300 233 181 208 170 213 357 311 262 306 215 141 190 184 240 247 141 243 337 451 353 215 257 263' 147 27 57 68 76 265 122 263 147 75 97 60 0 10 9! 253 m 3' 78' 121 ' 287' 1891 174 232 127 12 195 197 4 93 73 3 189 303 343 595 69.64%| 7426% 7726% 53.95%| 0\n^9^1 12! 3971 66.2^ 71 5951 54.62% el 509' 69.94% 1331 2i4t 245' 305 ' 254' 3091 44 87 77 245 3 6! 3 5 386 292 7s.n% 64.73% 5 15 21 2 8i 7i 3 15 1 5 51 11 i 1| 7 14  1  292\n26 106! 4 4- 2601 10\n89\n114\n207 87 64 23 263) 76.05% 4581 43.67% 345 ! 86.96% 5201 44.81% 205! M-29%i 288 i 7262%! 2991 56.66%! 504\n42.26% 553! 64.56% 488 ! 63.73% 5091 51.47% 434 ! 70.51% 2301 93.48% 3411 41.35% 3981 47.74% 169! 97.35% 340 ! 70.59% 3341 73.95% 1451 9764% 5611 43.32% 4471 75.39% 7211 62.55% oi 442) 79.6^ Il 3321 64.76% VO 8\n5 m 354 236 61 54 45% 74.29% 62.29% 52.94% 344 '3121 193' 198' 393 235 246 223 160 218 309 340 241 279 260 154 197 225 137 2!,7 151 74 97 73 228 41 269 9 66 121 279 227 124 ' 233' 131 ' 8 ' 196' 207 ' 4 ' 5 49 7i 36 10 37 139 102 7 12 18 27 7 23 6 18 118 95 0 6 4 23 17 12 8 ~~61 8' ~6[ ~91 181 JL _ii_' _5' \"lot 20' 1 4 9 16 0 264\n124 15 234] 73 2341 295 3271 73 443! 211 340! ~Il^ 81 95 16 Closed 30 13 33 6 7 250\n214 10 254 148 iT a o 1637 917 1031 897 800 5282 u \u0026lt; s 63.53% 68.61% 64.89% 76.25% 54.38% 6549% u \u0026lt;e JB- 188 35 63 18 28 80 1 70 -35 -36 10 13 138 4482 1 67.47% 52!-151 8972 4845 251 140681 63.78% 7872 3966 218 12056 . 65.307. 83 87 21 8 5 0 6471 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5862 80.53% 66.20% 72.44% 72.08% 71^8% 53.96% 55.90% 79.84% -45 29 10 -17 -36 -38 -3 37 6834% -157 SOlIj 70.76% .119 177 309' '3^ 573' 75.14% 69.26% 75.15% 5323% 4081 6225% 588 503 392 298 282 432 443' 542 282 300' 293t '502T 551' 474| 494' 411 272 359 52.55% 68.39% 79.59% 64.77% 72.34% 45.63% 88.71% 43.36% 87.23% 74.33% 54.61% 43.43% 56.08% 71.73% 8 48.79% 67.88% 95.59% 42.90% 420\n46.90% 229\n98.25% 403! 65.51%! 3231 72.45% 5591 41.86% 413 i 7918% 687 427 317 474 345 243 36 6448% 79 63% 67.82% 52.74% 73.62% 60.91% 41.67% 1 11 20 -16 -9 -16 -12 -11 -24 ' 2 19 -36 25 -17 -36 -78 -103 -13 19 1 -20 15 __4 4 8i -1 I 16 -1 8 3 27 53 26 2 1 0 0 3 7 1 4 18 11 0 -2 2 14 5 5 2 -1 3 o 242 -1 55 11 12 Tes -in -54 6 8 ___2' 69 6' 19 69 217' '3ii| 12' 6| 17 ' 22' 11 ' ZZI 61 4\n0 4\n13 -2i -25' 93: 1 21 17 65\n6 151 -12 0 5! e 481 38 29 50 -21 27 1 7 451 -4 131 1 i 0 24\n31 -13! 3 0 3 10' -33 8\n-49 13 e o\nw -7 12. 8915 4772, 400\n140871 63.29% ~ 7876 3904 343 12123 i 64.97% 2 2 1 u m .X- -1.62% 3.89% 4.85% 1j08% -438% 0.52% 145% 0.22% 367% -063% -2.02% 2.02% -4.08% 0.96% 2.66% 0.14% 068% 560% 5.00% -2.11% 0.72% 3.99% 2.07% 1.55%  064%  0.04%  191 -3.71% -261 4| 98\n3 _6 9 4 2 8 7 5  1 22 n 12 -6 2 2 -14 -15 -23 42 2.17% 1.76% -1.45% -1.06% 2.11% -22!5% 1.16% 8.48% 8.00% 2.69% -2.62% 2.11% 1.55% 5\n22\n-0.83% -1] 40! 0.90% 6\n63i 5.08'% -1.51% Closed  u \u0026amp; o 7 4 3 2 4 9, 23 6 4 2 4 3 1 -2\n-1.46% -34 -34 -15 15 3.79% 1.93% 0.24% 3.06% 2' -1.71% 9\n-0.67% 71 -1.38% -15' -11.27%  7311491 19. -0.49% 4^21125! 67\n-0.33% 16674 I 6483 \u0026lt; 437  25594 I 6515% j 16380 1 8194 1 6571 25231 j 64.92%|-294 -26912201-363! -0.23% 146 1 7 1 6948.378 21943 1 6661% H4450.6632 : 540 i 21622 1 66.83% -316 j 162i -321' 0.^2% Office of OesegregeiKxi Page 1 1691 954 1291 1199 1000 6335 5335 666 612 856 907 614 650 746 737 67% 96% 80% 75% 80% 83% 64% 75% 67% 91% 101% 95% 99% 103% 83% u 1 c UI *12.86% 'Magnet 0.11% \" Magnet Pragram 5.64% 'tneentive 124% - tntenlisliicl 63911 92% 5541\n91% 257 { 69% 401 n% 390 656' 467' '61^ 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 726 515, 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 836 492 64% 87% 87% 96% 90% 60% 91% 80% 106% 102% 100% 95% 91% 83% 102% 76% 92% 96% 88% 91% 102% 112% 89% 66% 66% 109% 84% 82% 87% 3261 97% 5171 92% 394 66% 3241 75% 15717, 90% 13578' 89% 28443 ' 89% 24454I 88% 1.52% 3.03% 49.11% 75.90% -3.80% Area HS Range -7.70% 0.86% -1.02% 022% -10J5% -0.71% -2.41% -10.16% 3.57% 53.07% 79.60% -4.04% Area JH Range 625% 1.98% 426% -3.70% 2.77% -1.18% -1.18% 125% 2.05% 722% -5.68% 28.41% 423% 3726% 4.17% -2.01% -0.40% 0.36% 2.87% 2.95% 5.30% 1826% 528% 5.53% 21.16% 18.53% 3.29% -0.36% -7.61% -4.72% -3.39% 4.52% 0.42% 2.54% 2.97% 0.14% 40.00% 60.00% 0.56% Area Elein Range -142% -146%I ii I I LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AREA A: _________1210 _________1405 _________1410 _________1440 _________1510 _________1^ __________1512 _________1515 _________1530 _________1^ 1550 _________1610 _________1620 _________3330 _________6110 _________6115 _________6120 _________6122 _________6125 _________6171 6188 SUB-TOTAL AREA B: 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1220 12301 1231  co oo \u0026lt; Jk 4 5 17 5 5 11 3 8 1 8 8 1 2 2 5 2 0 6 1 4 1 99 o\u0026gt; co \u0026lt; Jk 5 1 13 2 6 17 4 6 1 5 7 2 2 0 3 4 0 3 1 3 4 89 o O) \u0026lt; jk 3 1 13 3 4 17 5 10 1 5 8 5 2 0 11 4 0 3 1 4 1 101 at ik 6 1 14 5 3 13 5 10 1 6 7 5 1 1 11 3 3 2 1 4 6 108 at \u0026lt; 4 3 21 9 4 19 3 15 3 11 7 4 1 4 16 6 0 2 1 3 6 142  Office of Desegregation 1240 _________1310 _________1311 13121 _________13211 _________1331 ' _________1332' _________1420' _________1421' _________1430' _________1520' _________1531 ' _________15411 _________1542' 1630' SUB-TOTAL 1 4 7 9 0 __ 0 4 1 40 6 8 0 1 5 0 1 4 19 4 2 1 0 6 130 1 2 5 15 2 0 3 2 3 23 4 1 0 1 4 4 2 6 20 4 6 3 3 8 128 7 6' 8| 101 1| _0i 0! 6I QI 321 9| 3| 0| 4I 4| 9| 211 4| 2 5' 5' 1' wT 2 8 6 141 31 2iJ 2 29 1' 6' 01 ~3t 5 29 8 6 2 2 8 159 __8 6 __9 0 __ __1 1 6 5 28 5 2 0 1 4 __ 6 4 18 5 6 10 0 1 134 Page 1 1 3/8/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT ae o\u0026gt; co o o\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; in AREA C: \u0026lt; ik jk \u0026lt; Jk Jk \u0026lt; __________ 620 __________ __________ __________64 650 __________ 660 662 __________6^ 710 811 __________8^ __________910 920 SUB-TOTAL 5 4 1 2 0 2 5 14 2 12 5 6 6 6 12 82 1 1 2 3 0 2 4 14 5 23 7 2 8 12 8 104 6 10 2 1 3 2 3 13 2 28 10 9 12 10 8 119 5 6 7 0 1 1 5 12 6 15 8 3 12 6 8 95 4 2 1 4 2\\ 3 0 13 4 it 5 1 8 9 8 86 AHEAD:    411 412 413 420 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 1 1 2 4 4 8 0 4 2 10 1 3 16 5 10 4 5 2 3 3 2 14 5 8 4 2 4 2 8 7 3 6 1 2 1 1 7 13 0 2 5 1 8 13 111 10 4 12 5 6 6 2 2 20 6 6 4 9 4 1 10 6 4 0 2 2 3 2 11 11 0 4 0 7 3 5 12 10 6 5 6 10 7 4 0 14 6 8 1 5 8 3 5 11 4 14 1 1 0 8 2 10 0 3 0 6 11 6 7 4 3 6 2 1 3 1 0 10 3 4 3 10 5 3 9 5 6 4 0 0 4 3 7 4 3 4 4 6 10 0 3 3 4 0 0 4 2 0 15 11 7 4 5 1 2 10 3 7 8 Office of Desegregation Page 2 3/8/95lrsd kindergarten enrollment co so o\u0026gt; 00 o a\u0026gt; at at I _________459 4^ 4T 4^ 4^ 464 471 472 473 474 r L________476' 4'77\" 478' 479r 480\" 481 ' 4^' 4^' 484~ r 4^' ^UB-TOTAL r \u0026lt; Jk __ ___8 12 13 1 11 ___6 9 11 ___2 10' __ 31 __ 4' __51 __9' 13' __a' 5' 7' 319  \u0026lt; 6 9 11 4 __1_ ___6 11 11 __2 14 __5 __4' __7' __3' 6 15' 18' 7| 14' 372r \u0026lt; Jla_ __1_ 2 1 __3 3 1 11 9 8 2 1 1 2 13 5 2 5 309 ik 5 3 11 8 3 8 1 1 ___3 9 __6 __4 __4 __0 __6 12 \"TtI 15' __51 3' 283T Jk 4 ___ 4 7 3 4 4 9 9 2 6 8 4 5 TtI Tn Til Ti 9| AREA E: 111 112 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 210 220 232 240  3011 8 5 5 6 6 15 0 8 3' 4 _1_ 2 2 2 2 2 tT ir ISUB-TOTAL I 13 15 2 5 2 93 17 20 0 4 1 81 0 5| 1 4 10 8 5 15' 5' -1 \"igl TT 3' 2' 96  4 -i TT Ji' Ji _7j 7' _3 161 1 5 1 90 1 9 ~?l ~~7^ Til ~3] ~2^ 31 AREA F: I Office of Desegregation 3210 3251 3253 3250 3201 3255 3640 3643 3459 0 3 1 6 2 0 0 2 1  1 2 1 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 6 12 2 0 3 0 0 0 6 T 0 0 4 0 0 0 Page 3 3/8/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT (O so A A o A a\u0026gt; A SUB-TOTAL AREAG: \u0026lt; Jk 13 \u0026lt; Jk 14 \u0026lt; U. 28 $ 25 \u0026lt; Jii_ 19 1    I   Office of Desegregation _________1711 _________1712 _________1713 _________1714 _________1715 _________1716 _________1717 _________1721 _________1722 _________1723 _________1724 _________1725 ________1726 _________1727 _________1728 _________3301 _________3^ 3316 4052 SUB-TOTAL AREAH: SUB-TOTAL AREA I: 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 I 5111 512 513 521 522 523 524 525 526 4 8 2 20 4 6 13 8 13 3 5 3 6 12 0 6 8 1 0 122 11 5 7 S 12 14 21 7 2 1 8 3 11 0 107 2 1 12 4 5 1 10 0 6 1 9 3 20 17 5 16 13 13 5 7 3 4 18 0 7 8 3 3 8 1 2 18 9 5 16 6 6 7 10 1 6 18 4 3 3 3 3 155| 135 1 7 1 15 9 6 11 5 6 5 6 2 3 8 8 12 4 3 4 116 2 1 5 25 7 __9 12 6 7 5 15 3 1 11 6 4 6 5 3 139 I T 15 4 8 8 11 14 12 61 -Ji 31 3i 9i 1! loeT 14 0 6 3 6 9 14 3 2 2 6 5 3 1 74 21 2 9 6 13 8 19 8 2 1 8 3 10 1 111 1 __1^ 9 5 13 11 21 11 2 9 4 6 11 0 110 I 1! Qi 121 141 0 4 41 8 Page 4 8 6 0 12 7 0 3 3 4 6 10 10 13 5 0 5 1 2 14 0 10 10 6 9 4 3/8/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT co 80 O\u0026gt; SO o at o    N Office of Desegregation __________527 __________528 __________529 __________530 __________53 __________532 __________533 __________534 535 __________536 537 __________538 __________539 __________5^ __________552 __________553 __________554 __________555 __________556 __________561^ __________562 __________563 __________571 __________5^ __________57^ __________574 __________5^ __________581^ __________582 __________583' __________584 585 586' __________587' 591 ' SUB-TOTAL AREA J: 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 4001 4010 4015 4017 4020 4025 4046 \u0026lt; Jk 4 51 0 0 2 11 11 5 13 1 3 7 5 1 12 19 6 1 9 12 9 5 3 11 5 22 5 4 7' 8' 12' 13' 2' 4 13' 1  344T 3 10 3 15 11 0 8 1 0 3 2 6 \u0026lt; Jk ___II 33 0 0 9' 9 1' 2' 13' 3' 6' 5' 1' 2' 5- 6' 8' o' 5' 10' 9' 14' 9' 13' 8' 9 4' 3' 4' 8 6' 18' 3 7~ 14' 2 sTtF 121 T 8 16 1 4 1 1 3 8 4 Page 5 \u0026lt; Jk 3 32 0 0 11 5 7 6 13 2 9 5 1 3 8 15 8 0 6 7 15 9 10 8 8 12 10 2 15 10 15 6 6 5 6 1 317 3 13 5 171 14 5 9 2 1 9 31 \u0026lt; 6 40 0 0 4 3 1 1 3 3 8 __3 5 __3 3 10 5 __q 5 7 12 10 13 6 1 11 10 6 4 10 8 6' 2 __5' 9' 0 285 5 10 4 26 10 0 7 1 0 3 7 0 \u0026lt; Jk 3 9 2 ___3 11 __2 ___5 __3 __6 __9 __9 __3 __0 __4 11 7 __9 __q __9 __8 __5 __5 __8 1 __6 __8 __8 __8 12 6 13 14 2 6 14 0 291 4 8 4 21 14 4 9 1 0 3 1 0 3/8/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT          Office of Desegregation (0 eo m \u0026lt;0 o ot o\u0026gt; _________40^ 4049 4053 5467 5470 SUB-TOTAL AREAK: _________4401 _________4405 _________4410 4415 _________4420 _________4429 _________4430 _________7^ 7210 7220 _________7225 _________7^ 7235 _________7240 _________7^ 7250 7276 ________lTn_ 7278 7279 _________7^ 7281 7282 SUB-TOTAL AREAL: _________5^ 5468 _________5472 _________5475 _________5476 _________5477 _________5478 _________5492 _________5493 _________5494 _________5495 5498 SUB-TOTAL AREA M: 3601 \u0026lt; Jk 5 6 0 0 0 73 2 3 2 3 3 4 9 2 2 0 7 12 2 5 4 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 73 1 3 0 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 24 4 \u0026lt; Jk 6 6 0 0 0 81 5 4 6 3 7 0 1 11 5 1 0 2 6 7 2 2 2 5 3 4 3 2 0 81 1 3 0 11 1 0 2 3 3 1 1 2 28 4 Page 6 \u0026lt; Jk 6 5 0 0 0 92 \u0026lt; Jk 9 10 0 0 1 93 \u0026lt; Jk 3 3 0 0 0 75 7 2 -1 4 5 1 2 13 4 1 0 4 22 4 1 1 10 6 0 2 2 2 0 100 0 0 0 8 3 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 23 2 9 2 2 1 5 3 2 9 5 2 0 12 14 1 1 4 2 5 0 1 2 2 0 96 0 0 1 9 6 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 28 4 7 2 6 4 8 1 4 15 1 1 0 8 9 3 12 6 5 4 0 5 2 3 0 106 0 0 o 2? S| 5 6 3 0 0 0 0 27 2 3/6/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT oo oo o\u0026gt; to o a\u0026gt; to a    Office of Desegregation 3605 3630 3635 3645 3646 3647 3648 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5410 5415 5452 5455 5458 5460 5462 5465 7301 7305 7310 7315' 7376 7377' 7378' 7380' 7381 ' 7382 7401 ' 7405' 7410' 7415' 7420' 7425' 7440' 7467' 7468' 7469' 7470' 7471  74731 14,74 7475 7476 7477 7478 \u0026lt; jk 0 0 3 3 1 3 5 13 3 2 2 3 0 0 7 0 4 4 1 1 3 0 0 7 1 3 6 3 2 0 2 5 12 10 3 2 5 8 2 5 0 5 1 0 4 0 1 4 3 0 1 \u0026lt; u. 3 0 7 0 1 3 7 8 5 2 3 2 3 0 3 2 3 2 2 0 2 0 1 10 4 3 6 6 1 2 3 2 7 9 5 \u0026lt; jk Page 7 9 6 2 01 '41 2 1 1 2 0 3 4 1 1 1 1 0 16 2 2 5 S 6 2 0 7 4 3 7 7 0 2 7 0 0 5 0 1 6 3 7 7 0 6 1 3 4 9 13 4 4 7 4 6 0 3 5 6 0 2 0 7 3 0 0 0 at Zj \u0026lt; jk 5 0 6 4 3 6 5 15 5 0 5 2 3 4 5 o' 2 2 2 0 2 o' 3 11 ' 1 ' 3 8' o' 11 ' 4 ' 3 4' 10' 13' 5' 8 7 3 4 0 1 3 5 1 3 0 3 5 4 0 \u0026lt; jk 4 0 10 4 2 7 7 12 5 1 3 2 2 2 7 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 8 2 1 7 0 7 4 5 9 22 9 1 6 7 2 3 0 0 6 5 4 1 0 3 8 2 0 0 3/8/95LRSD KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT      I Office of Desegregation co co d \u0026lt; Jk e\u0026gt; a o o\u0026gt; at _________7480 _________7490 7495 SUB-TOTAL AREAN\n_________3401 _________3405 _________3406 _________3410 _________3415 _________3420 _________3425 _________3430 _________3435 _________3440 _________3445 _________3461 _________3464 _________3610 _________3615 _________3620 _________3625 _________3649 _________3650 _________3651 _________3652 _________7325 _________7330 _________7375 _________7383 _________7384 _________7385 _________7387 _________7388 7390 SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 0 3 1 3 159 5 14 16 4 5 3 3 2 1 2 0 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 10 1 3 11 1 2 3 4 3 8 4 15 133 1771 \u0026lt; Jk 0 1 0 1 166 5 11 11 6 __6 __Oi 5 1 3 1 0 1 5 0 1 6 5 4 9 7 1 4 1 5 1 6 2 22 2 4 135 1857 Page 8 \u0026lt; J^ 0 3 1 3 201 7 8 14 9 3 4 1 6 1 2 0 0 7 0 2 0 4 2 9 8 1 8 3 5 2 5 1 19 5 5 141 1879 \u0026lt; Jk 2 3 1 71 10 5 8 4 4 4 2 4 5 3 0 0 2 o' 2 3 6 1 5 5 1  1' 2 7| 0 1 1 JU 6| 4l 116 1821 \u0026lt; Jk 0 1 2 209 13 __8 13 5 6 3 __3 2 4 2 0 0 11 0 1 2 1 4 11 5 0 4 2 6 0 1 4 17 2 1 149 1846 3/8/95\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_269","title":"Business Cases for Proposed Budget, FY 1995-96","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Business Cases for Proposed Budget, FY 1995-96"],"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/269"],"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\nExhibit 314 for July 6, 1995\n0 g I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT h 1 a  BUSINESS CASES FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1995-96 March 14, 1995Case: Information Services Ref: March 14, 1995 Business Cases, fourth business case. Expenditures 4 \u0026lt; S' Q SB Rec: This business case proposes a comprehensive change in the LRSD data processing architecture and supporting organization structure. Cost: The five-year expenditure plan indicates higher costs the first three years and lower costs the last two years. The first year increase in cost would be $317,500\nthe second year increase would be $350,000\nthe third year increase would be $350,000\nthe five year net savings would be $103,000. Mod: This proposal does not require a plan modification. Summary: This business case is a major overhaul of the data processing function within the district. It calls for the transition of LRSD Information Services from the current closed AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. The organization structure of the Information Services Division would be greatly changed to support the new functions. Additionally, it calls for developing a comprehensive Information Services Plan. Plan/Orders: None. Background: The district is retarded in the use of technology for both administration and academics. The Director of Information Services position was vacant for nine months before. David Beason was hired in November 1994. Beason has assessed the state of technology\nthis business case is his plan for the future. Issues: 1. Both data processing programs were subjected to regular program evaluations and Extended Evaluations. The evaluations laid the framework for this business case and provided much of the justification material to support the business case. Both evaluations openly state that the data processing function has failed to achieve its objective. 2. This is a major change of direction for the district and a significant financial commitment for at least three years in the future. It should not be taken lightly\nthe district cannot afford to fail. 3. Timing is a critical issue. It is clear the district must take a giant step to improve its use of technology, and the end goal of the business case is probably a good one. On the other hand, the district is planning to make dramatic budget cuts, many of them close to the kids, while being asked to make a three-year commitment to greater expenditures to get a five-year savings payback. This is all taking place during a time of financial instability. I. 4. The idea would require a major commitment on the part of the district and its employees. AU employees, from the top down, would have to embrace a high degree of technological change and stick with it for five years. Nothing in their past performance indicates they have the right stuff' to succeed. 