{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_265","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/265"],"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\nOffice 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: February 10, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Ann Brown Subject: Business Cases In your February 1, 1995 reply to my second request for business cases, you stated that you would furnish them when they were completed and ready for submission to the Board. At last night's meeting of the Board of Directors, one Director stated that the board had received the business cases yesterday. 1 trust that the business cases are now on their way to my office. I look forward to looking through them so 1 can better understand what changes you are contemplating in order to reach your desegregation goals and deal with your financial limitations. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Judge Susan Webber WrighthuUiUc. tlzU6(- c  f I Hi BUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 Business Case None Academic Progress Incentive Grant BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Mursing Services) Improving Student Transportation Mew Futures Parkview Conmercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive ______ Schools Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ______ Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program_ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modi fy Modi fy Modify Oelete Modi fy Modify Modify Modify Modify Modi fy Add Add Modi fy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mo No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90 BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Mc^ify Plan Modification Additional Costs t rarn Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SWJH and CJHS Modi fy No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Social Studies Curricultn Revision FES I 19^5 Offics oi CdSOyroijeiif Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Provide assistance to Ixtokkeeper and assistant principal Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later ______remed i a t i on Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculun to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculLin guides Total Savings Total Expenditures Net Savings Modify Add Add Modify Add Modi fy Modify $ 5,815,550.08 $ 211,782.00 $ 5,603,768.08 No No No No No No No 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBusiness Cases not Recommended as \"Do Pass\" Cloverdale Junior High Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Hu Utt Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative Schooltl U w rcr 1 3 1995 co (/) c Oifica ct Cesegi 5 = 8 \"S  o 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95 1BUSINESS 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 Beacon School Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Add No 12,000.00 Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal Add No 3,000.00 Neu Comers Center Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Modify No 52,117.00 Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation Add No 30,000.00 Security Officers to Uork on Safety and Security Issues Tuo additional security officers to deal with security related problems/i ssues Modify No 36,500.00 Social Studies Curriculum Revision Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculim to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides Modify No 13,200.00 R7 F r 1 C ICQ! Total Savings $ 5,815,550.08 Total Expenditures Net Savings S 211,782.00 1 5,603,768.08 L Lil r?\" FEB 1 S 1 Ofiice ci Di Office Ct li Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Business Case Nane Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive _________Sch 001s Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ________Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering _____the program_____ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions uhile maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Conmercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modify Modify Modi fy Delete Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Add Add Modify Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational EducationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 13, 1995 memorandum TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent FROM: Mitchell. Margaret chell, Actii^A \\y ^Assistant Superintendent isistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Business Case - Academic Progress Incentive GrantBUSINESS CASE / 5 (995 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS of January 13, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons, equity issues regarding area The adequate resources and an overwhelming percentage of our students attend area schools, the Little Rock School District proposed in the Tri-District 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. The District, in its May 11, 1992, request to modify the settlement plan, proposed to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The proposal did not clearly explain the Districts intent. The Court approved the continuing 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 schools for application the last five years. It is now time to evaluate and assess the program for continuation. B. BACKGROUND 1990 - 1991 The The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying times and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The District established two goals that were to be the outcomes of this initiative: (1) to improve the education of all students and (2) to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the schools annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the districts Desegregation Plan.Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some mtoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. 2. 3. Identification of local school grant goals. A description of the results. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the schools annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991  1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their at-risk students. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992  1993 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to changes in the districts central office staff and a new superintendent. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. -2-c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school district, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Opportunities for academic achievement are enhanced by commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can and will learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with availability of financial resources and adequate quality instructional time, educational excellence prevails. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity 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 aimual 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 APIG. APIG is a complementary addition to the Plan. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of district schools. Achievement disparity still exists. However, data show that some schools utilize the current curriculum (revised July, 1994) with emphasis on the acquisition of basic skills. Thematic and interdisciplinary approaches have been used by the teachers to successfully integrate and ensure designated themes to support the curriculum. Students in these schools tend to perform at or above grade level. 1. 2. 3. 4. Change nothing. Continuing to offer the APIG and Focused Activity Grants to the Area Schools will not aide in the reduction of the budget. The Chapter I Extended Day Program has been considered in order for all schools to continue the quality after school programs. This program is federally funded and is consequently no expense to the district. Grant solicitations from focused activities, private resources and support from some local PTAs where possible could be considered. K-4 Special Summer School programs are funded by the state. -3-E. RECO MMEND ATION Evidence from the principals narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program were identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students were those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, were used to select targeted students form the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. implemented to encourage good behavior. An incentive program was T^ere were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants ot the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Extended Day was a widely - used activity that was funded by APIG. This activity was in some instances a duplication of efforts already funded through Academic Support Program. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum that is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Education frameworks and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Academic Support Program and the Special Summer School for K-4. -4-Objective To discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant. Evaluation Criteria The K-4 Summer School Extended Year Program and Academic Support evaluation will be utilized for documenution. A pre and post test will be used in the K-4 program to determine the progress of students. There will be a shift from sole emphasis on the products or outcomes of student learning to a concern for the learning process. Evaluation will include assisting products such as: 1. projects with rating criteria 2. student portfolios with rating criteria 3. student demonstrations/investigations 4. objective tests, where appropriate, perhaps with a section for explaining the answer chosen. Evaluation should reflect the following process-oriented factors: 1. collaboration among students 2. student self-evaluation 3. 4. higher level thinking and problem solving \"learning to learn\" skills Expected Benefits 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, socioeconomic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support program. The focus of Extended Day can be more structured. The K-4 Summer School Program and Regular Summer School will be offered. -5-The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in ueie ion or tne AKIU will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and ^e dSSa concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of . - ---------------------------- .V. vxiui to UV increasing achievement for all students, which will result in 5 auucvcment tor ail students, which wfll result in a reduction of disparity socioeconomic, and gender groups. The area schools will be 'e_ 25 communities of learning,\" will continue to provide enrichment oPPOffuiMes and will ensure equitable opportunities for participation in area spools. The District will implement programs that are comprehensive, effective, and efficient. viewed as participation in area Activities appear to Quality equitable desegregated education wUl be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The District will channel its resources into area schools in a manner that eliminates duplication of efforts. Activities appear to provide a broader range of opportunities in a more comprehensive and focused manner. G. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. (90-91 - 94-95) The timeline for implementation of three years _..l support the Desegregation Plan and address will The timeline for implementation of three court orders favorably. J C7 -C------------ - WUl t UlUClb ia unds were available for building administrators to submit applications Suin'e applications were turned in late which caused a delay in program implementation. Some RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial students, and the resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed rACAiircac ______1_ 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. Students could be introduced to curriculum materials, in exciting and innovative ways that they might otherwise find difficult. Extensive tutoring could be provided through academic support programs to targeted students. -6-Financial Analysis The District will save a total of 5445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) APIG 510,000 Focused 5,000 Elementary Area Schools (25) 5250,000 125,000 Junior High Area Schools (4) 540,000 Senior High Schools (3) 530,000 Total Schools 5320,000 125,000 TOTAL 5375,000 540,000 530,000 5445,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administrators who indirectly involved in the decision making process for the 1995-96 budget are cuts. The primary detractors will be principals and patrons of the area schools who feel that there are already many inequities between them and the magnet schools. General Implementation Plan The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. If this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented and monitored. January - April, 1995 Continue to read and approve grants as they are submitted from schools June, 1995 Evaluations submitted from principals regarding programs implemented through APIG proposals End of Academic Progress Incentive Grant and Focused Activity submissions Conclusion of programs implementation with APIG and Focused Activity funds K-4 Summer School will start -7-July, 1995 November - December, 1995 Business Case process reviewed with principals in Principals Instimte K-4 Summer School Ends K-4 Summer School Evaluations submitted Information shared with principals regarding Extended Day for the 95-96 school year Compile information from schools in order to organize and implement Extended Day for the 95-96 school year January, 1996 Extended Day will start -8-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95B Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education I I-a L ri Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 1 3 '995 Offics of Osssgi MEMORANDUM TO: From: Subject\nDate: in Brown, Omce of Desegreg^ion M inr/ Ann Office Monitoring Hei Schools Business Cases January 14, 1995 Please find enclosed copies of business cases that have been submitted by program managers for review in the budgeting process for the 1995-96 school year. I have also enclosed a business case from Information Services as a separate enclosure because of its unique circumstances. Enclosures be odm.docInformation Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, Little Rock School Diotriet Information Services Business Cass EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEB I 5 J995 OffiC0_of_De223j\n1 SITUATION does not meet the basic needs faculty, admini s t rat i ve of LRSD Board of Additionally IS does not adequately requirement to local. staff, employees, or support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most critical short term computing need is valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second crucial issues. First, timely. throw away solution. * Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 processors, disk storage, upgrade networks. processors, on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. En^hasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No cirucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either financial or human resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. \"closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with new architecture. solution. There is significant ability to integrate new technology a Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9RAT1VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Ye\u0026amp;r 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS40O Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2, 697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvices BusixiesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data PKIHTCR o SCHOOL LAN A FAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b PUNTU PC tools\nprovide local RUtOTC STATT LUI administrative staff access to all LRSD data. A$\u0026lt;n VO TECH  PtlKTOt 9 FAX AMD APMIWUTAATIVE ASCO ADMIMISTKATIVE DATA POODSEKVtCE I I SttVEK LAM SUVCK O LAM SEXVU 0 USD ACUINUTRATIVt BUILDING b PUHTU LAM SBvn b purrn PAX q PUNT EK 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, - multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. A i A A A a A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for to the technology. EncumlDer or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical \u0026lt; supplies etc. . All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9Stittle Rock School District Inforaation Services Bueineas Ca Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist I Applications \u0026amp; Dat^ase Manaper I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer ----1 Operator Operator Director Technical Planner Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC with each employee. Develop position descriptions, responsibilities etc. a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology greints. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1Little Rock School Disttict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business^ administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications FWNTER o a a FAX Q a a a a b mum a a \u0026amp; FtUNTtt o a a FAX Q a a a FVMTU o a AS400 VO TECH  i LUI SOtVEK a a AS400 FOOD SERVICE  J_ 6 AS400 ADMINISTRATTVE E DATA DATA SERVER i -o- UM xw  O-L- a 6 FUN TUI a a a a FAX Q a a LUI uavu a 6 fWKTOt a a a a a b FMNIOt DOLl. a. a FAX Q a F Q a a a a 9 a a a \"q a a b a a a a a fix Q a a \"q\" HHH a 6 a a a 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. *MD Kce: AEkMSTMTTVI  DISTWCT SERVER FUNTU o a a FAX Q a a a LAN sexvu 1 SEX VI -HU-F UN A c a a i a a b FVNTU a A a i a a A a FUNTU o a nciXL* a FAX Q a a. a rui q a \"q a A 6 FUNTU A A A FUNTEK o a A FAX Q a A LAN SEXVU a a b nnnu a a a i i A a 6 HUNTtF a a a a A FAX Q a a MFRU 9 A a a A a 211133Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND Information Services (IS) does CURRENT SITUATION Directors, students. not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was minimal. LRSD information was generated by administrative staff usinq a combination of dp rpnnrrc anrA -St, Data (not information) using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative dependence Individual schools. on a central DP facility. and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. use LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD IBM computer, associated closed environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, difficult to install, configure and maintain. PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and administrative computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was LRSD information was generated by administrative staff Data (not information) minimal. using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative deoendence on a cantral dp fariiitv dependence central DP facility. Individual schools, and administrative staff could and did ourchase and use and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, LRSD purchased an IBM administrative software and peripherals. AS400 midrange computer, associated closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to talce full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install, configure and maintain. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now con^eting for limited financial and computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to malce major teclinical decisions in rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of a continual change in administration. a In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, employees. students. or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other Federal Court, ODM, local, state and federal agencies as required. The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy. no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment. background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate redundancy of effort. new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services, etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 computer lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The, results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. The, results resources, i For example. assume purchased. 50 LRSD purchases 200 PCs are individually purchased. PCs per year. 150 PCs are bulk An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" than a standard bulk procurement PC. PC costs considerably more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL LRSD has agencies no viable each IS procure infrastructure. Individuals, schools. and staff PCs, servers, printers. modems, networks, word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. Data resides in \"islands of automation\" in various schools and staff physical or logical connectivity exists. agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary, and staff new. Currently, each school agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No Personal computers, printers, etc., comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization. and installed. maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. LRSD There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. information will probably survive without one agencies and activities. infrastructure connects/encompasses elementary school, however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer, etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. pushed into a i itself over and impacted. comer, I over. another PC or printer ordered. The broken PC or printer may be The user. the process repeats IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus ----- Transportation would not have the spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus system. LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly. A perception that \"I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus\" is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 to $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. motivation IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to of LRSD Staff is in meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD computing growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and programmer have degrees in CS/IS. one public school with one This is roughly equivalent to running a certified principal and one certified classroom 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would certainly have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools in LRSD. Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar or no procurement. The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet, they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable percentage of LRSD's background and training these PC technicians and they are planning, procuring and managing a multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff agencies within LRSD each expend considerable human resolve computing needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization. exceeds 90% Central Processing Unit (CPU) utilization frequently (computers exceeding 90% capacity are susceptible to 90% are \"crashing\").Communication networks are primarily 9.6 kbps. susceptible . . roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure \"islands of information\". and desegregation and or LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. The legal rights etc. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. 2/7/95[ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing LRSD's prxmary facilities are an IBM AS400 and its associated network. Both are \"closed\" or \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively integrate PCs, printers, scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nand two speakers. IBM AS400 The IBM AS400 may be a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable It has limited effectively upgrade to and connect significant cost and effort. in an AS400 environment a expansion capability, i.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ] ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. IS problems will continue to have LRSD. serious negative impact on\nNo\nNo i Develops adequate procurement \"policy .' i No i correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure\"\nNo i No : Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy \"of\"effort\" .. : Eliminates system saturation. i No i No i Provides effective \"reportingT\nAllows effective integration of new \"technology No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, \"facuityT No administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports \"lrsD'\"basic repbrti'ng' r'e^'iremen't ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court, iagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes No Partial Partial : Yes i Partial\nNo Partial Partial Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case\nDevelops adequate procurement policy .\nDevelops correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. i Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training. Eliminates redund^cy^of \"effort\"\nEliminates system saturation. i Provides effective reporting\". ........ i Allows effective integrati'on\"of'\"new\"tecta Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, faculty, administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement ODM, State Department of Education or other local, to Federal Court,\nagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE THREE Transition LRSD IS from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation is phased based on user needs and available resources. PC architecture. constant correction for all decision __________ Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training architecture. technical standards. : Yes i Yes rYes\" : Develops adequate procurement\"po'iicyT Yes Develops correct architecture and build's a'dequate infrastructure. Addresses staff alignment, background and training. Eliminates redundancy of\"effort7 Yes\nYes\nYes Yes Yes Eliminates system saturation. Provides effective reporting\".' Al 1 ows effective integra\"t\"ion\"\"of \"new\"\"tec^ i Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Superintendent Adequately supports LRSD\"\"basic\"\"reporting\"\"\"re^Tre^^^ ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court iagencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case I RECOMMENDATION I Transition LRSD IS from the current client-server solutions PC architecture. with constant ACTION \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. evaluation, Emphasize prototyping correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avat 1 ahi a for all decision technical making. --------- resources. Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-seirver, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training. architecture. technical standards. RATIONALE  Enhances LRSD ability to report. Improves connectivity, reduces information\" develops a corporate data model. \"islands of LAN servers access with low cost. migrates data to low cost easy to use PC tools. a  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and provides technology. the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in\" instructional technology consequently, the ability to aggressively pursue technology grants. to  Procurement is standardized to reduce costs, streamline maintenance, build infrastructure, eliminate redundancy.  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to lower priced LAN based servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE ]  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term computing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies as required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs and available resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS  DESEGREGATION/COURT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. This solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD \"team player\". a RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger\" implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietrlct Information Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information systems\nbe $800,000 to $1,000,000 costs for these personnel may per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. all others are hired, The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate 3- comprehensive information system, with Iapidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS staff or realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include several key technical positions, director, applications and database manager, network and PC manager, and technical planner. Each must have the education. perform his/her responsibilities. training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, L? printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example LANs, servers, PCs,  ------o-----. * v'B. , one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been , there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. in this area. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director \u0026gt;4 r L Secretary Technical Planner ] Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager^ Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer -----1 Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | -T'  -1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I I I 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500.00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS funding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case c FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS 1 FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvicos Business Case IMPLEMENTATION  Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the YEAR 1 AMD VOTICM AMO KHOlUVCI AfiMtNSnATIVI data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a ruma o tone*. LAN 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 b HNTU 4 4 MMOn (TAFT LAM S_J3 4 4 rurm o a FAX LAN nivu 4 4 I DAT* raavu a LMD ADMoramATTva buudm 4 -o 4 4 4 b wnu LAM navu JL 4 4 4 4 b Funn LAM \u0026lt;nvix 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 4 4 runu 9 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students may access centralized student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, multimedia, I..'____ _ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the nc'.\n^ architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for new technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Rock School District Information SorvicoB BuslneBs Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist Director Technical Planner X I Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | f Network \u0026amp; PC Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I Manager j F 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I ] Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC . , -  comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model, without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietriot Information Services Buaineas Caaa IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications A a WWTU o a nUHTU o a a a a FAX Q a a b KMTU a a a Q a b a a a FAX 0 a AS4W VO TECH  I LAN tuw AS40U FOOD SEX VICE  J_ AMW ADMINISTRATIVE I DATA DATA 5EXVEA LAN Bn* A a a a a o  lAV suvu a a b FMROI atoai* a Q a a q a a a a. a a \"o a MO 9 a a b a MMT* a 9 a a a a a 9 a a a a a a a a a b b MMTtlt4 appl 2/7/9S Little Rock School District Information Services Bualness Case c ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS40O Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Central Server w/OS, RDBMS, Apps, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 Little Rock School District Xnforznatlozi Services Business Case CURRENT ARCHITECTURE AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Buainesa Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE I DISTRICT SERVER nUNTEX PUNTU 2/7/95 7 Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Businea* Ca FEB J 5 1005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Offics of Ses?' Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, SITUATION does not meet the basic needs requirement to local. Additionally IS does faculty, administrative of LRSD Board of staff, employees. or not adequately support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies critical short term three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most computing need is valid, timely, information to the uperintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture w ich allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second timely. throw away solution.  Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 upgrade networks. processors, disk storage. on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current . , \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No crucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either finariri al resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. or human Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with _ new architecture. There is significant ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human solution. spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will a 2/7/95Little Rock School District Inforaation Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9NAT-L-VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Littl RoqX SohooX Information Servlcea BuoinooB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data WMTB o SCHOOL LAM A TAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b FUHTU PC tools\nprovide local UHOTt JTAZT UAX administrative staff access to all LRSD data. AS\u0026lt;D WTtCH  __L_ TAX AMS raoosotvKC  LAM JUVU  b nuHTn AMS APMtXISTKATTVt DATA LAM SUVU  MTA SUVU  Id- USD AounnsruTTvi builoemc b MUKTEI LAM snvn  -io TAX Q raXHTtt 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, prototype which is students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications. ------, multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. a A 1 I A A A A A a o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A \u0026amp; A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. technology. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Spedaiist [Applicatona \u0026amp; Database Manap^ p Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator Director technical Planner Networlt i PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC with each employee. Develop a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, will identify and pursue grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. 2/7/95 }-[ I 1 I I 1 H I 1 I 1Rook School District Information Services BuslnesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. NUKTU o wxm o FAX Q b NUMTU FAX Q 6 HUMm rxx Q b wMm AS4a\u0026gt; VO TECH  SBVCK e- LM LAN KA VIA AS400 FOODSERVICE AS40O AOMMSTRATTVE DATA SEX VIA DATA o- r* FAX Q FAX Q rut Q \"o 2/7/95  i 4 a a a a a \u0026amp; A a n SBvi A a k A a a a A A a a A a 9 A A a o ? a A a A a A a a a a  a a a a a A i a tTT7 b A 6 a A A a a A a 9 a a a a a a a 6 a a a aLittle Rook School District Information Servlcea Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. uo Pi*nTAATn  DISTRICT SERVEK FMHTU. o a n FAX Q a a a LAN suvu a Q a a p e' i a b rUNTU a a \u0026amp; i a a i. a nUNTU o a BRBLM a FAX Q a a a. a Q a a \"q a a b nitau a a a FUNTCR o a a Fax Q a a UH suvu a a b nUNTCt a a a  i HHH a a a _b_ a a a a a Q a a Q a a a a 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or other local, State and as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed The demand on DP was minimal. years IS operated Data (not information) reports. mainframe based LRSD information was generated by using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. administrative staff In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC) , ------ --- ..... forever changed administrative dependence on a central DP facility. , and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure Indivi dua1 schools, PCs. User demand for PC support grew. on use LRSD DP was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and software were virtually nonexistent. In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD an IBM computer. associated \"closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, configure and maintain. PC computing labs etc. increased rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and AS400 computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, students. - - -  LRSD Board of employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies as required. Federal Court, ODM, The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy, no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment, background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the and corporate data model, redundancy of effort. system saturation -*  ------------a 2 6^ OCl U ULX Cl U X f UllC inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services. etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 con^uter lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. For example. assume LRSD purchases 200 PCs per year, The resources, 150 bulk PCs are purchased, 50 PCs are inaiviaually purchased. An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and individually purchased. An individual completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" PC costs considerably than a standard bulk procurement PC. are more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. The excess costs of 50 A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- \"custom PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. LRSD has agencies no viable each INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL IS infrastructure. Individuals, procure PCs, servers. printers. schools. and modems, networks, staff word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. in \"islands of automation\" physical or logical connectivity exists. in various schools and staff Data resides agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired,* instead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. and The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School District Xnforsiation Seirvices Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No new. Currently, each school Personal computers, printers, etc., and installed. comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. maintenance, formats. LRSD information will probably survive without one infrastructure connects/encompasses agencies and activities. elementary school. however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer. etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. The broken PC or printer may be pushed into a comer, another PC or printer ordered, the process repeats Itself over and over. The user, IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively impacted. I The user. The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus would not have the Transportation spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly, perception that  ' system. I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus A \u0026gt;// is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. to IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The motivation and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD con^iuting growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and one programmer have degrees in CS/IS. This is roughly equivalent to running public school with one certified principal and one certified classroom a 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Businese Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. certainly in LRSD. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar procurement. or no The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet. percentage of LRSD's they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff LRSD each expend considerable human agencies within resolve confuting needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization.. Central Processing Unit exceeds 90% (computers exceeding \"crashing\").Communication networks 90% (CPU) utilization frequently capacity are susceptible to are primarily 9.6 kbps, roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network example. saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure and \"islands of information\", LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by desegregation and or court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. etc. The legal rights 2/7/95LRSD's network. Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Bueineee Caee INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing facilities Both are \"closed\" or are an IBM AS400 and its associated integrate PCs, printers. \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nThe IBM AS400 may be and two speakers. a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable effectively upgrade to and significant cost and effort. It has limited connect a expansion capability. I.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without in an AS400 environment Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant [ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES j ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. LRSD. IS problems will continue to have serious negative impact on i No i No\nDevelops a^q^te procurement EToli'cy i No builds adequate infrastructure i No : No aiisnment, background and training. : Eliminates redtmdancy\"oT\"S'fort'. i No r'No\nEliminates system saturation?\nProvides effective reporting.  iAllows effective integration\"? new\"technologyT i No No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, eirployees, and students. faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court : agencies as required. state eind federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes Partial Partial i Yes\nPartial Mo Partial Partial Little Rock School Dietrict Information SarviooB BuBinesB Case iDevelops adequate procurement policy. correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. : Addresses staff alignment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy 'of effort?\nEliminates system saturation.'\nProvides effective reporting.' ^Allows effective integration oFne'wtechnoio^. Meets basic needsof\" LRSd\" Board\"'df'\"\"Directors7 administrative staff, employees, and students Superintendent, faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting re^irSnent to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court\nagencies as required. state and federal Transition LRSD IS from the current ALTERNATIVE THREE client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. solutions with constant evaluation. Emphasize prototyping for all correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avai1abi decision technical making. the consolidation of administrative and academic resources. Study responsibilities and staff. computing to include systems. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server. Plan which PC environment. user community in a networked. includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services procurement policy and training wide architecture. technical standards, Yes Yes' Yes Yes Yes\nDevelops adequate procurement policy. ~ ~\nAddresses staff alignment, background\"and\"training Eliminates redundancy of effort. Eliminates system saturation. Yes Yes\nProvides effective reporting. Allows effective integration of new technology Yes\nMeets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Yes sdi^nistrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement\" Superintendent ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court i agencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District X\u0026amp;foraation Services Business Case RECOMMENDATION ACTION current \"closed\" AS400 c^Sni ieXer J T \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, soluSonrwith Whasize prototyping for all technical constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Impiementation is phased based  with PC architecture. constant correction for all , - - on user needs and available the consolidation of administrative decision resources. Study - - and academic computing to include systems, P ilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of meet the needs of a diverse LRSD Develop a comprehensive Information Services piSuremen? oo, a architecture, technic! standards, procurement policy and training. staff to staff. technical PC environment. a  Enhances LRSD ability to information\" develops LAN servers user community in a networked, technical RATIONALE report. Improves connectivity, reduces a corporate data model, migrates data access with low cost, easy to use PC tools. \"islands of to low cost  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure . -----------which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and technology. provides the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in' technology consequently, the ability to aggressively grants. instructional pursue technology * Procurement is standardized to reduce infrastructure, eliminate redundancy. costs, streamline maintenance, build  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of lower priced LAN based existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School Dletrlet Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE as 1  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term coirputing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs snri avA 11 ahi a resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS DESEGREGATION/COTOT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students, solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements This to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD a \"team player\". RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger* implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation. correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rock School District lafonaatioxx Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL niay have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information be $800,000 to $1,000,000 systems\ncosts for these personnel may all others are hired. per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate a comprehensive information system, with 2^a.pidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS .\\. realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include director, applications and database several key technical positions. technical planner. Each must have the education, perform his/her responsibilities. manager, network and PC manager, and training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning  Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications. databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, LANs, printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example, servers, PCs, one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been in this area. there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director ] Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | I I I I 1 I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer I Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Networks PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500. 00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS fimding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect The excess costs n procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District laforaation Services Business Case [ FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS I FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95[ Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data seirver to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 AA400 VOTSCM *400 mootuvn S_J2 AnAgManxAWi urm o KNOOLLAM 4 4 AX Q 4 LAM UVUl o- I DAT* mvu a LAID ADMSamuTTVI IVLOtM 4 4 4 b ruTO 4 4 4 uno b a 4 MHOn rrAFT LAM a TAX 4 4 b WTO LAM MXVU  9 4 b WTO a 4 UM mm O 4 4 AX Q 4 a WTO o 4 4 4 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students centralized student services, administrative services, library\" services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office student services, may access applications, instructional applications, multimedia, !______ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology for expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9SLittle Rock School Dietrlct Information Servlcee Bueineee Caee Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated I [ Director Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I Applications 4 Database Manager j F f '---------1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I ][ 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC  comprehensive IS staff model with rel Avant- position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model. without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Littl* Rook School District Information Services Buaineaa Caao IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. AMOO VO TECH AS400 FOOD SEX VICE A9it0 ADMDflSTXATtVE DATA SEX VEX DATA MIMTU o a. FAX Q kAW tuvi* MW b rMtnt b MB fWNTU o rtx q Fax o o b rutira FAX Q LAN ntwu rm b runu :/7/95   a a a A a a o a 4 1 A a a a i Q a \u0026amp; a a Q a a a a a a A a A A A a a A A A i A A a A a a a A a a o a A a b a b A a a A A A 9 a A A A ALittl* Rook School Diotrict Information Services Buainaaa Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. \"o d nuNTu o A NUMTU o d rux a q a a. a uut StXVlK o a A d a b a d A A ro Q d A otmuT SFdVER  i a A Q A a HHH d -St a a b wmu d A A a rut q A a (AM suvu d b MUKTU d A a  \"o a tu q a A i A A Q A a d a a A .d a A Q A \"o b iwm d d d d 2/7/9S [ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Casa ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800, 000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS40O \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Con5)uter AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrlct Xnforaatlon Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 Central Server w/OS, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIP RDBMS, Apps, AND SERVICES (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE Little Rock School District Xnfocnation Services Business Case CX7RRENT ARCHITECTURE 1 AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Bualneee Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE 1 DISTRICT SERVER PWKTHl 2/7/95 / 5 of .. '^3 Little Rock School District Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification Z Deletion $523,000 savings 1/9/95Badgett School Relocation Business Gise 2 Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. i------ While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, ^rious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to savmg money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, snerifir rpQparrh rrit-oria uTom __i.\n__.v. an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was fUled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257) students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\nThe additional 7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand. 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Sutwuiitdhy Di Hnr\u0026gt; P Ol/W/W he BADCTPOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some their friends\ndisappointment in being separated from 2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nOI/Ow/wS Bf HADCTDT*-Badgett School Relocation Business Case 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n5. 6. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96, If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo 4 SutHnilwd K Ih Hir\\ T Mdlunu Svpmnimdfni oi/(w/*5K BAncr rxxBadgett School Relocation Business Case 5 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) Milestone community information meeting to send to: d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information------------------------ a) parents \u0026amp; students\nmeeting to: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. 14. Inventory building '  15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment______ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school ' 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo I Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows vacant seats. _ . , - - many While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. I Problem Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. Hmrv P WiUmom SxwrwMMMimi n RAfKTTrXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of effor1:s to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 1 illustrates some of these trends. b*' Dt. Henn- P WillMmt OI/W/B RC BADCT.nOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 7 Figure 1 Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity_______ Attnd. Zone Ttlt 1989-90 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 1990-91 797 74.77 14.77 86.38 1991-92 220 73.18 13.18 85.60 1992-93 202 76.24 16.24 78.60 1993-94 1994-^ AZ % Black 189 69.84 9.84 73.54 135 65.93 177 75.14 15.14 68.87 160 61.25 One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. To the south of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. See Attachment A. I Ana/ysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below\n1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nEnrollments are for October of each year. - Attendance zone data is available for two years only. K Ih Hmn f William, lufa laiiinili iii RArvrrnivBadgett School Relocation Business Case 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. This reduces the per-pupU costs at Badgett but wfll increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses areas of the problem. all three a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible Attachment C\nscenario appears in b) An immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be realized by ehmmating the need for management staff, food service, buUding maintenance and utilities to name a few\nc) d) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. The curriculum offered at Badgett wfll be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts in LRSD and PCSSD. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in LRSD. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort\nit would have a negative impact .... on attendance zone is neighboring attendance zones. To the south of the the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes Attachment A. See 8 [ Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. I Objective By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate''reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Suhmmod H Di P WiUmru SoprtmflMimi Ol 'CN/fS BI MADCT.rXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 9 Plan. Fulfilhng this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware\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_279","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/279"],"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\nRECEfVFo OCT 2 4 1995 Office of ^^^^d^egation ^omioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAL/GROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SERVICE c August 24, 1995LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAUGROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SER VICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aging facilities, limited resources and the need to prioritize assets are all conunon problems faced by school districts. Our specific challenge is how to keep our need in balance and provide adequate, safe and suitable facilities to meet our educational needs and do it a reasonable cost. The situation that the Little Rock School District faces, with regard to its facilities and custodial program, is not unlike that of most other school districts in the United States. Support Services functions have often had their budgets reduced to support academic programs. The emergence on the market of firms who specialize in school district support management have certainly added a boost to the overall appearance and professionalism of the way school districts conduct their support programs. Many of these firms offer programs that allow school districts to leverage limited resources in ways not available to districts to improve the overall quality of service in custodial and maintenance functions. The history particular to the Little Rock School District shows a school system which has expanded over the last twelve (12) years, but not kept up with the finances necessary to support this expansion. The backlog of maintenance and repair in the Little Rock School District are projects beyond the capability of the in-house work force or a small management company to complete. Committing the district at this time to reorganizing our assets commensurate with our financial and physical abilities is a prudent management step. It is necessary to reassess our programs and assets on a continual basis to ensure that they are meeting the districts educational goals. Outside influences regarding the way that the Little Rock School District does business, such as the Desegregation Plan, expanding State and Federal laws, monitoring groups and parent committees all play a role in analyzing this problem.The administration recommends forming a partnership with a firm which will provide the expertise to allow the district to better utilize its assets and will add the additional resources necessary to meet the objective of cleaner, safer schools utilizing existing available funds. Forming a partnership with a management firm would give this district a boost in resources and capital investment and would jump start the custodial and maintenance program. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Little Rock School District has a need to improve the appearance and overall visual condition and cleanliness of its facilities so as to enhance its recruitment and educational programs and to minimize long term damage due to neglect or non repair. BACKGROUND The Custodial and Grounds aspects of the Maintenance Program of the Little Rock School District are duties which are assigned the custodial staff of the various facilities. The custodians receive technical assistance in broad terms from the Plant Services Department but work directly for the individual principals. There is a long history of actions that have been taken regarding custodial service in this District which must be closely examined. Another major aspect of the Plant Services Department is the Maintenance and Repair Program. The Maintenance and Repair Program also has undergone significant changes in the last several years which are additionally provided as general background information. Each of these two (2) subjects will be addressed individually. Custodial and Grounds In 1986, the Little Rock School District had approximately 216 full time equivalent positions to maintain its custodial mission. This was an average of one (1) FTE per each 11,672 square feet. During that year, the Administration proposed to the Board a Plan to use an outside contractor to perform the cleaning duties of the Little Rock School District. It was estimated that the District could save over $250,000 annually by using a contract cleaning service. The proposal was not approved\nhowever, the Board instead charged the Plant Services Department with making cuts in custodial staffing, supplies and training to save $250,000 annually. The custodial staff reduction was achieved and a partial formula for staffing was adopted as a guideline for future staff planning. The full time equivalents rose to one (1) custodian for each 17,700 square feet or approximately 200 custodians. A plan known as the Omaha Formula was considered the most plausible and was applied generally throughout the District\nhowever, certain exceptions were made in Magnet and Incentive 2Schools. The plan also called for the custodial staff of each facility to report directly to an on-site supervisor, normally the principal. It was this on-site supervisor that made the final selection for hiring replacements and handled disciplinary action and recommended termination. In order to provide assistance to the on-site supervisors in managing custodial activities, the Plant Services Department employed four (4) custodial supervisors and recommended a custodial manager. Except dtiring summer months when the on-site supervisor was absent from the building, the custodial supervisors were not responsible for direct supervision of the custodial staff, but rather provided technical assistance, training, inspections, job site assistance, recommendations to the on-site supervisor and general persormel management functions. This program was recommended in the draft Desegregation Plan\nhowever, budget cuts in 1989 precluded this entire process from being implemented. Custodial supervisors were hired but the custodial manager to oversee the program and provide general technical expertise in custodial matters was never funded. To supplement absences in custodial staffing during the normal school year, a substitute program was implemented whereby the District would hire individuals\npay them at minimum wage and with minimum training would be assigned to the schools to assist the custodial staff. This proved to be very costly, both in dollars and in resources and was modified in December of 1991 when the Plant Services Department instituted a custodial position request procedure and a substitute custodial program. The substitute custodial program deleted another $250,000 from the custodial training program so that these funds could be used for higher district priorities. It established a priority system whereby substitutes would be pulled from a minimum pool of 25 custodians and sent to schools on a priority basis. Additionally it provided the six (6) temporary personnel to augment the ground capabilities of the Plant Services Department to compensate for the lack of training, expertise and abilities of the substitute custodians to do grounds work. The procedure was put in place in 1992. In August of 1992, during the beginning of the budget cycle for the following year, $220,000 was cut from the Plant Services Departftients custodial budget. It should be mentioned that a complete analysis was done at that time of the entire custodial program by the department. It was determined that over staffing against the Omaha Formula and leveling the staff to meet the needs of that formula would save approximately $150,000. This redistribution of custodial assets had previously been recommended by the Little Rock School District Curriculum Review (1990) which recommended equitable staffing among all schools. However, to meet the remaining goal of $220,000, additional cuts came by not filling custodial supervisory vacancies. As a result, the four (4) custodial supervisors were reduced to three (3). The remaining savings came from custodial supplies. In October of 1992, custodial supervisory responsibilities were realigned so as to ensure all schools and administrative buildings were covered to a minimum degree. In August of 1993, after testimony was given in court to these procedures, an evaluation was done of the custodial reductions of 1992 and recommendations were made to the superintendent to make adjustments. A Business Case was written and submitted and certain adjustments were made to the Omaha Formula throughout the district. The evaluation was provided to the Federal 3Court in January of 1993, along with a history of staff changes from 1991 through 1993. In 1993 and 1994, due to further staff reductions, two (2) of the three (3) remaining custodial supervisors were deleted. This left a staff of one (1) custodial supervisor, whose primary concern was to manage the Substitute Custodial Program with very limited training and custodial advising. New requirements, such as HAZMAT training and asbestos training has been picked up by the Plant Services Department and have fallen under the job description of the Environmental Coordinator. General overall training of the custodial staff has fallen tremendously due to the result of budget cuts in the supervisory functions to administer this program. The present situation is that custodians work for the principals, as has been the case since 1986. The Plant Services Department provides only minimal training and assistance due to the lack of management personnel. From the program initiated in 1991, where the Plant Services Department had full responsibility for training, scheduling and technical assistance, we have a program now where this is only provided on a minimal basis. Grounds allocations have been made, such that immediate responsibility close into the building is the responsibility of the custodial staff and the mowing of major areas and open fields, to include athletic fields, is the responsibility of Plant Services. Maintenance and Repair Throughout this budget cutting scenario from 1986 to the present time, the maintenance side of the program has had to adjust constantly to decreasing resources. Prior to 1986 and the transfer of the southwest Little Rock schools from PCSSD, the ratio of maintenance workers to square foot responsibility was 1:48,000. When the schools were transferred to LRSD control the ratio changed to 1:72,500 sf. At the time the transfer occurred, no additional manpower was given to the maintenance department to compensate for this additional workload. The installation of an Energy Management Program in 1988 to monitor facilities energy consumption, the installation of an automated maintenance management program in 1991 to keep track of costs, scheduled work and assisting in the prioritization of work has helped the maintenance program make some improvements. The establishment of priorities for all work assigned to the Plant Services Department which was put in place in early 1992, has aided in ensuring that the work necessary for the health safety and operational support of ongoing programs is accomplished and that work necessary to support new programs is prioritized against the needs of the new program and long range and deferred work is treated appropriately as funds become available. Budget cuts in the maintenance program over the last: five (5) years have amoimted to over $750,000. Part of this has been offset by a better utilization of the energy monitoring system, which has allowed the district to save over $450,000 in the last five (5) years. This money was not directed back into the maintenance program to offset the loss of normal budget cuts, but rather into the general pool and used by the administration against all of the Little Rock school District priorities. 