1 6 ABottom line: Ask: 5. Ideally, the district would have completed more front-end research and planning before committing to a course of action. The first part of the comprehensive Information Services Plan (needs assessment, goals and objectives, inventory) should be in place before choosing the approach. The business case does not look at the range of options available, For example, it does not even mention outsourcing the whole function as a solution, nor does it consider a pilot project to ensure incremental success. The district needs a major leap forward, and this is it. However, there are a number of major issues still left unanswered. Is now the right time to move aggressively without a well-laid plan? 1. When will a comprehensive plan for implement the new Information Services be completed? 2. Have you asked Board approval of this plan? 3. Why are you seeking Board approval and funding before developing the comprehensive plan? 4. Why didnt you consider other options like outsourcing or pilot projects? 5. The business case does not discuss the people issues at any length. There is no discussion of the reorganization costs, little comment on the big task of training, and almost nothing on preparing all district employees for the dramatic change in skills which will be required. What are you going to do about these issues? 0 II h ! i Ii I 7 1 i I i 0 |l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I I i ! BUSINESS CASES FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1995-96 March 14, 1995 I BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Additional Costs Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SUJH and CJHS Modify No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades Modify No 30,000.00 Beacons School Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Add No 37,000.00 Information Services Upgrade Data Processing CapabiIi ty Add No 317,500.00 Neucomer Centers Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Modi fy No 12,117.00 Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation Add No 10,614.00 Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Modify No 36,500.00 Business Cases: Total Savings S 2,359,329.00 Business Cases: Total Expenditures $ 478,696.00 Business Cases: Net Amount Savings S 1,880,633.00 March 13, 1995 ] B  \u0026lt;!  I I s Q I t ) I IV ea {\"S B' GB I co S!. iQ,r Business Cases Resulting in Savings Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program 0 \u0026gt; c c s Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Family Life Education (New Futures) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Substitute Teachers Vocational Education* BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACTIVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS March 9, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. Schools submitted grants for Focused Activities during the 1994-95 school year. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have covered the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Other alternatives are defined and when implemented should allow schools to discontinue the duplication of many services implemented through Focused Activities and APIG. The District will continue its efforts to adequately provide needed resources for area schools. By effectively utilizing funds available through federal, state, local operating and desegregation funds the District will be able to operate within the existing revenue. n 1 c c s 1ip have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Thus far, the District has not been able to identify any sustained academic improvement relative to APIG. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and coimectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to discontinue the implementation of Focus Activities and APIG. LRSD elementary area schools have not implemented focused activities. Prior to the 1993-94 school year, the District administration made no attempt to define focused activities or plan for its implementation in the schools. Not until the spring of 1993- 94 did the District began to study the various approaches to implementing Focused Activities. 0 \u0026gt; c E  On April 21,1994, the LRSD convened a steering committee and charged it with the responsibility of defining Focused Activities. Committee members were also to develop both a grant proposal form and promotional plan. The sixteen-member steering committee was composed of six building administrators, two central office administrators, two magnet school curriculum specialists, three classroom teachers appointed by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), and three parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants were made available in June of 1994, however, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994. Workshops were provided in the spring. Grant proposals were not submitted for various reasons. Portions of the grants were approved in order to allow schools to start their programs. The steering committee adopted the following goals for focused activities which are based on the goals in the focused activities section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: 1. 2. 3. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 34, Secure Outside Funding Request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. 5. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of failing. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. E. RECOMMENDATION n 1 c E  It is recommended that the LRSD concentrate on the implementation of its current curriculum that is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Education frameworks and standards. In addition, all efforts to increase achievement and to reduce disparities will be supported by the Academic Support Program, K-4 Summer School, Reading Recovery, Job Training Partnership Act, the College Preparatory Enrichment Program, Incentive School Extended Year Summer School, and the Regular Summer School program for grades 1-12. Responses from parents indicate that they are more desirous of strong academic programs rather than a concentration on a theme. The current curriculum provides the framework for delivering a variety of options for creating a community of learning to promote eru-ichment opportunities and to provide equitable opportunities for participation. F. Objective Provide and implement programs that meet the goals and objectives of the Focused Activities and APIG as described in the recommendations. 5G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as \"communities of learning,\" through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of District programs must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the District has not abandoned efforts to improve achievement. The results must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from magnet and incentive school programs. These recommendations will require a plan modification. However, successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons could be perceive that the District abandoned support for the area schools. \u0026gt;4 1 Q E  The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade off that was agreed upon in the settlement plan that allowed the various schools to be treated differently. This decision paved the way for a voluntary desegregation plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed resources for our area schools. Schools should be encouraged to implement innovative practices that build upon effective schooling principles by underwriting demonstration projects through business cases. Quality staff development must be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement are enhanced and expanded in order to attain our goals. 7 I3. 4. Identify grants and disseminate to principals opportunities for the 95-96 school year. Conclude Summer Initiatives. June, 1995 - June, 1996 July, 1995 5. 6. 7. Conduct Business Case Inservice for principals. Submit Evaluation Reports for Summer Programs. Conduct Academic Support Inservice for principals. July, 1995 July, 1995 July, 1995 8. 9. Implement appropriate recommendations from the evaluation report for summer programs. Retrieve data from principals in order to organize Extended Day. August, 1995 LRSD Grant Writer Assistant Superintendents Teachers Principals Associate Superintendents Teachers Principals Curriculum Supervisors Director of Federal Programs Local Area Schools h 1 Q s  10. Start Extended Day 11. Summative Evaluation of recommendations. November - December, 1995 January, 1996 June, 1996 Director of Federal Programs Area School Principals Teachers Director of Federal Programs Area Schools Assistant Superintendents 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ft 1 aB BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN STAFFING March 9, 1995 When the Incentive Schools are compared to a group of schools with similar characteristics, the staffing the Incentive Schools has not resulted in the expected levels of desegregation or academic improvements. The staffing configuration should be revised to deliver services in the most effective and characteristics configuration at cost efficient manner. A modification of the Desegregation Plan would be required if the Board approved this business case. The estimated savings are as follows: A. Art, Music, Physical Education (4.5 F.T.E.'s) Instructional Aides (38.0 F.T.E.'s) Counselors, Social Workers, and Nurses (2.5 F.T.E.'s) BACKGROUND 157,500.00 380,000.00 70,750.00 608,250.00 ft 1 Q.  The Little Rock School District is committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total *    This commitment includes learning enrichment for all students. Incentive Schools the elimination of racially-isolated schools. were designed to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program was designed not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to seirve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three Pulaski County districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The District committed to double fund these schools in order to provide the enriched program. The initial process for developing the Incentive School Plan was Sub-committees were formed to develop the different flawed. sections of the Incentive School plan. Each sub-committee developed its assigned section independent of the communication necessary to resolve conflicts in plan design.  and type of personnel were not tightly linked to the program. Thus, the number Prior to the approval of the 1989 Desegregation Plan by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, an attempt was made to refine the Incentive School section of the 1989 Desegregation Plan. The 1989 Plan had been declared unconstitutional by the District Court. Representatives of the Little Rock School District, the Joshua Inteirvenors, and the Knight Intervenors met many times in an effort to develop a more manageable Incentive School plan. Many of the discreet programs and activities were reduced or eliminated. 2INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SCHOOL franklin garland MITCHELL L rightsell ^rockefeller average characteristic Washington. was enrollment, except for Washington was included because of its evolution from an Incentive School to an Interdistrict School. remained an Incentive School, African-American students If Washington had would many of the have been served by the staff configuration currently in place at the Incentive Schools. o ENROLLMENT 443 282 272 229 403 COMPARISON SCHOOLS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DOOD fair park meadOUCLIFF WASHINGTON .WOODRUFF average 298 282 411 687 243 I CO 'O co I \u0026lt;0 w u to \u0026lt;U 3 U O) (0 o a O h\" a tA u \u0026lt; o I- U \u0026lt; a o * - u co LU 3  (0 c o u 3 (- w 4) to \"D C o c to 24 15 13 11 21 16.8 14 15 21 33 12 19 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 1 .4 1 2 .5 .98 17 11 10 8 15 12.2 3 3 2 4 7 3.8 o o D w a \u0026lt; oe u c JC  u 3 U 4^ 9.80 9.50 10.86 10.63 6.72 9.50 15.64 13.44 17.86 15.27 13.53 14.83 ea o U \u0026amp; \u0026lt; 01 L. u. 0) C O Q. oca H 3 6 * 92 75 81 71 82 46 71 73 69 73 70 67 70.4 34.1 36.4 36.7 40.1 35.7 36.6 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS Complete Battery GRADE 4 GRADE 6 '93 '94 '92 '93 '94 to o u m c K co n \u0026lt;J (Z\u0026gt; tr M ex e  36.9 38.9 43.8 45.4 47.4 42.48 39.8 45.0 43.1 50.5 40.7 43.82 41.8 38.6 45.1 51.4 47.1 46.6 33.1 32.1 42.0 52.0 45.9 41.02 40.9 49.7 44.3 52.4 49.8 47.42 A review of the chart reveals the following\n42.3 43.5 42.2 44.6 47.5 44.02 53.4 48.5 50.7 53.4 43.7 49.94 41.3 46.6 88.7 47.1 42.7 87.2 46.8 44.6 46.6 45.28 52.4 52.6 51.0 53.0 47.6 51.58 41.8 44.7 45.8 44.32 47.3 48.8 48.9 57.7 51.3 50.8 There is a lower adult (teachers and aides) to student ratio at the Incentive School than at the comparison schools. There is a .6 percent positive difference between the Incentive Schools and the comparison group relative to the number of students participating in the Free or 95.5 98.2 65.5 64.7 72.3 67.8 64.4 60.9 42. Eliminate all the enhanced staff. To eliminate all the enhanced staff might give the impression that the District is \"backing off\" its commitment to the incentive schools. Students would be denied the instruction and services that there staff members provide. In addition, to eliminate all music teachers, physical education teachers, art teachers, counselors, social workers, and nurses would place the District in a position of non-compliance with the Court approved Desegregation Plan. 3. Revise the enhanced staffing configuration in the Incentive Schools. Until the Incentive School Program is altered, the District should continue to explore ways to deliver services in the most effective and cost efficient manner. Bl 1 Q.  Regular classroom teachers (PreK-6) are assigned to schools based on enrollment. It is reasonable to expect that nurses, counselors, social workers, music teachers, art teachers, physical education teachers, and instructional aides would be assigned in a similar manner. The current staffing has not resulted in sustained academic improvement in the desegregation of the schools. After reviewing the comparative data, we can conclude that the Incentive School program can operate with fewer staff members without a decrease in student outcomes. D. RECOMMENDATIONS Number One It is recommended that the instructional aides be assigned to the Incentive Schools based upon specific programmatic functions rather than the number of regular classroom teachers per building. Since the classroom teacher is responsible for the learning of the students, it seems reasonable that the aides should provide the type of assistance that increases the time teachers can spend with students. follows: The instructional aides could be identified to assist as Parent Center (1 aide) The Parent Center is a vital component of the Incentive School Program and the District is committed to recruiting parents as aides. Therefore, the assignment of an aide to facilitate the Parent Center could enhance parental involvement. 6No decrease in required preparation time for regular classroom teachers Social and health services are no less than would be offered and received if students attended a nonincentive school. F. Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of providing academic excellence at the Incentive Schools by establishing instructional focus. The \"span of control\" for principals will be tightened. Greater staff efficiency will be evident. Since there is no empirical evidence that the goals of the Incentive School Plan will be adversely hampered, the revised staff configuration is cost effective for the District. The Districts financial condition will improve, if these recommendations are implemented. Bl 1 a B  IMPACT ANALYSIS There is no empirical evidence that the revised staff configuration will adversely impact the Desegregation Plan or specifically the Incentive School Program.  Implementation of the recommendations would require a modification of the Desegregation Plan. If we continue the same configuration, we expect the same results. It is not an efficient use of money to continue to operate in the same manner. The new configuration can be cost effective. In addition, a more focused curriculum delivery system is possible. Some persons who believe improved performance is related to the number of staff members may conclude that the reduction in the number of persons at the Incentive Schools might adversely impact student outcomes. 8* ACADEMIC SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES * SCHOOL FRANKLIN ___ GARLAND NITCHELL RIGHTSELL If the Incentive Schools are staffed in accordance with Recommendation Three, the estimated cost saving is as follows: COUNSELOR SOCIAL UORKER NURSE CURRENT 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 PROPOSED 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 CHANGE +/- -.5 NC NC NC CURRENT 1.0 1.0 .5 .5 PROPOSED 1.0 .5 .5 .5 CHANGE +/- NC .5 NC NC CURRENT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 PROPOSED 1.0 .5 .5 .5 CHANGE */- NC -.5 -.5 -.5 ROCKEFELLER 1.0 1.0 NC 1.0 1.0 NC 1.0 1.0 NC TOTAL 5.5 5.0 -.5 4.0 3.5 -.5 1.0 3.5 -1.5 w 1 ex  Reductions Counselor .5 Amount used for calculation $35,000 $ 17,500.00 IG Social Worker .5 Amount used for calculation $22,500 Nurse 1.5 Amount used for calculation $28,000 Total Combined estimated savings: Art, Music, and Physical Education (4.5) Instructional Aides (38.0) Counselors, Social Workers, \u0026amp; Nurses (2.5) TOTAL (45.0) 10 11,250.00 42,000.00 $ 70,750.00 $157,500.00 380,000.00 70,750.00 $608,250.00BUSINESS CASE MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM Executive Summary Currently, the district is operating a Community Education Program which pro\\ddes services for the community and school. The program was established during the 1990-91 academic year. This was brought about because community forums and other meetings were held during the 1989-90 school year. Parents expressed, during those meetings, that they felt McClellan has been neglected and had not received the full attention it deserved during the annexation. Parents suggested that it would be appropriate to capitalize on McClellans long tradition of community involvement and support by planning for McClellan High School to become a community school. The strongest part of the school at that time was the business department, which led to the idea of a business emphasis being placed on the community school concept. The ultimate goal of the Community Education Program was that it would attract enough revenue to become self-supporting in a few years, a status which it has not attained. The other problems facing the program are low revenue and limited space. The entire program is housed in an area of about 27 square yards. The purchase of the annex building was to take care of that problem but, with rising building costs and asbestos removal, it became impossible. tn X 1 o.  \"Community school\" is a term used to describe a school with programs and services which expand the use of the facility, making it the center of many activities and much communits' involvement. The facilities of a community school may be made available to the community almost around the clock so there is maximum use of the schools library, computer laboratory, gym, playing fields, cafeteria, etc. The wishes of the community, through surveys, governs the programs made available. It could be that, if the majority of the community wanted art classes, those would be provided. However, the survey indicated that classes that would assist the community in sharpening skills to enter the business world were the wishes. The philosophy of community education was started during the 1990-91 academic year. With the assistance of Eugene Reville, meetings were held prior to the 1990-91 school year to get community input. From those meetings sprang the communin education concept to be used in 1990-91. A committee was formed led by then Assistant Principal Jodie Carter, math teacher Anita Henson, vocational teacher Rose Bosan, LRSD School Board member Oma Jacovelli, and parents Mr. and Mrs. Wood. This committee worked with consultants in Flint, Michigan, to bring back a process to start community education at McClellan High School. Upon returning to Little Rock, the committee involved many community members in the McClellan attendance zone, mindful of the need to involve and keep informed all parties during the entire process to carry out the plan. After working with community groups throughout the process the final report was presented to The district will provide a budget of $40,000 to assist in the operation of salaries of the Community Education Program for one additional year, with the understanding that self-sufficiency may be attained by the 1996-97 school year.  The estimated savings to the district is now projected at $130,000.  The Community Education Program will remain housed at the McClellan High School.  The district will provide technical assistance to the Community Education Program in the form of grant writing expertise to assist in securing funding sources.  A financial review will take place mid-year so that all parties will be informed as to the progress being made toward achieving self- sufficiency status.  The district will work with the McClellan Community Education Advisory Board to ensure that the integrity of the governance, structure, and operation of the Community Education Program, as originally defined, are recognized. m M 1 \u0026amp; B  Background 1. The Community Education Program that was implemented at John L. McClellan High School during the 1990-91 academic school year, has been placed on a list for modification and/or deletion. Both business cases have been presented to the LRSD Board for review. After careful review of the Desegregation Plan and the December 30, 1992 Court Order, further review should be given to the Community Education Program. The major factor in the Court Order was that the Council should have meaningful involvement in any changes affecting McClellan. With that, the district and the schools administration wanted to make sure that part of the Order was followed. The district will remain supportive of the \"Community School\" concept, which links citizens and their schools together in ways that are mutually beneficial. 2. With the assistance of Dr. Eugene Reville, community meetings were held around the district seeking input from patrons. From these meetings sprang the Community School concept that Reville had seen in other parts of the nation. A committee was formed led by then Assistant Principal Jodie T. Carter, math teacher Anita Henson, vocational teacher Rose Bogan, LRSD School Board member O.G. Jacovelli, and parents Mr. and Mrs. Woods. This committee worked with consultants in Flint, Michigan, to bring back a plan to start community education at McClellan High School for the southwest area of Little Rock. After working with community groups throughout the process, the 3Council. Theoretically, the Advisory Council makes decisions through their voted representative on the Advisory Board. Identification: After reviewing the financial situation in the district, budget cuts district wide, and other factors, we are asking that one additional year of support be given to the Community Education Program. The city and other state agencies have expressed an interest in our continued success. 1. Change nothing. The Court Order to carry on the program could be compromised. The judge may feel that we are unwilling to follow the Desegregation Plan and/or her Court Order. 2. 3. The Program would be supported financially one more year to allow for self-sufficiency to occur. Clear up the role and responsibilities of the Advisory Council and the Advisory Board as stated in the Court Order. The Council is made up of community members with no voting power, but the Board members are elected officers of the Council and are given the power to represent the Council in making decisions and recommendations to the judge, the superintendent, and the administration. tn M I I 4. The Executive Committee met to set the agenda for the Board so that decisions and recommendations could be made. During those sessions, input was provided to include in this business case. 5. Personnel would remain the same, with assistance from the district in providing help with the technical writing. A federal grant already provides some help. Recommendation It is recommended that the district give financial support one more year to allow for self-sufficiency status to occur. This would allow the community, staff, and patrons to exhibit the type of leadership needed during the financial crisis to save this program for the community and McClellan High School. The rationale for this recommendation is that this action will confirm our commitment to the Desegregation Plan and our willingness to adhere to the Court Order. 5Council. Theoretically, the Advisory Council makes decisions through their voted representative on the Advisory Board. Identification: After reviewing the financial situation in the district, budget cuts district wide, and other factors, we are asking that one additional year of support be given to the Community Education Program. The city and other state agencies have expressed an interest in our continued success. 1. Change nothing. The Court Order to carry on the program could be compromised. The judge may feel that we are unwilling to follow the Desegregation Plan and/or her Court Order. 2. The Program would be supported financially one more year to allow for self-sufficiency to occur. 3. Clear up the role and responsibilities of the Advisory Council and the Advisory Board as stated in the Court Order. TTie Council is made up of community members with no voting power, but the Board members are elected officers-of the Council and are given the power to represent the Council in making decisions and recommendations to the judge, the superintendent, and the administration. w \u0026gt;4 1 Q. e  4. The Executive Committee met to set the agenda for the Board so that decisions and recommendations could be made. During those sessions, input was provided to include in this business case. 5. Personnel would remain the same, with assistance from the district in providing help with the technical writing. A federal grant already provides some help. Recommendation It is recommended that the district give financial support one more year to allow for self-sufficiency sUtus to occur. This would allow the community, staff, and patrons to exhibit the type of leadership needed during the financial crisis to save this program for the community and McClellan High School. The rationale for this recommendation is that this action will confirm our commitment to the Desegregation Plan and our willingness to adhere to the Court Order. 5Pro^am-. 'Pile continued support of the \"Community School\" that links citizens and their schools together in ways that are mutually beneficial. This will ensure district goal #6, to ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. The overall sound legal responsibility makes sense, with the promise of allowing the Community Education Staff the time to work toward self-sufficiency and with the promise of $40,000 to assist in operation of the Community Education Program for one additional year. Desegregation Plan-. No negative impact is noted. Court Order. w 1 Q. B  No negative impact is noted. Political Factor. Failure to comply could result in State and Federal involvement. Risk'. There is a possible risk of losing the program entirely if self-sufficiency is not reached within one year. Timing'. Continued district support must be implemented in FY 95-96. Resources Analysis Initial district estimates to discontinue the program projected a savings of $170,000. After meeting with the Executive Committee, a projected total operational budget for FY 95-96 was placed at $90,000. Revenues from the program are expected to meet or exceed $50,000. The district will provide a budget of $40,000 for FY 95-96. This will result in an estimated savings of $130,000 to the district. 7BUSINESS CASE Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to quality education for all students, reducing the disparity between sub-groups, balancing the budget, and implementation of the current Desegregation Plan. The HIPPY Program is an intervention program that focuses upon the parent as the first teacher of four and five year olds. However, there has been a decline in recent years of the enrollment of five year olds in the HIPPY program due to the mandatory Kindergarten program in public schools. The HIPPY USA guidelines advocate teaching a specific curriculum to young participants. The earlier that we begin with an educational program, the sooner students will experience learning that is valued and needed in early schooling. Further, research has proved that early learning impacts a childs motivation and ability to achieve as he/she progresses through school. Restructuring of the HIPPY Program, its staff, and responsibilities will allow the district to continue to provide quality services to designated students and Incentive Schools as well as reduce and/or realign our spending. The objective of these recommendations is to continue to serve families in our incentive schools as well as reduce spending to maintain a high quality HIPPY program. restructure M 1 o. B  The recommendation is to maintain enrollment, staff, and realign staff development activities by narrowing our focus to be more effective. As a result, the numbers of students entering kindergarten ready to learn will be maintained and/or increased. Human Resources will be better utilized as a result of restructuring the staffs responsibilities which will decrease spending as a result in the reduction of positions. Additional time will be available for home visits as a result of decreasing the weekly inservice time.A. BACKGROUND Those The Little Rock School District was one of the first of four (4) sites to begin implementation in Arkansas in 1986. Those programs included the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County School District, Pine Bluff, and the Early Childhood Development Center in Harrison. The following chart reflects the participation of families in the HIPPY Program since 1986. 3CC -'i I! 250 ^i-233....... 220 230---------230-\"  W Q. e  ECO -H  175..... 150 !i i i . ..140_____ 2^ 100 ico I-' 50 -j 132~ 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP 150 125 219 4-YEAR OLD FAMILIES ^*5-YEAR OLD FAMILIES i! I i 0 ' I i 0 - 3 2. 3. the required enrollment number. Additional assignments would be made based upon enrollment. Consequently, the family assignments could be dispersed across the city. Fundraisers were suggested with the emphasis on securing private donations. Initially, not enough donors were identified. This option will be pursued in order to expand services. Salary increases for Home Visitors were discussed. This alternative is in direct conflict with reducing This alternative was rejected because of the budget. the districts current financial condition. m 1 o. e 3 4. Provide service to HIPPY families in the incentive schools and designated families. We are currently serving families in shadow areas of incentive schools. D. RECOMMENDATION Given the districts current financial condition and the need to continue to provide services to designated four year olds, the following recommendations are proposed: Eliminate the HIPPY program except for parents within the incentive schools area as well as designated families. We will continue to seek funding from Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) funds, the citys Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)\nand any other appropriate agencies. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of these recommendations is to continue to serve families in our incentive schools as well as reduce spending to maintain a high quality HIPPY program. 5Impact on Court Orders This recommended plan will assist in balancing the budget. Further, the plan will improve productivity by maintaining the number of families that can be served and adequate utilization of resources. Further, it will assist in meeting the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Political Factors The success of the recommendations will depend upon how well central office and the Board of Directors communicate the program visions to the community. There are no major risks for implementing the recommendations. The risk against implementing these recommendations could result in the HIPPY Program not improving the quality of services to families as well as assist the district in reducing its spending. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS tn 1 Ct  Provided is a listing of personnel before and after the recommendations are implemented. The recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel can be selected from parents and Home Visitors currently participating in the program. There will not be additional expense for training because the Regional Technical Office provides training at the beginning of each year as part of the program. Additional training will be done weekly by trained central office staff. Total operating cost for the 1994-95 school year is #344,401.00. Total projected cost for the 1995-96 school year is $120,632.00. Projected savings are $223,769.00. 7I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE 1. Restructure program 03/95 Supervisor 2. Restructure of staff, responsibilities \u0026amp; schedules 03/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 3. Parents will enroll four year olds 07/95 Supervisor/ Home Visitors w 1 Q. e  4. Reduce Inservice time to accommodate additional families 08/95 Supervisor 5. Maintain or increase the number of families that Home Visitors serve each week 07/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 6. Monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the program 06/96 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 9BUSINESS CASE FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Family Life Education Program was established eight years ago as a part of the New Futures Initiative to address the number of teen pregnancies in our District. The 1993-94 LRSD Annual Health indicated the lowest number of teen pregnancies in eight Report ___ Due to the delicate nature of the material being covered, specialists were hired and trained to teach the curriculum in ___ 7. The program used by the teachers in the LRSD was designed by the specialists to fit the needs of the students in the years. grades K-7. District. Due to deficits in the budget, the number of specialists has been reduced and the number of schools in the program has been limited m X 1 a  to fourteen. Nurses and counselors have participated in staff    A recommendation development in the area of reproductive health. is being made to institutionalize the family life program. than use specialists to teach the classes, nurses, counselors, and classroom teachers will be trained to teach the course. institutionalizing the program all schools will be involved in the The content of the program will be consistent All students will have the opportunity to Rather By Family Life Program, across the District. The recommendation is being made to participate in the program. move the program from New Futures to the Science Department and retain the coordinator and one specialist. The objective of reducing the staff and placing the remaining staff under the Science department is to insure continued delivery of a guality program that will reduce teen pregnancy while reducing the expense of a full time staff of specialists. The program can be revamped and delivered with existing staff in the buildings\nhowever, supervision of the program and staff development are still Several staff development sessions will be held to help needed. the nurses and counselors understand the full scope of the program. Teachers who express an interest in teaching the program in their schools will be trained. The coordinator and specialist will provide staff development, monitor the program, and provide support The proposed recommendations will save for the District's schools. the District approximately $77,000. A. BACKGROUND The Family Life Education Program started due to the high number of pregnancies in the Little Rock School District's student population. A reguest was made by the Superintendent to develop a program which would help students develop their self-esteem, decision-making skills, communication skills, and an understanding . The program began in the seventh grade Due to the delicate nature of the material being of reproductive health. science program. covered, specialists were hired and trained to teach the *3 maintain the status quo by Three alternatives were considered: continuing the delivery of the family life education program through specialists, shift delivery responsibilities to classroom teachers, nurses, and counselors, with only a small staff to provide staff development and monitor the program, or eliminate the continuing the and counselors, family life education program. would exacerbate a Eliminating the Family Life Education program ., societal problem of teen pregnancy. The positive stridesthat the Family Life program has made would quickly be lost. Students, ramxxy uxic j- uiu -----j_ j   especially in an urban environment, must be taught about decision making, self-esteem and reproductive health. Maintaining the status quo would be great, it were affordable. Reproductive health content has the potential to be controversial if it is not taught properly, without vulgar slang Trained specialists can best affordable. terminology and sexual overtones. teach this content. However, in only if tn 1 Ct e  program can be maintained in a more the face of budget cuts, the economically feasible way. The best alternative is to institutionalize the program by moving the teaching responsibilities to professionals already in the schools  nurses, counselors, and science teachers. Even these I frequently not initially able to teach Training and supervision by a small staff of must to maintain quality control and nurses, counselors professionals, however, are the curriculum. Family Life specialists is a reduce the potential for controversy, five to two, these objectives can be met. By reducing the staff from D. RECOMMENDATIONS The District should institutionalize the Family Life Education Program by assigning the teaching responsibilities to nurses,  A skeleton staff of a coordinator counselors and science teachers. __-- . *. and one specialist would provide staff development, coordinate and monitor the program. This recommendation would be accomplished through the following steps: 1. Remove the program from the District funded portion of New Futures and placing it under the Science/Health Retaining the services of the coordinator and 1) the scope of the program. specialist would insure that: one program was supervised, 2) staff development was conducted for the teachers, nurses and counselors 3) the nurses 4) the and counselors were working together, 5) the approved schools had the correct paper work, videos were being used, and 6) the students continued to receive the best instruction possible. and coordinator would oversee the instruction of the and assist the counselors, nurses, and teachers The coordinator would work with the The specialist program whenever possible. Supervisor of Science to maintain quality instruction ofT 1 0 5 Finally, participants in staff development will complete evaluations of the training sessions. i i I I I I F. EXPECTED BENEFITS The benefits of the objective are to continue a trend of low teenage pregnancy in the District. The teen pregnancy rate of the District's student population was lowest in eight years in Thus, students have been and will continue to be the 1993-94. beneficiaries of the program. IMPACT ANALYSIS The effect of reducing the Family Life Program staff and programs can be minimal if the program is adequately supervised and maintained by a coordinator and one specialist. These people will  Visiting classes. tn 1 Cl  need to have a major role in the schools. providing staff development, and assisting teachers and staff at all times will be the primary role of these two people. Ccuncclcrc and nurses will need to understand the importance of continuing the Counselors Teachers willing to be trained can program in their schools. assist with the program and help teach the program if needed. Desegregation Plan The Family Life Education Program is listed as a component of the health and physical education program of the Incentive  Each of the Incentive Schools Schools (p.l56, April, 1992) have a full time nurse and counselor. These two people will play a major role in continuing the program in their schools. The Adolescent Health Committee of New Futures is also IS studying the possibility of adding a special after school program for girls in the Incentive Schools. Court Orders No The recommendation will support the Desegregation Plan, additional Court Orders concerning Family Life Education have been issued. Political Factors Failure to assure the public that the Family Life Education program is being continued in schools where it has been popular would be viewed very negatively. Risks The risks of reducing the program to in-school staff is that the program may be watered down to the extent that the . The risk of not having a program effectiveness is diminished. at all is that the pregnancy rate could show a steady increase instead of the downward trend shown over the last few years. IT 7 H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS nurses, The primary supporters of this program will be teachers, counselors, as well as parents. The supporters of the program will appreciate assurances that the program is not being totally but that the instruction is being refocused using eliminated, Knowing that support will continue existing building personnel. from the Instructional Resource Center will help. Detractors should be few. Some parents may object to the program by in-school personnel if they think the Some nurses who feel being instructed instructors have not been adeguately trained. uncomfortable as teachers may also be a little skeptical of the change Counselors and nurses will have to be convinced that they can become guality instructors of this program. tn M 1 c.  I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The coordinator of Family Life Education under the supervision of the Supervisor of Science will have the responsibility for overseeing the continued development and instruction of the will be scheduled. of program. Classroom observations win oe scneauiea. Counselors and nurses will turn a schedule of instruction into the coordinator and ,111 ^_1_____1. The junior high program will be scheduled through the Science Department and will be taught as a three week The dates will be scheduled and the coordinator visits will be planned. module in Science. Inservice will and specialist will visit and assist the teachers. be planned and held for all seventh grade science teachers, nurses and counselors. Attendance will be required at and counselors. the the inservice sessions. ILittle Rock School District Improving Student Transportation January, 1995 w M 1 o. e s Addition A Business Case \" ISTOP 3 Modification $1,000,000 savings over 3 years DeletionImproving Student Transportation Business Case 3 The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capability given the delays in implementation of outsourcing when considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. It is critical that the decision be made before June 1, so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs (See Attachment 1). The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. M o. Milestone 1. Reestablish a transportation steering committee______ 2. Write request for proposals (RFP)__________________ 3. Steering committee review RFP____________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors_____________ 5. RFP information session for potential contractors_____ 6. Proposals submitted_____________________________ 7. Proposals screened by steering committee__________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval__________________________ 9. Notice to employees_____________________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees__________________ 12, Recruitment of new employees____________________ 13. Inventory property_______________________________ 14, Finalize contract_________________________________ 15. Relocate Safety and Security Department___________ 16. Property transfer and occupancy___________________ 17. Complete bus routes_____________________________ 18. Retrain current employees '*'* W tn Dt. Hmry P WtUti Date 2/15/95 2125195 31^9195 3IMI95 3I3V95 4/14/95 4/28/95 5/25/95 Person Mayo Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Committee Williams 5/26/95 5/26/95 6/^/95 6/1/95 6/26/95 QI23I95 QI39I95 QI39I95 1129195 51^195 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Cheatham Contractor (o/iozs tu!ioirm.oocT Improving Student Transportation Business Case 5 source. Unfortunately, this cost is only a beginning. The additional personnel purchased with that money will be an annual cost to the school budget. This has not fixed the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses ordered will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few will arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem is provided in this business case. Problem Definition Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance that has occurred because of an aging fleet and driver performance. In this proposal, the notion of an aging fleet is supported by statistics of the number of buses with excessive miles, the increasing costs of repairs, the increasing need for mechanics, and the increasing calls for wrecker service. Concern about poor driver performance is supported by statistics on driver absenteeism, the preventable accident rate, and high worker's compensation claims. All comparisons are made between standards acceptable to contractors in the industry and standards of LRSD. m 1 a e  Aging Fleet To bring the aging fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on engine type and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Based on equipment inventoried November, 1994, the replacement schedule should look like Figure 1. The shaded area gives a historical perspective on buses purchased prior to this school year. The replacement schedule begins at the line marked 1995-96. However, new buses for 1994-95 will not be received until the spring of School Year 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure j Buses 0 0 112 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 S-hMWd by Dr Hatnt P. Wib (0/10/95 Busot/mjxx\nIImproving Student Transportation Business Case 7 Driver Performance Several factors are used to reflect driver performance. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because absenteeism inconveniences students, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and an accurate indicator of the unsatisfactory performance of the current system. By May of 1994, the daily driver absentee rate was 23%. The fall of 1994 shows some improvement, but that was so of 1993 also. The result of this high level of absenteeism performance. was poor increased route student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. More often than not, the transportation system is besieged by problems stemming from driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Driver Performance Absenteeism 23% fl Absent Figure 3 12%  LRSD  Contractor w 1cu s sick leave provisions. Vehicle accident rate is another indicator of driver performance (Figure 4). Accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to unnecessary down-time for equipment. Preventable accidents are an even more interesting statistic since they are a result of driver error. In 1992-93, the District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1993-94, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 Figure 4 accidents per million miles respectively. Though the two year trend is downward, it exceeds the standards of contractors in the industry considerably. By contrast, private contractors average a record of K Dr. Hwy f /10/95 8U5OtnV5.DOC a 8 Improving Student Transportation Business Case 9 ate Analysis of Alternatives 1 ers ree ost the 94, all the SD its. ing Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals, support staff, and administrators in the LRSD last summer. Upon careful consideration, several aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet, increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. Though the committee favored outsourcing as the alternative of choice, that idea failed when placed before the Board of Directors for lack of a vote. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and driver training is not maintained because of turnover\n2. Follow industry standards far equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This is the most expensive alternative. The district w a e  Staffing Comparison LRSD V. Contractor would continue to operate the system. Buses would be replaced on schedule. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first of the ion 3. rmooc 14 12 10 8 6 4 2  LRSD  Contractor Additional SUff to meet standard (+$303,370 each year) 13 5 5 3 3 3 3 4.3 7 3.5 1 1 1 1 1 0 Manager* Suparv*. Dispatch*. Clerk* Maint Sup. Position Figure 5 year increase to the budget is approximately $1.3 million. This alternative was used this year. Figure 5 illustrates the comparison between existing positions in the district and the number needed. The intent is to match the training mechanics, preventive industry in positions, and maintenance positions. The need for buses was illustrated earlier. One million of this money was used to purchase new buses and $.3 million was used to increase personnel. Costs continue to grow dramatically with this alternative, however. Turn over tlie M-M portion of the system to the Arkansas Department of Education. This would reduce costs for LRSD but increase coordination problems. **\u0026gt;** by O. Hany P. W|Ut 03/10/95 SUBOUmOOC0 Improving Student Transportation Business Case 11 is y le le n 6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. Impact Analysis is h y The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 70 drivers. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. it e d n IS Negatives J 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\nJ It O n 2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of- .f service decrease\nfor repairs will 6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly Quality of Performance Bus Availability, Driver Absenteeism, Not-un-Time Buses y tn 1 o.  30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%  LRSD  Contractoi 30% 23% 14% 12% 5% 1% Out-of-Service Absenteeism Not-on-Time Figure 6 IOC (D/I0/9S BusoumnocT Improving Student Transportation Business Case 13 Revenue Source The money normally allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a year-to-year cost-reducing strategy for the 1995-96 budget. I Force Field Analysis 1 Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution -- patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service. Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of outsourcing is that service will improve while reducing costs. w O. ' General Implementation Plan 1 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Reestablish a transportation steering committee______ 2. Write request for proposals (RFP)__________________ 3. Steering committee review RFP____________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors_________________ 5. RFP information session for potential contractors_____ 6. Proposals submitted_____________________________ 7. Proposals screened by steering committee__________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval__________________________ 9. Notice to employees ___________________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees__________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees____________________ 13. Inventory property_______________________________ 14. Finalize contract fcy Or Huy p WOIim. Date 2/15/95 2I28I9S 31^9198 31^1193 3/31/95 4/14/95 4/28/95 5/25/95 Person Mayo Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Committee Williams 5/26/95 5/26/95 Q/'i/QS 6/1/95 6/26/95 QI28/95 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams m/lO/W BU9OUTVJDOCImproving Student Transportation Business Case 15 Attachment! Comparison of LRSD costs to Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. Costs (From 1994 Proposal) EXPENSE CATEGORY Salaries Fringe Benefits________ Purchased Services Materials / Supplies Capital Outlay________ Other Objects SUBTOTAL Budget Yr 1994-95 3,679,789 800,604 676,500 964,664 11,000 1,000 6,133,557 Budget Yr 1995-96 3,790,183 809,049 686,648 984,041 11,000 1,000 6,281,921 Budget Yr 1996-97 3,985,519 852,142 700,381 1,003,722 11,000 1,000 6,553,764 TOTAL 11,455,491 2,461,795 2,063,529 2,952,427 33,000 3,000 18,969,242 w 1 CL I B. I  Fleet Insurance Workers Compensation Fleet Disposal 512,680 236,473 537,000 522,933 243,565 533,392 251,357 Bus Payment SUBTOTAL 1,286,153 1,155,391 1,921,889 1,317,297 2,102,046 1,569,005 731,395 537,000 2,472,688 5,310,088 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 7,419,710 8,203,810 8,655,810 24,279,330 Mayflower Proposal Special Education TOTAL SAVINGS Regular/M-to-M Special Ed TOTAL toy O Hmry P WiUun*. 6,463,981 857,261 7,321,242 6,997,680 876,035 7,873,715 7,170,387 895,372 8,065,759 20,632,048 2,628,668 23,260,716 98,468 330,095 590,051 1,018,614 6,562,449 857,261 7,419,710 7,327,775 876,035 8,203,810 7,760,438 895,372 8,655,810 21,650,662 2,628,668 24,279,330 OlZie/H BU5OUTVS.0OCBUSINESS CASE NEW FUTURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The New Futures program was established in 1988 as a part of New Futures for Little Rock Youth, a nonprofit foundation, begun with a grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, Maryland, and local matching funds. New Futures is a city-wide effort to address the needs of at-risk adolescent youth in the Little Rock School District. The goal of New Futures is to bring about systems change, institutional reform, and programs and policies that value youth and their families through addressing youth issues in delivery systems that have great impact on youth and families. w 1 Q.  I The focus of the New Futures education component was concentrated at the junior high school years. Four junior high schools, Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest Teachers participated in a middle level restructuring program. and administrators were provided staff development, technical assistance and planning opportunities to build local capacity in order to create conditions for change within a traditional educational program, structure, curriculum design and delivery system. After two years of preparation, all four schools implemented the following middle level practices: students were organized into smaller heterogenous, learning communities called teams\nteachers were organized into interdisciplinary teaching teams sharing a common group of students throughout the school day\nspecific programming for at-risk youth was developed and implemented\na new core course for the 7th and 8th grades (9th grade:dropped after one year). Learning Foundations, was developed and implemented\nteaching teams were provided with a common planning period during the academic day by reorganizing the school day into seven blocks of time\na master schedule was developed to allow teachers to utilize flexible scheduling as determined by instructional needs. The New Futures program should be expanded to include supporting and assisting in the development of the district wide middle school planning process. Modifications in the current design of the program need to be implemented in light of the budget restraints and the needs for additional instructional opportunities for students continuing to experience academic difficulties. These modifications will require redesigning the master schedule in order to maintain and continue to develop effective middle level programming and specifically the interdisciplinary teaming component. This will require flexibility in approach and design.T page 3 Data from the living in poverty, less than 5.8% were receiving AFDC, and only 20% of poverty-level youth received foodstamps. Data from the district at that time indicated that 43% of all LRSD students were economically disadvantaged. Poverty combines with other problems to predict a limited future for students caught in these circumstances. district data, the 1986-87 annual drop-out rate was 13.9% for 74% of the drop-outs were black, and 45% of all According to that year. dropouts left school during the tenth grade. students entering the 7th grade in 1986 were one or more grade More than 40% of levels behind in reading or math. During 1986-87 school year, the suspension rate was 11.9% with six times as many blacks 71% of these suspensions occurred at the suspended as whites. junior high level. Of the 13.9% students who dropped out of school, 45% had been suspended more than once. I S I II ri Multiple factors contribute to the problems faced by at-risk youth. Many of these students begin school academically behind their more affluent peers and remain there, becoming increasingly discouraged about their ability to compete and succeed in school  * A number of these students find school discouraging or in life. and begin cutting classes, skipping school, or acting disruptive. The focus on joint planning and coordination of the services by the youth serving agencies became a major goal for New Futures to assist at-risk youth who had historically been served by a fragmented pattern of services. Though not traditionally thought of as a youth service provider, the Little Rock School District certainly has the most far- reaching impact on Little Rock youth. The district joined with New Futures to develop programs aimed at reducing the Jr. High and Sr. High drop-out rates, to reduce the percentage of students who are one or more grade levels behind on the standardized achievement tests, to improve the attendance rates for Jr. High students, to improve the graduation rates, to reduce the teen pregnancy rate and teen birth rate among students, and to increase the level of community awareness of and commitment to staff at-risk youth. Strategies to achieve improved student incicators include: interdisciplinary teaming, student incentives, afterschool programming, in-school suspension programming, development opportunities, and professional networking opportunities. Prior to this initiative, such a collaborative effort focused on adolescent at-risk, youth did not exist in Little Rock or the school district. A multi-pronged, wrap around approach was Multiple strategies and developed between the parties involved. practices were implemented across the community.T page 5 The academic day consists of seven periods. Students in the 7th and Sth grades take four core courses, two electives, and one additional required course. Learning Foundations. This course was developed and implemented in 1990 to provide additional Language Arts instruction. 9th grade students take four core courses and three electives. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The New Futures Program should be expanded to include supporting and assisting in the development of the district wide middle school planning process. Two modifications in the current design of the program need to be implemented in light of budget reductions and the need for additional instructional opportunities for students continuing to experience academic difficulties. S? I \u0026amp;   I C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives were considered: (1) maintain the current program by continuing at the four pilot schools, (2) utilize the existing capacity that has been developed in the pilot schools as a base to expand the program district wide making two adjustments in the current programmatic design: implementing the Language Arts Plus component of the district's Academic Support Program in lieu of the Learning Foundations course and redesigning the day to include six periods with one common team planning period. Maintaining the current program at the four pilot schools would fail to capitalize on the capacity that has been developed nor would it recognize the lessons learned regarding best practice for early adolescents through this initiative and review of research. The best alternative is to institutionalize the program that has been piloted through the support of the middle school concept while taking advantage of the internal capacity that has been developed with outside resources and making two modifications to better meet student needs and conserve resources. D. RECOMMENDATION Utilizing the existing capacity that has been developed would serve as a base to expand innovative programming for early adolescents and at-risk youth through the support and development of the middle school concept. This would also capitalize on internal capacity developed through outside resources.T page 7 for students in the middle of their educational careers and need special educational programming that is specifically designed to best meet the needs of early adolescents. GOAL SUPPORT The New Futures Program as implemented under the recommendation will support district goals 1 and 2. The implementation of the Language Arts Plus Program will address goal 1 as it will specifically focus on the basic skills for students who are academically deficient. EVALUATION CRITERIA The objective will be evaluated through an annual report on student progress in the Language Arts Plus Program and continued evaluation of the student indicators of attendance, course failures, suspensions, and achievement on the t w f M ! 1 CL  standardized tests. Qualitative instruments will be i s I developed to obtain teacher feedback on programmatic implementation. EXPECTED BENEFITS The benefits of the objective are to continue to improve the quality of educational programming that is developed and implemented for middle level students and students at-risk. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The effect of retaining support for the New Futures Program will be positive for the continued improvement and development of appropriate middle level programming. The implementation of Language Arts Plus will increase the opportunity for students deficient in language arts skills to increase their achievement. Flexibility and creativity will be used as a new master schedule is developed in order to retain the integrity of the middle level program strategies that have been established. However, teachers will need to use the planning time carefully and in a worst case scenario volunteer a portion of their personal planning time to conduct team business. Students in the 7th and Sth grades will continue to have the same elective opportunities as currently available. There will no change in this situation. Additional time during the academic day will be focused on the acquisition of basic skills for those students demonstrating the need for academic assistance in these areas. Ninth grade students' schedule will include four core courses and two electives. This would reflect a return tc the scheduling program that was in place before the 9th grade Learning Foundations course was eliminated in 1991.f page 9 Adopting the Language Arts Plus component of the Academic Support Program will result in a moderate increase in the number of certified staff needed at each of the four schools in the English departments. It is estimated that an additional 7 to 9 staff members will be needed to implement the Language Arts Plus component. However, an increase in the total number of certified English positions for the purpose of staffing the Language Arts Plus component of the district's Academic Support Program will reduce the total number of reading teachers nneeeeddeedd.. This will result in an additional reduction of approximately by 4 positions resulting in a total certified staff reduction of 20 positions. Financial Analysis The impact of the recommendation on personnel costs will be dramatic. The staffing components referred to in this recommendation are interdependent of each other. In order to realize the financial savings reflected in this analysis, the components must work together, not in isolation. The recommendation calls for a total certified staff reduction in the four junior high schools totaling approximately 20 positions resulting in a net cost savings as indicated below: S' I 1| s Is H. Elimination of 13 Learning Foundations staff Elimination of 12 additional certified staff through a return to the six period day Elimination of 4 reading teachers Addition of 9 English teachers $381,848 $420,000 $140,000 $315,000 The final cost saving in staff reductions will be: $626,848. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters will include the New Futures Collaborative who advocate the continued development of middle level programming, systemic reform, and support for at-risk youth. Additional supporters will include teachers, principals. and central office administrators. Primary detractors will be teachers who will be displaced by the staff reductions and representatives of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS BUSINESS CASE m I a. ' o. (Revised March 9, 1995) e ! 