4Supplementing the custodial effort at the schools, there are twelve (12) building engineers at: the larger secondary schools and administration buildings to assist in doing minor maintenance. The building engineers work for the principals arid receive supplies and technical support from the Plant Services Department. The overall condition of our schools indicates an array of buildings that generally meet minimal needs of our academic program. However, there is need for improvement. Conelating this background to our problem definition gives rise to the questions on how to enhance our facilities and to sustain our maintenance and custodial operations with diminishing resources. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Leading up to this business case, the administration made contact with several providers of management firms to learn of the benefits of their programs. Information was secured from firms which provide management services in custodial and maintenance areas by issuing a request for information in early 1995. This request for information was responded to by three (3) companies. A committee reviewed the three (3) proposals and agreed that discussions would be held with ServiceMaster to determine whether or not management plan could be put together in such a way that management services could be secured and funded from increased productivity. The end result would be a more organized and systematic support system of custodial and maintenance services to our schools. Information regarding comments and analysis dealing with management services were derived over a three (3) month period with ServiceMaster during May through July. Four (4) different alternatives have been considered. Alternative Number One - Do Nothing. Doing nothing must be considered an alternative. It implies that the cunent situation would remain as is and that forces impacting this alternative, such as reductions or enhancements in FTEs, supplies, equipment would be subject to the normal budget process of the District. The Custodial \u0026amp; Maintenance Program would fall in line with all other District priorities, and funds would be appropriated based on budget needs. The budget would not allow for enhancements in the Custodial or Maintenance Programs, but sustain them at the current level. Alternative Number Two - Add Resources/Reorganization. Additional resources are assuredly needed by the custodial and maintenance staff to enhance our facilities. But simply adding resources will not suffice, A cursory review of our program indicates that most of these resources are needed not in additional personnel, but in equipment, training and programs that could raise the stature and expertise of our custodial staff. Additional resources would most assuredly have to be made in the area of custodial supervisors and a custodial manager. The implications of cleanliness goes well beyond maintaining clean floors and clean bathrooms. Our need to maintain facilities that are safe from airborne diseases, rodents, insects, and to support indoor air quality programs coupled with laws requiring training and protection in hazardous material handling, asbestos and chemicals, 5and the need to understand new cleaning methods and materials on the market make additional resources mandatory regardless of which alternative is chosen. Reorganization would consist of realigning the custodial staff, the infusion of trained managers to run this program, the realignment of building engineer assets to make the grounds and preventive maintenance programs more effective, and a plan to coordinate all the different functions. This can be done initially out of personnel assets presently assigned to the district, but would require the addition of a number of managers at an approximate cost of $160,000 and at least $300,000 in capital equipment. However, a considerable amount of time would have to be given to the Plant Services Department to put together a viable reorganization plan to ensure that all facets of the custodial and maintenance program could be supported. It is estimated that this would take approximately two months to study and analyze, and another 12 -24 months to implement. The biggest disadvantage to this option in addition to the need for more resources and time for implementation is that there are no guarantees of success. Alternative Number Three - Contract Out. Contracting out normally refers to the situation where a company, expert in a specific area, comes into an organization and takes over all aspects of that function to include personnel. It would mean that a company would provide all levels of management of not only the subject area, such as custodial and maintenance, but areas such as engineering, financial supplies, etc. Employees would be members of that firm and not of the school district, and the school district would pay a set amount each year for this contract. Contract management can bring to a district a large and fast infusion of equipment and expert training, which is needed to jump start a program. However, the pay back is usually costly and over a long period of time, such that the management firm can amortize their costs. Many times when a district buys a \"Management Package\" it is forced to buy the entire package to include elements of the program that they may already be providing to be able to get the portions of the programs that they actually want. Alternative Number Four- Professional Management Services. In this concept our school district would enter into a partnership with a firm that would agree to provide the resources and expertise that is unavailable to the district due to budget constraints. By combining the skills and abilities of district staff with the technology and resources of an experienced provider of professional management services, we would be able to improve the delivery of custodial and maintenance services without having to spend any additional dollars. The aforementioned three month study and discussion with ServiceMaster has led to a specific management plan which has been custom designed to achieve district objectives of better maintained schools, employment procedures and practices continued (Employees will continue to work for LRSD with existing wages and benefits), and no increase in current fiscal year budget. An appendix of additional information has been provided as an attachment to this business case. 6Advantages  Cleaner and better maintained schools  Faster implementation of resources  Better coordination of custodial and maintenance services  Provides for additional capital investment  Provides for training of LRSD personnel Disadvantages  Perception that LRSD management cannot provide cleaner schools without outside assistance  Possibility of conflict over ServiceMaster recommendations RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of administration to choose alternative four (4) which is to form a partnership with ServiceMaster which will allow Plant Services to reorganize and regroup its assets and add the additional resources necessary to meet the objectives of cleaner and safer schools. This envisioned five-year contract (which will contain a 90-day cancellation clause) program will help the district to compensate for decreases in resources over the years, and provide a tailored program to meet LRSD needs. The most significant difference from previous attempts at improvements is that the cost and length of time factors that limited our success in the past will be removed as obstacles through the partnership with ServiceMaster. This course of action can be implemented much more quickly, with greater impact and less cost than the other alternatives. OBJECTIVE OF RECOMMENDATION The overriding objective of this recommendation is to improve the overall appearance of school site environment by maintaining cleaner and safer school buildings without increasing current budgetary resources. It is believed that the implementation of the above recommendation will provide the LRSD the most cost effective method of achieving the stated objective. IMPACT ANALYSIS The facility services program of custodial and maintenance can have both a positive and negative impact on this districts image and ability to perform its primary mission. A 7well executed custodial and maintenance program that results in better looking facilities with groomed and manicured grounds and better maintained buildings could foster new enrollment and the expansion of the Little Rock School District. Needless to say, the further detriment of the maintenance program could have the exact opposite effect. RESOURCE ANALYSIS In summary, the district will pay approximately $700,000 for management fees and $300,000 for equipment and supplies to ServiceMaster annually. The fees will be funded through productivity improvement savings and reductions in positions by attrition over time. No employees will be laid off. If Savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced. The attached financial summary provides additional information relating to fees. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Attractive, well maintained facilities would obviously be accepted by all of the Little Rock School District students and staff and the general public. We must strive to make our schools acceptable to the people that we serve and it must be done, in part, by making them visually appealing, safe and as well maintained as our resources will allow. There is no known contingent that would object to the betterment of our schools. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Should this recommendation be approved, it is expected that implementation would take place on or about October 1, 1995. 8APPENDIX Appendix A ServiceMaster Proposal Appendix B Program Overview Appendix C Financial Analysis Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewAppendix A ServiceMaster ProposalService Master Proposal To Little Rock School DistrictServices Provided To LRSD EHRBRE i bi * iin 111 r r 1111 rii rii v bcm* b  ri!ri!RiriBiRaBiBMBaBaiBaiKBHasB\u0026gt;naaMRaBaiMM  Management Services  Systems approach to maintaining buildings  Technical expertise  Administrative Services  Training of LRSD personnel  Capital investment  Cleaner \u0026amp; better maintained schoolsAnnualized Cost To District m unmminiiiiiHiiiiiHiiiHiiUHiuiBiniiiPUMniniiMflu  $700,000 management fees  $300,000 Materials \u0026amp; SuppliesCost Will Be Paid BY  Productivity improvement savings  Position reductions over time through attrition  21 FTE Custodians  14 FTE Building Engineers/others  Substitutes  If savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced  Potential for savings in excess of SM feesContract Requirements nonBBnraaBBBHHBBNnnHBinflHaMM imnunoiKimnBmaHmiMHiwamsBvmanmwviiBaevflmiMM  Will include maximum LRSD expenditures  LRSD will not pay fees to SM that will cause the district to exceed current budget  Expenditure amounts will be defined in terms of function \u0026amp; object codes  Service Standards  Provision for 90-day termination of contract if standards are not met  No payment of deferred feesBsesme tiiannMwiiiiTmismiiiiuruHriiiiiitiiaiMiiiijnBiiHiiiniwiatMa Board Action Requested Authorize the district administration to enter into contract Negotiation with ServiceMaster. Once mutual agreement has been reached regarding terms, the Board will be asked to authorize the execution of the contract.Appendix B Program OverviewPROGRAM OVERVIEW GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM A. Professional Management Services for Little Rock School District By Whom ServiceMaster is the leading provider of Professional Management Service to the education industry, serving in over 520 school and universities worldwide. ServiceMaster has reached this position through personal individualized service to education executives. Program Concept Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster have an opportunity to work together in a new and unique way. The education industry is facing new and most challenging times. We are both being asked to provide a higher standard of quality, with greater customer focus, and to do so at a lower cost. To accomplish these objectives, we are proposing a new, more effective organizational structure and a unique combination of the School District and ServiceMaster resources. The success of this program depends on Little Rock School District and ServiceMasters people working closely together. This proposal describes a new relationship between us in which we will work together to increase the effectiveness of all services, merging them into a single, responsive service organization. ServiceMasters resources are very significant, and our commitment to the success of this program at Little Rock School District is complete. By combining ServiceMasters systems, technical resources, and resident department management leadership with the skills and abilities of Little Rock School District people, we will: * significantly improve and maintain quality levels as measured by formal quality assessment procedures.\u0026lt; provide the Little Rock School District a return on investment projected to be in excess of $2 million dollars over the life our Agreement. be responsive and accountable to your administration, to your teachers, and to your students. Together, we will apply good sound common sense and business judgment to all decisions affecting our entire responsibility. Your decision to join with us in this venture is one which reflects your agreement that together we can accomplish more and accomplish it faster. We look forward to working with you to begin this exciting new program. B. Program Benefits Our objective is to work in the shadow of your School District supporting Administration in every way possible to achieve its goals and objectives. The Administrative team will benefit from: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A quality level of service much higher than previously experienced, achieved through the latest developments in process engineering, productivity improvements, and Human Resource Development techniques. The addition of a professional supporting management team headed by high caliber, highly motivated managers, able leaders of personnel. They will also have a true understanding of the education community, facilities management, and modem engineering practices. Additional levels of supporting management through an operational backup team consisting of a Director of Operations, Customer Support Representative and Vice President for Operations, as well as a Technical Support Team consisting of Technical Specialists, Process Engineers and others. Greater management control over the Maintenance Department while reducing your time involved in the day-to-day operation of the department. Establishment of a climate of meaningful motivation to the employees that will challenge them in their job for achievement, responsibility, growth, earned recognition and the work itself through initial and continuous training and development programs.6) Improved employee morale through enlightened management and supervisory practices, assistance to administration in reflecting the basic safety and social needs to these employees, for identifying with the School District, for belonging. They, in turn, will be recognized as being part of the education team. 7) Positive feedback from customers (students, teachers, community and staff) generated from the impact of the ServiceMaster Professional Management Program. 8) Flexibility to meet the changing needs of your School District. 9) Protection of your investment in the buildings accomplished through the technical back-up and research, laboratory, and manufacturing facilities of the ServiceMaster organization together with the consulting support of ServiceMaster Professional Engineers, Chemists, Bacteriologists and Training Specialists whenever needed (see organization chart). 10) Thoughtful and careful coordination of Environmental Service duties and personnel with other District personnel and departments improving both communications and harmony of operation throughout the District. 11) Reduced equipment maintenance and replacement costs accomplished through the implementation of the systematic \"Computenance Plus\" Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Program. 12) Minimized risks to students, employees and staff throughout the District accomplished through the implementation of a Casualty Prevention and Control Program. 13) A performance oriented program. 14) Protection of m^jor pieces of capital equipment is realized through ServiceMasters Guaranteed Equipment Life Program. 15) Minimized Liability, Improved Service, and Reduced Costs - Is realized through the establishment of ServiceMasters in-house Maintenance Management System. 16) Provision of a program which fully complies with. Federal, State and Local Regulatory Agencies.ServiceMasters record of service in and long-standing relationship with the education marketplace makes us uniquely qualified to assess the management of support services at Little Rock School District and to propose solutions. A team of ServiceMaster professionals spent firam 2-4 weeks surveying the District. During the on-site survey process our engineering teams assessed your needs by reviewing the cost of payrolls, purchased services, supplies, utilities and capital expenditures. We toured every building inspecting cleaning surfaces, mechanical equipment, ventilation systems, roofing systems and grounds conditions. Interviews were held with administrators, principals, staff, and those involved with related functions. Safety, training, quality control, and operational methods were thoroughly reviewed. With great care and detail an implementation plan has been specifically and uniquely prepared for the Little Rock School District. Features of the program can be classified into six (6) major categories. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Leadership and Organization Education and Development Technology and Systems Corporate Resources Total Quality Management Financial Performance Following is a brief outline of these sections and features provided as a ready reference overview. 1) Leadership and Organization Integral to the success of ServiceMaster programs is the full-time involvement of professional ServiceMaster managers in the organization. Our managers are trained extensively in processes and procedures, labor relations, management skills, financial skills, and human relations. ServiceMaster Will Provide\nA. B. A full-time, on-site, resident ServiceMaster management team which will be integrated carefully with the current management team to maximize existing skills. A proposed organization that would include the appropriate number of full-time equivalent custodial/grounds personnel, and full-time equivalent maintenance personnel, and clerical personnel, all of whom will remain employees of Little Rock School District.2) c. Continuous Management Development Programs held on-site, regionally, and nationally. Education and Development Much of the success of ServiceMaster programs is due to our ongoing commitment to provide the very best training, education, and development programs for the employees we are privileged to lead. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. One-on-one training programs to be accomplished with all department staff and documented as such every six (6) months. B. Alternating with the above training, audiovisual reinforcement training accomplished semi-annually. C. Monthly group meetings with all staff containing discussion on informational/motivational topics. These would include special guest speakers and would be designed to encourage the staff as an important part of the school family. D. Special annual programs such as \"Pride Day,\" \"Open House,\" and \"Award of Excellence\" held to help build pride and professionalism among the staff. E. Special career development opportunities to include development in maintenance skills and technology, G.E.D. certification, and similar programs to help staff members enrich their lives and further their careers. F. Certification seminars held regionally on such topics as carpet care, gym floor care, athletic turf, track maintenance, and playground equipment. G. Leadership development programs for those expressing the interest and talent to advance to leadership roles. H. Job descriptions, standards of performance, and performance evaluation tools implemented and utilized as a regular part of operations. 1. Risk management and safety programs for all personnel. These would include required training courses for \"Right to Know\" and Asbestos Safety. J. Specific Recruitment Strategies for reducing turnover and absenteeism and improving performance.3) Technology and Systems Effective management of the custodial, maintenance, and grounds functions of a district requires an ongoing program of research and development. New technology, innovative techniques, and effective procedures and methods are constantly being developed by ServiceMaster to meet the challenges presented by todays education environment. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Maintenance 1. A fully computerized state-of-the-art maintenance program. 2. Preventive maintenance for all electrical and mechanical systems. 3. Casualty prevention and control programs for all equipment and buildings. 4. Life expectancy reports for all electrical and mechanical equipment. 5. Formalized maintenance summaries to include schedules, actions completed, cost analysis, and productivity reports. 6. Establishment of a complete cost accounting system for maintenance activities including parts, labor, and services. 7. Monitoring of all correctivd maintenance activities structuring and planning tasks. 8. Provision of a complete technical reference library concerning methods and skills. 9. Computerization of work order processes and systems. 10. Tracking of all minor construction activities to include parts, services, and labor costs. 11. Provision of employee education and training as required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. 12. A program designed to alert the school to any potential problems related to lead in drinking water and possible solutions.13. A program designed to expose any potential hazards related to underground storage tanks and recommendations regarding actions required to meet EPA standards. 14. Education for the maintenance staff on the potential dangers of Radon Gas, and recommendations regarding necessary actions to reduce any potential health risks. B. Custodial 1. New special and patented custodial chemicals for all building locations and processes. 2. New state-of-the-art ServiceMaster patented custodial equipment providing greater efficiency and productivity. 3. A complete technical library of custodial processes and procedures on-site for department use. 4. Documented standardized cleaning schedules developed and utilized for each building and situation. 5. Proven ServiceMaster processes for all job tasks put into place and documented as such. 6. New ServiceMaster developments in cleaning technology to each school as appropriate. C. Grounds Provisions 1. Implementation of standardized grounds care procedures for all grounds functions. 2. Structure and planning for all grounds-care tasks to include pruning, fertilization, pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide application. 3. Planned balanced mowing routines. 4. Regular inspections of playground equipment. 5. A complete library of grounds care procedures and reference materials. 6. Inclusion of specified new grounds equipment.D. Energy Management 1. Implementation of a comprehensive operational energy management program. 2. Produce monthly analysis, by school, of energy cost and consumption. 3. Assist Administration in the analysis of existing energy management system to enhance energy control. 4. More efficient plant system that reduces energy consumption. 5. Through our energy shared-savings program we have over $100 million to invest in state-of-the-art energy efficient units to replace your outdated and inefficient systems. 4) Corporate Resources Perhaps the greatest benefits provided by ServiceMaster is the addition of resources and support far greater than anything otherwise available to the District. Nowhere else can the District find the extensive experience, proven record of performance, and vast corporate resources provided by ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An implementation team during the initial phases of the program accomplishing indexing of equipment, initial training, schedules, gener^ program installation, and other tasks related to the start of services. B. Additional management support by Director of Operations and Customer Support Representative visits, monthly or more frequently, if necessary. These visits insure program completeness and effectiveness. C. Engineering teams and individual engineers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of Plant Operations and Maintenance. D. ServiceMaster Systems Managers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of custodial services. E. Grounds specialists with expertise in turf management providing grounds consulting and on-site support.F. The corporate resources of ServiceMaster made available to the school to include Research and Development laboratories. G. National discount programs on a wide range of maintenance, custodial and grounds products and services. H. Immediate information resources through 1-800-SM-KNOWS. 5) Total Quality Management ServiceMaster Quality Assurance/Quality Management Programs are of importance to the District in that they provide assurance that the quality standards promised are the quality standards delivered. Scheduled inspections are designed to guarantee that acceptable levels of department quality are reached and maintained. These inspections provide for positive learning experiences and recognition for work done well, resulting in heightened morale. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Daily supervisor inspections made on-site by the supervisor at the facility. B. Maintenance daily rounds logs and routines established and documented. C. Weekly inspections of quality taken by the resident manager in the company of a school designee. D. Monthly meetings with school Administration to insure proper program direction. E. Quarterly inspections taken by the ServiceMaster Customer Support Representative with findings reported to Administration. F. Teacher interviews conducted with approximately 10% of the teachers each month to assess program effectiveness. G. Annually a formal report to the Little Rock School District detailing accomplishments for the past year. H. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life.6) Financial Comparison ServiceMasters contract amount will guarantee to the District the cost of management, school labor, custodial equipment, custodial supplies, training and materials, etc., whUe providing assurance of quality performance throughout the operation. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An investment in new labor efficient custodial equipment. B. An investment annually in custodial supplies and materials. C. An investment in grounds equipment. D. Potential replacement of some electromechanical equipment and grounds equipment. E. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life. F. A program to guarantee the life of major capital equipment by agreement to pay the financial penalty for premature failure. G. Total Maintenance and Custodial Program projected to be budget-neutral in the first full year of implementation. Long-term savings or the return on investment over the life of the agreement is projected to be greater than $2 million. A complete financial analysis is attached.ServiceMaster Management Team for Little Rock School District Corporate Support Bacteriologist Education and Training Regulatory Compliance 1-800-SM-KNOWS Little Rock School District Administration Operational Support Vice President Director of Operations Coordinating  Manager Customer Support Representative zXssistant Director Custodial Director * Systems Manager Assistant Director Principals * Responsible for coordination of training, computer systems, preventive maintenance, regulatory compliance, operational energy management, level I maintenance, grounds, and customer support. Appendix C Financial AnalysisFINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF SERVICEMASTER PROGRAM AMOUNT Management Team Custodial System Grounds Equipment Computerization Salaries and Benefits Capital Equipment is Annualized ($106,389) Annualized Amount Includes Hardware, Software, Customer Programming, and Support $332,188 265,584 22,600 11,163 Vehicles (4) Direct Investment 30,000 Indirect Invesment Profit and Taxes TOTAL Special Project Personnel Specialty Training Seminars Relocation Expense for Managers Start-up and Implementation Personnel Travel and Staff Expenses Safety Programs In-service Programs Motivational Programs Recruitment Strategies Program Customer Service Hot-line (1-800-SMKNOWS) Divisional Education Support Division Manager Area Operations Manager Vice President of Operations Audit and Control Direct Expense Total Labor Relations Education and Training Program Support Insurance Process Engineering Equipment Research and Development Chemical Research and Development Systems Research and Development Quality Control Finance Control Program Improvement Clerical Support Legal Support Service Administration Plant and Facilities Overhead Indirect Expense Total 259,417 122,945 140.011 Sl,183,908FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - FOOTNOTES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (1) Non-budgeted but utilized amount for substitutes. (2) Amount spent on custodial supplies developed from information provided by Plant Services and Procurement. (3) Line item #. (4) Line item #. (5) Salary for custodial supervisor. (6) Amount estimated that is spent on disposable supplies such as tissue and trash can liners not provided as part of custodial system. (7) Analysis of ServiceMaster program amount provided separately.Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewServiceMaster Overview  Number of K-12 School Districts Currently Served  Number of Employees ... 370 Over 30,000ServiceMaster The Company Pursuing quality and exceIlencc...Treating people with dignity and pridc...Being driven by service to our customers...Growing profitably...these are all part of the goals and objectives of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster continues to expand our technical resources and customer base in an atmosphere that fosters innovation, creativity and development. Long before the concept of \"total quality management\" was fervently discussed among businesses and learning institutions, ServiceMaster had committed itself to the objective of \"Pursuing Excellence.