2! rLittle Rock School District Human Resources Department college degree, the substitute is paid $40 per day. Substitutes who have substituted in the same position for 20 days are paid $85.50 per day after the twentieth day. All substitutes are assigned by the Substitute Office Service (SOS). SOS is a division of the Human Resources Department. Substitutes are assigned for a variety of reasons. When a teacher is absent, the reason for the absence is reported by the absent teacher's school. each of the following categories: The absences are recorded in m 1 CL e a 1) sick, 2) personal, 3) vacation, 4) professional, 5) inservice, 6) jury, 7) court, 8) military, 9) medical with or without pay, 10) suspension with or without pay, 11) workman's compensation. The District substitutes. budgets Included approximately $1.6 million for in the $1.6 million is $400,000 budgeted for substitutes for non-certified employees. certified substitute fund pays for substitute teachers which The are not charged against another budget category. substitutes reguired to cover classes for teachers involved in For example. special inservice training would normally be charged to the area or department for whom the training was being conducted. From the information presented above, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the District should reduce the amount paid for However, there are many instances where substitutes. employing a substitute on a long term basis costs less than the District would have spent on the teacher of record for a position. For example, many teachers who go on long term leaves for illness or other reasons are not paid during the term of the leave. experience) earns $104.55 per day. The lowest paid teacher (BA degree and no a long term sub would be paid. This is $19.05 more than Compared to a teacher at the top of the scale, the District pays the long term substitute $126.32 less per day. These savings are never reflected\nthe only thing which is shown is that the substitute fund is charged with more expense. Problem Definition\nNo one would disagree with the premise that it is better to have the regular teacher in the classroom instructing the students. However, experience tells us that teachers are absent for a variety of reasons, many of which they cannot control. It is also better to remove a teacher from a classLittle Rock School District Human Resources Department usage and to attempt to quell the substitute expenditures by the recommendations which are presented below. Recommendation 1\nThere is not enough information from the evaluation results to form any specific recommendations which have validity in reductions of substitute usage. C__ ____1__1___ ___\n__ reached which Some conclusions can be recommendation. are the logical basis for a general There should be a joint ad hoc committee formed consisting of administrators and union representatives. This committee should be charged with studying data as it becomes available this year, and from that study, make recommendations on joint measures to reduce absenteeism and substitute usage. Or, these issues could be discussed and made m B. ' 2! a matter of business for the negotiations teams District and the teachers' union. of the Using either method, the ideas should not be limited. Recommendations which include performance incentives tied to measurable student academic growth and employee attendance should be considered. Objective\nThe purpose of the recommendation is to ultimately reduce substitute usage and thereby reduce the requirement to budget as much of the District's revenue on substitutes. The District's ability to address absenteeism is in large measure contingent upon the willingness of the employees and their union to help in the effort. Their willingness to help will be heightened by their awareness of the magnitude of the problem and the dollars that absenteeism and substitutes divert benefits. from other budget areas including salaries and Impact Analysis\nRecommendations which are successfully implemented will reduce absenteeism and its associated costs. A positive by product would be increased student achievement resulting from fewer lost days of instruction with the regular classroom teacher. Desegregation Plan\nThere is no apparent negative impact on the desegregationLittle Rock School District Human Resources Department usage and to attempt to quell the substitute expenditures by the recommendations which are presented below. Reeommandation 1\nThere is not enough information from the evaluation results to form any specific recommendations which have validity in I m i reductions of substitute usage. Some conclusions can be reached which are the recommendation. logical basis for a general Q. There should be a joint ad hoc committee formed consisting of administrators and union representatives. This committee should be charged with studying data as it e 5 becomes available this year, and from that study, make recommendations on joint measures to reduce absenteeism and substitute usage. Or, these issues could be discussed and made a matter of business for the negotiations District and the teachers' union. teams of the Using either method. the ideas should not be limited. Recommendations which include performance incentives tied to measurable student academic growth and employee attendance should be considered. Objective\nThe purpose of the recommendation is to ultimately reduce substitute usage and thereby reduce the requirement to budget as much of the District's revenue on substitutes. The District's ability to address absenteeism is in large measure contingent upon the willingness of the employees and their union to help in the effort. Their willingness to help will be heightened by their awareness of the magnitude of the problem and the dollars that absenteeism and substitutes divert benefits. from other budget areas including salaries and Impact Analysis\nRecommendations which are successfully implemented will reduce absenteeism and its associated costs. A positive by product would be increased student achievement resulting from fewer lost days of instruction with the regular classroom teacher. Desegregation Plan\nThere is no apparent negative impact on the desegregationLittle Rock School District Human Resources Department Recommendation 2\nThe portion of the substitute usage which is actually under the complete control of the District is professional leave and inservice training. Through December 13th the District had approved 953 days of professional leave. This amounts to only a small portion of the overall substitute budget\ndoes translate to $46,000 as of December 13, 1994. however, it If the usage continues at this rate for the remainder of this year, approximately $110,000 will be expended for substitutes for professional leave in the 1994-95 school year. pa I 1! Q. ' B 1 As a result, the District should consider separating this portion of the substitute budget with a dedicated line appropriating a specific sum of money for professional leave and inservice training. When that amount of money has been spent in a fiscal year, no additional leave could be granted without a reimbursement from whichever department requested the leave or training. It is recommended that the cap for professional leave be set at $60,000 for the 1995-96 school year, a savings of approximately $50,000. This would represent Obiactive\nThe objective is to establish budgetary control over the amount that the District spends for professional leave and inservice training which requires the use of substitutes. Impact Analysis\nThe impact would be a more careful distribution and usage of professional leave and inservice training which requires the use of a substitute, limits for usage. The level of funding would determine the Desegregation Plan\nThere is no apparent negative impact on the desegregation plan. Court Orders\nThere is no known impact.Little Rock School District Human Resources Department paid, the substitute fund should not be charged since this is a savings for the District. The cost should be offset in the Departmental budget against the salary costs budgeted for that site. The same thing should be considered when personal leave is taken with the employee paying for the cost of the substitute, this is not a true expense because the employee has reimbursed the District for the cost of the substitute. I w o. It must once again be emphasized that these accounting recommendations do not save the District any money\nthey only more accurately reflect the proper account for the for the savings or expenditures.  2----- -1 Neither does the recommendation indicate that it is preferable to have substitutes than regular classroom teachers. e  Objective\nThe objective is to clarify what substitutes actually cost the District by breaking down costs versus savings and charging them to the more appropriate account. Impact Analysis\nThere is no net savings by adopting this recommendation\nthe impact would simply be a more realistic picture of the actual financial burden substitutes place on the budget. Also, there is no reduction in substitute days from the recommendation\ntherefore, there are no benefits for the instructional program resulting from having fewer substitutes in the classroom. Desegregation Plan\nThere is no apparent negative impact on the desegregation plan. Court Orders\nThere is no known impact. Political Factors\nThere are no known political factors which would negatively impact the recommendation.BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Little Rock School District offers an Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) program at all eight (8) junior high schools to 7th, 8th, and 9th graders. The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology is directed toward four major clusters: communication, construction, manufacturing, and E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation). Students are exposed to using computers, robots, lasers, pnuematics, telecommunication, and other modern equipment and concepts. The program was implemented over a period of four years. Start-up funding was obtained through a proposal for New or Expanded Programs offered by the Arkansas Department of Education, Vocational Division. 7th, Sth, and 9th graders. four years. and E.P.T. S I li o. I B j  i The The trainer modules/equipment used in an E.I.T.E. lab are very expensive with an initial cost, including supplies and materials, in excess of $40,000.00. equipment in two junior highs is in dire need of replacement or the program should be eliminated. Due to funding circumstances, budget cuts, and other unforeseen occurrences, the effort to maintain and/or meet state standards relative to equipping these labs has been frustrating as well as futile. Certified personnel in the field of Industrial Arts/Industrial Technology has become an additional problem the Little Rock School District has had to contend with the last three years, due in large part to teacher retirement and/or teachers not meeting required statecertification standards. Currently, there are three schools with either a long term substitute or a non-certified industrial arts/industrial technology teacher teaching this course. While Low enrollment in some vocational courses and/or programs continues to bring questions as to a need to offer the particular course or eliminate it. making this decision, the District must use caution. Several vocational courses are needed to provide complete programs of study for those students desiring to become Tech Prep completers. Under Act 969 of 1993, students who graduate after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum (Tech Prep). requirements become more rigid, vocational courses, as well as other elective courses, begin to experience low enrollment problems. As graduation Nationwide, education and training are undergoing major restructuring, the main reason being that our present educational system no longer meets the needs of society. The Tech Prep movement was initiated in response to this need. During the 1993-94 school year. Little Rock School District began putting the Tech Prep program of studies in place to meet state mandates. The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training for entry and/or midlevel careers. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to train our students. Several courses in vocational education are experiencing low enrollment due to scheduling conflicts relative to graduation requirements or lack of time in their daily schedules for electives. courses need to be eliminated because of low enrollment, the District must be careful to not eliminate courses that are \"capstone\" or completer courses for Tech While some Prep programs of study which are mandated by Act 980 of 1991. 1A. BACKGROUND Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, the Little Rock School District replaced the traditional, but outdated, Industrial Arts program with a new concept designed to provide students with learning experiences in modern industrial technology. This new educational program is Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) and is taught as a semester course for seventh and eighth graders, and a full year course for 9th graders. implementation was completed during the 1992-93 school year when the last lab was installed at Southwest junior high. All of the instructors were certified Industrial Arts teachers, who had to receive additional training and college Full credit to become certified to teach the course. The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology Education is directed toward four major clusters for 7th, Sth, and 9th graders: communication, construction, manufacturing, and E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation). Students are exposed to using computers, robots, lasers, pneumatics, telecommunication, and other modern equipment and concepts.....................- - be taken by any student declaring a Tech Prep course of study in Trade and communi cati on, construction This course should S * I CL Industry skilled training programs. Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. Tech Prep is considered a \"dualpurpose program of study\", which means that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational col lege preparatory program or a combination, schools establish a Tech Prep core curriculum. .... . has made great progress in implementing the Tech Prep initiative, but still has a lot of work to complete. During the 1993-94, and 1994-95 school years, changes have been made and capstone or \"completer\" courses have been put in place to provide the linkage needed to have complete programs of study in the home schools. The Tech Prep programs of study are available in Consumer Home Economics, Business Education and Marketing, and Trade and Industry in all of the home schools. These programs of study will give students what they need to be employable or to continue their postsecondary education or training after high school graduation. The new standards require each school to make available programs of study in three occupational programs. Metropolitan Area Vocational Center is a part of the Little Rock School District, the skills training programs offeredthere are an extensionof the Trade and Industry program of study. In the Little Rock School District home schools. Trade and Industry programs are limited, almost non-existent. or technical program, a Act 980 of 1991 requires that The Little Rock School District II the home schools. Because I 5 s Drafting The following Trade and Industry programs are currently offered in some of the home schools: Basic Mechanical Drawing, Exploratory Carpentry, Architectural Drafting, Engineering Drafting and Work Study programs in Coordinated Career Education (disadvantaged and handicapped students). Industrial Cooperative Training and General Cooperative Training. Trade and Industry course offerings at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center are as follows: Auto Body and Paint Technology, Automotive Technology, Commercial Foods, Computer Aided Drafting, Computer Graphics/Commercial Art, Cosmetology, Electronics, Health Occupations Education, Metal Fabrication/Welding, Printing Technology, Radio Broadcasting, Residential Construction, Television Production and Word Processing (extended Technology day only). B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current funding and the high cost of equipment, supplies and materials 3E. OBJECTIVES 1. Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) labs not meeting state standards either through equipment needs or lack of certified staff, will be eliminated to allow funds/equipment needed to operate other E.I.T.E. wi 11 2. labs to be transferred, thereby ensuring their success. Vocational courses with consistent low enrollments will be eliminated to provide adequate funding for other, more viable vocational courses in that school or in the District. These objectives support District goal #4, which will allow for the securing of financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support district schools and programs. Evaluative Criteria\nThe following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved: Q. t I 1) 2) 3) 4) The amount of additional funds and equipment made available for the remaining labs\nstudents having access to the E.I.T.E. lab will also have access to all of the required equipment and materials needed to meet state standards\n5 students will be able to transfer learning experiences to skilled training programs in Trade and Industry\nand immediate cost savings is realized. Expected Benefits: The District will be able to meet the state required equipment standards for the E.I.T.E. programs remaining in existence and provide adequate funding for other vocational programs relative to equipment, supplies, materials and staff. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. II Program - There will be students at two junior high schools who will not have access to the learning experiences gained in an E.I.T.E. lab. Also, this program is used as a \"back-up\" course at these schools which may present a scheduling problem for school administrators. The changing of two FTE Consumer Home Economics positions at J. A. Fair to 1.5 FTE would not adversely affect the program. Currently, with the present enrollment, this would have been a more resourceful change this school year. The .5 FTE could travel between J. A. Fair and another school with a need for a .5 FTE. RPG Programming course at McClellan has The Computer Technology: -- - never been in full force since being implemented in the.1993-94 school year. The equipment needed to teach the programming course {AS400) is housed at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center and was tied into by McClellan in 1993. Many mechanical difficulties were experienced and, low enrollment and/or lack of student interest has resulted in this recommendation to eliminate the course..........-  not have a negative impact on the magnet program, nor the Tech Prep This would programs of study. 5FOREST HEIGHTS E.I.T.E. LAB EQUIPMENT PRICE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mechanism Trainer , Amatrol IR02-EMU-Intro to Robotics Pnuematic Trainer Hydraulic Trainer Electronics Trainer Telecom Trainer SIP-250 Printers, IBM (2) Small gas engine. Module Structure Module Lenco Welder Trainer/Simulator 11. IBM Computers (486 SX) 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. EET-IL #200-2002 Modular Electronics W/Lego Auto Sketch Software C.A.D.E.T. II Exploring Fiber Optics Software Packages (Pagemaker Desktop Publishing, Word Processing and Flight Simulator) EMP Course-SRIOO (3 HP gas engines) Technology Computer Trainer $ 1,199.00 3,135.00 1,099.00 1,399.00 690.00 2,073.00 580.00 1,850.00 1,995.00 3,010.00 4,168.00 1,199.95 94.00 875.00 650.00 t w S H S **  1 CL  B. e 18. Bench System II 19. 20. 21. 22. Solar Energy Test Centers Trainer Electronic Publishing Module CAD Drafting Station A/Auto CAD and Mouse Audio/Video Module Modular Electronics W/Lego Tools, materials/supplies 3,010.00 950.00 99.95 1,800.00 599.00 1,845.00 2,460.00 2,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST (Forest Heights): $37,280.90 PULASKI HEIGHTS E.I.T.E. LAB 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Mechanism Trainer IR02-EMU Intro to Robotics Pnuematic Trainer Hydraulic Trainer Electronics Trainer EET-IL Modular Electronics W/Lego Telcom Trainer SIP-250 Structure Module Lenco Welder Trainer/Simulator CADET II Exploring Fiber Optics Technology Computer Trainer Printers (2) Auto Sketch Software Software Packages (Pagemaker, Desktop Publishing, Word Processing and Flight Simulator Solar Energy Test Center Electronic Publishing Module CAD Drafting Station W/Auto CAD Drafting Station and Mouse Small Gas Engine Module $ 1,199.00 3,135.00 1,099.00 1,399.00 690.00 1,199.95 2,073.00 1,995.00 3,010.00 875.00 950.00 580.00 94.00 650.00 1,800.00 599.00 1,845.00 1,850.00 73/01/95 brochures reflect changes Spring Recruitment begins Vocational Administration and Staff 9 o W E ir c. If I IBusiness Cases Requiring Additional Expenditures Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacons School Information Services Newcomer Centers Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues bEXECUTIVE SUMMARY fe BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION At the end of the 1990-91 school year, the three Pulaski County School Districts elected to disband the Tri-District Alternative Education Program for junior high students that they had collaboratively operated for two years in a facility owned by the Little Rock School District located at 800 Apperson Street. In August of 1991, the Pulaski County School District opened its program in a District owned property in Scott, Arkansas\nThe North Little Rock School District located its program in the North Little Rock Boys Club and the Little Rock School District choose to maintain its alternative education program in the old Carver Elementary School at the Apperson site. The District renamed the program, Center nine. the Little Rock School District Alternative Learning and continued to serve students in grades seven, eight and Typically, students accepted into the program have evidenced a pattern of low achievement, lack of motivation, poor attendance, low self-concept, are overage for their grade level and have experienced moderate to extensive behavioral problems in traditional school environment. the In recent years, the number of LRSD students in need of alternative programming has far exceeded the number that could be served at the Alternative Learning Center with its present staffing limitations. A waiting list of thirty to forty students who cannot be placed is common. Expansion of the program to serve a larger pool of at-risk students has been identified as principals, teachers, and parents. program enrollment. a critical need by building In addition to increasing the there is also a need to make qualitative improvements to the program in general. Several options for expanding and refining the current Alternative Learning Center program were considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. Double the enrollment to serve additional students. Establish additional ALC sites at other District owned facilities. Do nothing. Maintain the status quo. Explore the feasibility of implementing pilot alternative classrooms in several junior high schools. Alternative one would require a significant expansion in certified and support staff that would be financially prohibitive due to the precarious financial condition of the District at this time. Alternative two, expanding into other District facilities, could greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred bystaff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is unique and requires instructional programs. specialized staffing, support and Unfortunately, many alternative schools operate in the same manner as regular schools. They become just another traditional school instead of a \"true\" educational alternative. The Little Rock School District Alternative Learning Center has functioned as a blending of forms a and b. Students are administratively assigned to the Alternative Learning Center upon the recommendation of a placement team composed of Alternative Learning Center staff and representatives from the junior high schools. Students may also be assigned by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors through the Sudent Hearing Officer as an alternative to suspension or expulsion. There is an expectation that students will progress through the Alternative Learning Center program and eventually return to their home school. Presently, the Alternative Learning Center is staffed to accommodate sixty students from the eight junior high schools. Several conditions must be met for an alternative school to be effective: - a caring staff well trained in alternative strategies - positive school climate with clearly defined limits - high expectations - parent involvement - respect at all levels - freedom for the staff to experiment During the 1994-95 school year, a committee was formed to examine the structure and operating procedures of the Alternative Learning Center as currently organized, identified: Several areas of concern were 1) 2) High absentee rate of students. According to the program director, the average daily attendance hovers around 60% of enrollment. High suspension rate of students assigned to the program. A disproportionate number of ALC students have serious behavioral problems and are disruptive to the learning process at the Center and end up receiving either a long term suspension or expulsion. 3) Limited number of students served. The staff of six certified teachers have ratio of one to twelve students. students. This ratio dictates a capacity of sixty a 4) The absence of an on-going staff development program to enhance skills and understanding of staff in working with high risk students. - 3 - fesuperintendents, the director of Pupil Services and a representative from the Division of Exceptional Children, engaged in a process that included a review of current research on effective practices and programs in alternative education, and a survey of junior high principals as to their needs in regard to an alternative education program. As a result of this process, several strategies were examined. These included: 1. 2. Double the enrollment at the ALC to increase the number of students served\nExpand the maximum number of students served by providing services at more than one site in the Little Rock School District\nD. 3 . 4. Maintain the status Quo. Do nothing. The feasibility of implementing a pilot alternative classroom in targeted junior high schools. Alternative one would require that the current instructional staff at the ALC be doubled. This expansion would be financially prohibited at this time due to the precarious financial condition of the district. The District has several surplused buildings which could be used to expand services. However, this option would greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred by opening an additional building with attendant administrative costs, feasible at this time. Financially, this option is not The third alternative is unacceptable as we would lose the faith and confidence of parents and staff for failing to respond to the needs of our at-risk students. programs, by their nature, are designed to provide the academic and social support for students whose developmental needs are not being met through the traditional educational Alternative Our continuing goal is to ensure that all delivery system. . . students receive a quality educational experience that is appropriate to the needs of each youngster. 7 for students in need of alternative educational services The waiting list continues to grow and feed the ranks of dropouts, pushouts and other disillusioned students whose learning styles and personal/social needs are not met within the traditional educational setting. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the need for increased capacity for alternative educational services in the District and the limitations in funding an expanded program, the following recommendations are proposed to increase capacity by reducing the number of schools who refer through establishing pilot, school-based alternative classrooms. - 5 - IB. Dress Code Institute a dress code that would require some uniformity in dress. C. Parental involvement 1. Mandate a parent/student contract that specifies required parental involvement in th school's program and attendance at required 2. teacher/parent conferences. Parents would be expected to volunteer at least one day each nine weeks at the school. D. Transitioning Component Develop specific procedures that Prepare the student for the students re-entry. and the \"home school\" Monitoring and follow-up of the student's Pfog^^ess for a minimum of six months after exiting the ALC would be conducted by the ALC social worker and E. the home-school counselor. Pre-service and Inservice Training component Plan a five day pre-service training workshop schedule for the first week of school before students are assigned to the ALC, for all school staff. Content would include, but not be limited to, classroom management, contingency contracting. Service Learning, adolescent development and cooperative learning. In-seryice would be conducted throughout the school needs identified by building staff. In-service F. E. workshops year based on curriculum Enhancements 1. 2. Implement curriculum based Service Learning into the curriculum. Provide a daily class in behavior management social skills content to be delivered by and the school social worker. OBJECTIVES 1. To increase the number of junior high school students served through alternative educational options. 2. To provide an appropriate school-based alternative classroom environment for those provide - 1 *F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Positive Impact 1. Better needs. support for more students with specialized 2. 3. Less transition difficulty for students returning to the regular classroom. A reduction in daily absenteeism. Negative Impact 1. 2. Possible increases in program costs. Administrators and teachers who feel that disobedient students should be removed from the classroom setting, as well as from the school district. The proposed school-based alternative classrooms will complement both the Little Rock School District desegregation plan and court orders by providing additional specialized alternative learning opportunities for high risk students that are cost effective and educationally sound. Political Factors Because the implementation of this recommendation will result in increased spending over the 1994-95 budget for the ALC, some may object to additional expenditures while other programmatic and staff cuts are being made. Timing Because of the general concerns regarding school and classroom discipline, and the achievement disparity between at- risk and other students, the refinement of the ALC program will be viewed as a welcomed relief by building administrators and teachers. The parties in the desegregation case should also see this move as a positive effort toward recognizing and responding to the needs of this population of students in spite of our diminishing financial resources. RISKS The risk of implementing this program is that it has the possibility of increasing the cost of alternative educational '  J-A- risk of not programs for students in this district. implementing change is that fewer students would be served and the schools will continue to have students on long waiting lists. - 9 - ITraining for the teachers and coordinator would be held prior to the assignment of students to the program in the time period after 9 1/4 contract personnel report to work in the fall of 1995. July, 1995. Training for the administrators should occur in Course development would begin in the Spring 95 by curriculum supervisors and core teachers at the school pilot sites. 