\" In the early 197O's, Kenneth T. Wessner, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, wrote: \" Our company accqjts the responsibility to continually seek better methods to render current and new services to its' customers at a better value. Our trademarks and service marks stand for excellence...The pursuit of excellence is a never-ending process, the continuing search for a better way. It requires a strong commitment and an understanding that a job, a career  life itself is never completed, but is in a continual stage of change and growth.\" It is this philosophy that has continued to guide management and support employees. By listening to customers' needs and remaining focused on the business of providing quality services, ServiceMaster has grown from a small mothproofing business in the early 194O's to a $3.0 billion international company that provides a network of services to consumers, businesses, health care systems and education customers. In 1962, at the request of hospital administrators, the first Housekeeping Management Support Program was introduced. Based on findings from the American Hospital Association, health care professionals and additional research, ServiceMaster designed a program to improve overall cleanliness while reducing costs and management burdens. I In 1971, through a series of discussions with school administrators, the company learned of the unique demands and challenges encoimtered in maintaining school buildings and groimds. As a result, a separate division of the company was started in order to better focus on the specific concerns of educators. Now, over 20 years later, ServiceMaster education resources include four specific divisions nationwide, staffed with operations, sales and support professionals dedicated to handle all aspects of school and college facilities management. In addition, corporate resources are committed to technical research and development, management and support employee training, motivational program development, and hiring professionals with expertise in the education market. ServiceMaster The Company (continued): Today, as the world's leading provider of support management services to education customers, ServiceMaster continues to serve our first education customer as well as 500 additional colleges, universities and school districts. ServiceMaster is the only company in the world that can provide maintenance, custodial, groimds, energy management, food service, pest control, capital retrofit and asbestos programs all through a single source provider.ServiceMaster Sponsored Programs ServiceMaster continues to demonstrate our education commitment by providing corporate sponsorship and leadership support to a number of different education organizations and programs including:  The AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program  ServiceMaster is proud to have initiated, fimded and developed, along with the American Association of School Administrators, this prestigious program. The National Superintendent of the Year recognizes and honors the important contribution that superintendents of America's public schools make to our youth and the preservation of our society.  Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI)  ERDI is a unique organization whose goal is to bring together iimovative leadership in education and business from around the country. Initiated, funded and developed by ServiceMaster, ERDI provides a \"think tank\" atmosphere for Fortune 500 companies.... a forum for progressive educators to share and exchange ideas, and funding for education research and development.  Flag of Learning and Liberty -The Flag of Learning and Liberty, developed in 1985 by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), symbolizes the link between education and the American democratic way of life. ServiceMaster continues to provide funding and support to promote this important education symbol.  ASBO International Eagle Service Award Program - The Eagle Service Award was developed by ServiceMaster and the Association of School Business Officials International to recognize business officials who demonstrate outstanding service to their school, community and the profession. In addition, ServiceMaster was named as one of President Bush's 1,000 Points of Light for providing the opportunity and funding for over 200 ServiceMaster employees to mentor elementary students. ServiceMaster also provides funding and support for the Council of Great City Schools and sponsors over 100 student scholarships nationwide. / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Richardson Independent School District Location: Richardson, Texas Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, Technology Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: October 1990 Total Square Feet/Sites: 5,008,318 sq. ft./63 Buildings Students: 33,000 Contact Personfsl/Phone: Mr. Vernon Johnson, Superintendent Mr. Jack Huffman*, Director of Physical Plant Services 214/301-3333 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Polk County Schools Location: Bartow, Florida Services Provided: Custodial Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: November 1986 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,828,000 sq. ft./109 Buildings Students: 68,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. John A. Stewart, Superintendent Mr. Denny Dunn*, Deputy Superintendent 813/534-0500 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Memphis City Schools Location: Memphis, Tennessee Services Provided: Custodial, Maintenance, Grounds Management, Energy Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: June 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites: 16,000,000 sq. ft? 1,884 Acres Students: 106,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone: Dr. Gerry House, Superintendent 901/325-5444 ServiceMASTER. REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Kansas City Missouri School District Location: Kansas City, Missouri Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: August 1991 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,629,101 sq. ft./102 Buildings Students: 35,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Walter Marks, Superintendent Mr. William M. Threatt*, Associate Superintendent 816/871-7814 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER I REFERENCE School District Name of Client\nDistrict of Columbia Public Schools Location\nWashington, D.C. Services Provided\nCustodial, Preventive Maintenance Management Employees on payroll of\nDistrict Contract Start Date\nJanuary 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites\n14,000,000 sq. ft? 198 Buildings Students\n81,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone\nDr. Franklin Smith, Superintendent Mr. William McAfee*, Director of Facilities Management Division 202/724-4222 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER. B4112802 08/09/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4. Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. *  * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken.  * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 25 * modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $261,100. Academic Support Program. 2. 3. 4. 5. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. Pupil Transportation Services. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 3* * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to * nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the * * superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 4* * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * *   * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $ 1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as defened and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services, * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from 6* * * * consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY.  *  * * * *  * * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY 7expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School. * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. * * * * * * * * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $130,000. 13. Staff Development. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 8* * * 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODPvI/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 14. Substitute Teachers. * * *  * * * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $50,000. IS. Vocational Education. *  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 9* * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut * and savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $98,462. 16. Safety and Security, * *  * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education.  * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. 10* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional * * cost of $34,965. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe\nfrom 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set * at $211,250. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management 11Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept. * * * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. * * * * * 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 12* * * * * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 13* * * * * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 24. Elementary Music Teacher StafTing. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $161,000. 25. Improving Student Transportation.   * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $100,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Some opposition, but not as much as last time. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested material from last year. Numerous 14 questions on the mechanics of outsourcing, but staff did not answer. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * * *  list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $100,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams says RFP ready to go. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. RFP issued on 4/7/95. The Board tabled the item. On hold. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion with numerous questions. Issue still tabled. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the item remaining deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on outsourcing contract would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. After a presentation by Laidlaw, the Board approved a * three year, $19,500,000 contract. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $100,000, and the line item transfers for the outsourcing contract. 26. Parkview Commercial Art Class. * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $0.00. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board approved this item. Unknown building renovations may be expensive. 27. Arkansas Crusades. * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Will support about 30 teachers. Mostly for equipment at 50% match for implementation of programs. Have done this in the past. No evidence that it is successful at this point. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item is still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $30,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $30,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the addition as submitted by the 15* * superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $30,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $30,000. 28. Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $3,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was dropped from the proposal. It was solved with staff realignment. It will be dropped from the proposed budget. 29. New Comers Center. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $52,117. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would have 4 centers at elementary schools, 2 centers at junior high schools, and 1 center at a senior high school. The funding is mainly for staff development for teachers. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. The budget considerations list shows that the additional cost has been revised down to $12,117. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the * proposal for an additional cost of $12,117. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $12,117. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. * * * 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. The board approved the recommendation. Will add the $12,117. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $12,117. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $12,117. 30. Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program. *  * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would pilot reading recovery in grade 1. Funding is for training, materials, and supplies. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Gee asked questions about the number of students served. 16Magness clarified that the actual amount of new money required is really only $10,614, and not the full $30,000 cost. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. This item is on the Budget * * * * * * Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $10,614. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $10,614. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $10,614. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $10,614. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of$10,614. 31. Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues. * * * *  * * *  * * See feeder item #16. Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $36,500. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Officers would be used mainly in the bus areas. Outsourcing transportation would not impact this request. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Mitchell asked questions about the two officers that would be hired. Williams says they would be police officers that could fill in for the Resource Officers. Magness questions whether they are security officers or resource officers. Matthis says security officers. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $36,500. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $36,500. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $36,500. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $36,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of $36,500. 32. Social Studies Curriculum Revision. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculum to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides. Would 17* not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $13,200. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness had questions. Williams dropped this item from the proposal. It will come out of Matthis budget. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 33. Information Services. * * * * See feeder item #3. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 24 and 230 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Beason. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 24/230, Data Processing, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Convert district to a PC-based architecture with LANs. Multi-year project will lower costs in out-years. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $317,500. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Beason makes presentation. Cites significant technological problems. General discussion on costs. OMalley brings up outsourcing, but Williams says this year is not the time. Williams talks about the need for fiber optics.  3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $317,500. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * * * cost of $317,500. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams pushes for the addition of funds based on being able to access archived documents from 7 years ago. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case and addition as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $317,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $317,500. 34. Cloverdale Junior High School. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Name change to academy, and other program changes. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why this was turned down. No one could remember. Magness wants more information. 