2. Financial analysis The following costs would be incurred in 1995-96 for each of the two pilot programs. Program Coordinator 1.0 FTE .2 FTE core area teacher = 6,000 X 4 = Curriculum development $33,495 X 2 = 24,000 X 2 = Training Materials, Supplies, Textbooks Equipment School Resource Officer 8,075 X 2 7,300 X 2 $66,990 48,000 4,265 1,000 16,000 14,600 16,500 The above itemized costs for personnel are based on an average teacher salary of $30,000 plus $1,200 benefits and $2,295 FICA for a total cost per coordinator of $33,495. These costs would already be borne by the personnel budget of the two individual schools if individuals can be surplused from current assigned duties to serve as program coordinators. Similarly, the 48,000 for .2 FTE for eight core instructors would not be new or additional costs either, if these persons can be identified from existing staffs and assigned one hour of their day to teach in the program. An added cost for personnel would be for the proposed school resource officer for the Alternative Learning Center, cost would be $16,500. That The materials and supplies costs for desk supplies, paper for copying, VCR tapes, and textbooks would not be new costs. These monies would already be in the operations budget in the two pilot schools, but would be diverted to this program. costs for supplementary instructional materials The and supplementary textbooks, and software would be new costs ($3,500 total) X 2 = $7,000. Equipment costs for an overhead projector, TV and VCR would normally be expected to be included in the operations budgets of the two schools. These are usual items, probably already available at no new cost, that could be dedicated to this program. The expenses for an FM radio, computers, repairs. and a copier allocation would be new costs, ($3,100 total) X 2 = $6,200. Training costs ($1,000) and curriculum development costs ($4,265) would also be new costs, not included in the current operations budgets of the involved schools. 11 - IH. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Classroom Teachers should support the concept of the school within a school. The process would allow those students who are on a waiting list to be removed from the classroom. Parents of those students would appreciate the opportunity for their children to attend school instead of staying home where sometimes they tend to get into more trouble. Troubled students would probably feel more comfortable in a regular school setting where they may still have the opportunity to be mainstreamed back into the classroom. The Little Rock Community. Little Rock School District Board of Directors, law enforcement and truancy authorities would feel more comfortable with ALL students in school on a daily basis. Concern over disruptive students is presently very high among school district personnel, parents, and the Little Rock community at large. Efforts to improve the Little Rock School District's programs for such students would be expected to receive support from all of these factions. However, detractors may emerge among individuals or groups who feel these efforts are of insufficient magnitude, or who oppose any efforts which do not result in immediate removal of disruptive students from their home school campus. Primary detractors may be some administrators and teachers who feel that disobedient students should be removed from the classroom setting as well as from the school environment. The success of the pilot programs would convince detractors that the possibilities of a school within a school may resolve many of our problems which include attendance, the lack of an experienced staff, a waiting list and disruptive students in the classrooms. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The milestones for plan implementation include the following: (a) approval of the business developed at the building level. case, (b) program guidelines approval, (d) curriculum development completed. (c) budget development and approval (local and ADE) , (e) curriculum training scheduled. (f) training design developed and program determined. (g) program staff selected. (i) furniture. administrator training completed. supplies provided. (k) equipment textbooks, (h) site for provided,(j) materials. teachers. (m) initial (ij training of coordinator and core area selection and placement of program participants, (n) delivery of program curriculum, (o) monitoring and evaluation of program operations, (p) periodic reporting of program monitoring and evaluation (q) modification of program operations as necessary. developed and submitted. (r) end of year evaluation design Timelines, tasking, and reporting forms are included in the The project program leader will be the director attached tables, of Pupil Services. 13 - IT 0 ) MILESTONTS a. aproval of the business case b. program guidelines developed at the building level c. budget development and approval d. curriculum development completed (behavior modification program, combining 7/8 course objectives to one course with suggested instructional procedures) e. curriculum approval (local administration and Board) f. training design developed and training scheduled g. program staff selected h. site for program determined i. furniture, equipment provided j. administrator training completed k. Textbook, materials, and supplies provided 1. training conqsleted for coordiantor and core area teachers m. initial selection and placement of program participants n. delivery of program curriculum o. monitoring and evaluation of program operation p. periodic reporting of program monitoring and evaluation q. modification of program operation as necessary r. end of year evaluation developed and submitted a. TIMELINTS January-Fcbniary, 1995 b. March 1-31, 1995 c. March - April, 1995 d. March - May, 1995 e. June 1-30, 1995 f. March - June, 1995 g. June-July, 1995 h. June-July, 1995 i. July-August, 1995 j. July 1-31, 1995 k. August 1-31, 1995 I. August-September 10, 1995 m. August-September 10, 1995 n. August-June, 1996 0. August-June. 1996 p. October, January, April. June q. October, January, April, June r. June 1-June 30, 1996 TASKING a. Cabinet b. Principals, Cloverdale, Southwest c. Principals and Mark Milhollen d. Principals, curriculum supervisors, core teachers, staff development c. curriculum supervisors f. principals, curriculum supervisors, staff development g. principals h. principals i. principals, purchasing dept. j. staff development k. principals, purchasing dept. 1. principals, curriculum supervisor, staff development m. principals, assistant principals, pupil services Team, Larry Robertson n. coordinators, core teachers 0. principals, coordinators p. principals, coordinators q. principals, coordinators r. principal, coordinators 15 - REPORTING a. approval memo b. Program description completed c. budget approval memo d. curriculum developed e. approval memos f. training design completed and scheduled g. master schedule developed h. memo to Deputy Superintendent i. memo to Deputy Supt. (status report) j. memo (status report to Deputy Superintendent) k. status report to Deputy Superintendent 1. status report to Deputy Superintendent m. quarterly reports n. quarterly reports o. quarterly status reports p. quarterly status reports q. quarterly status reports r. Annual Report bBUSINESS CASE The Arkansas Crusades EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of Arkansas received a $10 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to initiate systemic change in mathematics and science. The Statewide Systemic Initiative started in 1991 with the Math Crusade, followed by the K-4 Crusade in 1994 and the Science Crusade in the Spring of 1995. Crusades are now known as the Arkansas Crusades. These three Crusade training has been highly touted by Little Rock School district teachers. Participants in the Arkansas Crusades rank the training course as one of the very best in which they have ever Pa^^ticipated. (See Appendix A) They feel that the training has helped improve the math and science instruction they provide to their students. For teachers to participate in Crusade training training, their district must purchase classroom sets of math and science equipment that is reimbursed on a 50-50 basis with NSF funds. The Little Rock School District used desegregation funds for these purchases during the 1994-95 school year. Separate business cases were accepted that provided $18,000 for K-4 Crusade equipment and $25,000 for Science Crusade hands-on equipment. The Math Department used $9,000 in a desegregation control account to purchase Math Crusade equipment. Assistance for the three Crusades is requested in the amount of $30,000 to use for purchase of math and science equipment on a 50- 50 matching basis with NSF grant funds. Approximately 30 teachers will be able to participate in one of the Crusade training courses during 1995-96. With the NSF match the $30,000 will purchase $60,000 of math and science equipment for our schools. A State bid further increases the amount of equipment that can be purchased with the requested funds by about 40-50%. The bottom line is that $30,000 will purchase about $90,000 of vital hands-on science and math equipment that trained teachers will use to instruction in math and science for all students, K-12. improve A. BACKGROUND The Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) Program began in 1991 with the Math Crusade, a three hour graduate course taught by teams consisting of a university professor and a public school teacher. More than 1200 math teachers statewide and over eighty (80) teachers in the Little Rock School District have been retrained through the Math Crusade. These teachers' classrooms have been equipped with the latest mathematics tools and calculators. Much of the training focuses on the use of manipulatives to teach mathematics concepts. The new phase of the Statewide Systemic Initiative that includes Ifunding and district funding. funding from grants, solicited. PTA, Within both categories, and partners in education outside can be Non-participation in the Crusades is another option. These alternatives, which are described below, were generated by a brainstorming session with Little Rock School District trainers for the Arkansas Crusades. 1. Non-participation in the Crusades - Because of our budget crisis, the Little Rock School District could elect to not support teachers in taking Crusade courses. The problem with this approach is that LRSD Goals require that we try to increase achievement and decrease 2. 3. disparity among students. component in reaching our goals. Staff development is a vital Successful staff development programs should be supported. Our teachers. patrons, community and students would frown upon a nonparticipation attitude by the District. Site based funding - Local schools could support their own teachers to participate in one of the Crusades. Schools could allocate a portion of their supply budget for this purpose. In addition schools could ask their PTA or partner in education to help fund a teacher to take a Crusade course. Schools could also work with the grant writer to identify possible grant sources to help teachers participate in the Crusades. Local school support of teachers in the Crusade courses has the drawback that support will be low and uneven among the schools due to local school budgetary constraints. Many teachers will be unable to participate in the Crusades. schools, and In the past, magnet schools, incentive schools with strong PTA support have provided limited support for the Math Crusade and Crusade. Other schools have provided no support. K-4 Grant opportunities are likely to be successful at only one or a few sites, so grants aren't an answer to the problem. District funding - The District could dedicate funds to support Crusade training. District funds could ensure that participation occurs and that it is equitable among schools. In other words, teacher A at school Y would have as good a chance of participating as teacher B at school Z. The District could pursue outside monies supplement local funding. For example. to help the District received $5,000 of Act 453 funds in 1994 to help 5 teachers attend Science Crusade training. Outside funding, however, is uncertain and unlikely to meet the District's needs to support the Arkansas Crusades. Since the Arkansas Crusades are statewide, they don't meet the criteria of uniqueness funding agencies require. and replicability that most *T The recommendation also supports the hands-on approach to science and math that is described in the Desegregation Plan (page 77, strategies 1.2 and 1.3). Evaluation criteria for the objective are both qualitative and quantitative: 1. Teachers who receive Crusade training will be asked to complete a survey about the quality of the training and the impact it has had on their teaching. 2. A comparison of students' SAT8 scores in science and/or math will be made for elementary teachers who complete Crusade training. Determining students' SAT-8 results by teacher are not feasible at the secondary level. _____r__t-J benefits are better equipped math and science classrooms and teachers who are trained to use the equipment to The expected teach a hands-on approach to science and math, the benefits are the students of the teachers The recipients of F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1) Program The Arkansas Crusades will provide teachers in the Little Rock School District an opportunity to become 2) more in more knowledgeable about the standards mathematics, science, and reading and also become comfortable in teaching math with manipulatiyes, using more hands-on science activities, and integrating science national This knowledge and experience and math with reading. --- . will transfer to the science and mathematics program in our District. Our students will become the benefactors of this new methodology and content information. Desegregation The Arkansas Crusades will enhance the goals for science, and reading that are in the Desegregation Plan. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 on page 77 of math, \u0026lt;__ ___ Strategies the Desegregation Plan states that the District will purchase science supplies to facilitate the hands-on science approach, math manipulatives to facilitate hands-on math instruction, and sets of trade books to facilitate the emphasis on literature. The Arkansas Crusades support the purchase of equipment for math, science, and reading and the hands-on approach to teaching. 77 3) Court Order The Arkansas Crusades support the recommendations made by ODM in the Incentive School Monitoring Report (12/09/93, Incentive page 49) concerning science labs in the Incentive Schools and in-service regarding the use of the labs. Ir.ccr.ti.c *H. I. A similar amount will be requested over the next three years. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Supporters of this program will include teachers who either have participated in Crusade training or desire to do so in principals of teachers who have or intend to the future, complete the training, and students and parents of students who are the beneficiaries of the training. Supporters will also include business and community leaders who want to see graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the 21st century. A step toward this goal will be to make state-of- the-art math and science equipment available to every student beginning in kindergarten. Detractors, if any, would be those who view this proposal only in terms of the small splash of red ink it budget. makes on the GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Activity Completion Date Responsible/ Participating Person(s) i. Teacher J make applicaion far Arkansas Crusades. 08\u0026lt;IJ-95 Fall 12-01-95 Spring Teachers. Prindpals 2. SdencelMah Ofice processes the applications and seeura the Supermtmdera's signanre 3. Approved afpiieaions are sera ra requested Uriverstry 4. Teachers parddpate in Crusade classes. 5. Teachers select equipmeru and supplies from approved Srae Bid list. 6. Equipmentlsupplies ordered by Sdencelkicth ofice. 7. A^er receipr of eipiiptnetalsupplies. copies of invoices seta to Arkansas Crusades ofice far 50% reimbursement. 8. Teachers surveyed about value of tmining upon completion of course. 9. Pre-post\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1311","title":"Proceedings: ''Informal Records Conference''","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":["1995-03-09"],"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","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Informal Records Conference''"],"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/1311"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["195 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1587","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District budget planning, Pulaski County facility construction, and project management tools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School facilities","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District budget planning, Pulaski County facility construction, and project management tools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1587"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":84,"next_page":85,"prev_page":83,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":996,"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}}]}}