35. Incentive School Principals, * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pay increase and back pay for Incentive 18* School Principals. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 36. Rockefeller Incentive School  Alternative Room Specialist. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add a teacher to be the alternative room * specialist. 1 FTE. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 37. Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative School. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add two 7th grade classes. 4 FTEs and equipment. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 38. Reduction in Administrators. * * * * * * Moved from strategy listing. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was added to the budget considerations handout. It calls for a $300,000 reduction in administrative positions. Although not specific, Williams says he has identified some positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Positions still identified. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $300,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says he will propose cutting 10 or 12 positions in the central office, not at the building level. The Board tabled the issue awaiting additional information. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Proposed savings increased from $300,000 to $400,000. Actual cut list has not been published at this time. Numerous rumors\nno facts. Board passes the $400,000 cut without the specific cuts. * 4/29/95 Democrat Gazette article. Listed the cuts. Staff attorney plus secretary, $88,520. Deputy Superintendent, $93,969. Associate to the Deputy, $72,439. G/T Coordinator, $52,671. HIPPY Coordinators (2), $48,118. Plant Services * * * (EPA/const mgr), $49,127. Instructional Technology, $42,056. Math Supervisor, $55,942. Displaced principals, $125,288. Total cut package of $628,130. The $228,130 difference between the total and the approved cut amount of $400,000 would be additional new positions yet to be identified or approved. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. Meeting held to listen to patron pleas to retain (not cut) the G/T Coordinator position. No other administrative reductions were discussed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Cuts still at $400,000, but no description of the $228,130 for new positions. Business case included in the Tentative Budget Document. Business case undated. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. A newly modified business case was submitted with the 19Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a gross savings of $566,312\nless a contingency add-back of $150,000, for a net savings of $416,312. 20LRSD CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Outsourcing other services. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates the LRSD is not looking at any other Outsourcing opportunities at this time. 2/9/95 Board agenda/special meeting. ServiceMaster makes a presentation on managing custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. Representative says they can do it within the current budget, but no details given on how the dollars will be handled. Board does not take any action. ServiceMaster will provide more information. See item #13. 2. Clerical Support. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 3. IRC - Staffing/Use. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4. Federal Programs. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 07, Federal Programs. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 07, Federal Programs, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 5. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. * * * * * * * * * * * 6. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 7. Facilities Usage. 21* * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Mayo says the LRSD has completed a preliminary status report on the facilities study for input into the needs assessment. All area elementary schools were rated for possible closing. The top four are Badgett, Fair Park, Baseline, and Woodruff. A business case will be done on the closing recommendations. 8. Student Assessment. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Student Assessment, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 9. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 10. 11. 12. 13. Contract Lengths.  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter initiates request for more information. Item becomes active after five months. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Millage Election. * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter urges the Board to consider going for a 5 mil tax increase. 4/13/95 Board agenda meeting. Board voted to put the subject of a millage election on the agenda for the next meeting. 5/11/95 Board Agenda Meeting. Board held general discussion on a possible millage election. Williams says they will need between 8 and 12 mils. 7/8/95 Newspaper Article. Board decided not to go for a millage increase this year. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Spending Freeze. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a purchasing freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Custodian services\nconsulting by ServiceMaster. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the district is coming forth with a recommendation on ServiceMaster serving as a consultant on custodian services. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session. ServiceMaster offices make 22presentation. Williams says district would have to bid the work, but could save about $600,000 per year going with ServiceMaster. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 14. Communications Services. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 227, Communications Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 227, Communications Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 15. Computerized Transportation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 16. Contingencies. * * * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 233, Contingencies. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 233, Contingencies, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Eliminating contingencies introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the contingency amounts will be deleted from the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. The Tentative Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. The Final Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 17. Gifted and Talented. * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 23* * 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 18. Human Resource Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 228, Human Resource Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 228, Human Resource Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 19. Planning and Evaluation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 20. Plant Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 222, Plant Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 222, Plant Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 21. Purchasing Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 224, Purchasing Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 224, Purchasing Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 22. Rockefeller Early Childhood. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the 24business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 23. Romine Interdistrict School. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education. 24. 25. 26. n. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 203, Special Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 203, Special Education, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education/Learning. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Freeze on Hiring. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a hiring freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Freeze on Wage Increases. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a wage increase freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 28. Freeze on Travel. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a travel freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 29. Eliminate Purchase of Buses. * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration 25 * * *  * list, and the additional costs will not be included in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000, 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Item still eliminated from the Tentative Budget Document for a svaings of $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. This may get confusing. The district was budgeted to spend $1,000,000 on buses during 94-95. The buses were not purchased, only ordered, in 94-95, so the money was not spent and was reflected in the year end carryover. The bus purchase will actually occurred in 95-96 so most of the money, about $991,000, is now added into this budget to pay for those previously orderd buses. Therefore, no savings are reflected. 30. Eliminate Increment for Employees. * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $2,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter opposed to cutting or freezing pay. Savings reduced to $1,500,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal. Unable to determine the estimated savings since this item is lumped in with other items totaling $3,500,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,500,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects this as an item still under consideration at $1,500,000, but does not reflect any savings at this time. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 31. Shorten School Year by Two Days.  * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $750,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Savings reduced to $702,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $702,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Two days were deleted from the budget for a savings of $702,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says that cutting two days pay is for all 26 * * * * * employees, not just teachers. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Gadberry says the cut would be from all employees of the district. The Board decided to wait to consider this item until after contract negotiations. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Williams says the rules have changed on this proposal. Bus drivers, custodians, and security not affected. Administrators would take a 3 day cut, teachers would take a 2 day cut. Savings amount changed to $699,546. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on proposal. Board awaiting Attorney Generals opinion on the number of hearings required. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a successful negotiation outcome with the savings of $699,546. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 32. Move IRC to Fair Park. * * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $161,800, but would also have a first year expense of $50,000 for utilities and $270,000 for renovations. This would result in a net first year cost of $158,200. Depends upon the closing of Fair Park School. No discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked what options were available for moving the IRC if Fair Park was left open. Williams says they need to look at the whole picture of school closings and usage. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. The preliminaiy decision to not close Fair Park precludes this move. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the savings and additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still shown as deferred and on hold. Shows a net savings of $111,800. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. $161,800 in savings was not shown in the budget since the decision has been defened on closing the school. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Cant move the IRC if not closing down Fair Park. Pondexter wants information on moving the IRC to Oakhurst. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no move and no savings. 33. Reduction in Debt Service if Stephens is not Rebuilt. *  * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $300,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. OMalley says building has not been dropped, only being delayed. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 27* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * * of $300,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says the rebuilding of Stephens has been delayed. No date has been set for when it will be rebuilt. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved delaying the rebuilding of Stephens for the 95-96 school year. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the delay and the savings of $300,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the delay and the svaings of $300,000. 34. Combine administration of the 4 Year Old Program and the HIPPY Program. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Suggested by Pondexter as an alternative cost savings measure. No commitment by the administration. 35. Green Factors. * * *  2/9/95 agenda/special Board meeting. The superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12,000-$ 15,000 each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared, thus no options were identified or analyzed. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board will not authorize the Green factor committees or the money to fund them until they have an on-the-record conference with Judge Wright. Deleting this action would avert spending about $105,000 in the current fiscal year for incentive payments proposed by the superintendent. 3/9/95 Court Conference. Judge says Green factors will not get you home in this case. The Plan is the law. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says he recommended paying $100,000 to look at the factors. Would have paid out of the legal fees line item. Board did not approve the proposal. 36. Reduction in Administrators. * Moved to business case list. 37. Closing High School Kindergartens.  * 4/19/95 Democrat Gazette article. At a Town Hall feedback meeting on 4/18/95, Williams said the district was now considering the closing of the high school based kindergarten programs. No business case has been prepared. No short fall strategy proposal. No discussion before the Board. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 2838. Utilities for IRC at Fair Park. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a cost of $50,000, but shows no savings since this has not been approved by the Board. 29LRSD CHART OF BUDGET ISSUES BUDGET FY 95-96 1. Buses for transportation. According to the October, 1994, business case, the district will be 95 buses short on current year and will need 29 more to make their replacement schedule. Therefore, some buses should be added into the 95-96 budget as an expense item. The decision to outsource transportation makes this issue moot. 2. Appeal of M-to-M pooling. If the appeal is not heard by budget time, the pooling money must be added into the LRSD budget. Order was reversed. LRSD does not have any additional pooling money in the budget. The other pooling funds were never paid to PCSSD, but rather put in an escrow account for the winner of the case. 3. Workers Compensation. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $167,111. 4. Loss Funding. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $238,824 for FY93-94, and $472,718 for FY94-95\nfor a total payment of $711,542. 5, Arkansas Public School Computer Network Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. According to the revised ADE calculations of 5/4/95, the money available to LRSD for computer related expenses would be $176,483. 6. Rebuilding Stephens School. Money to rebuild Stephens School should be included in the capital budget if plans are to move forward. Board made the decision to delay the rebuilding of Stephens. 7. Rebuilding Chicot School. Revenue and expense should be included in the budget to show any rebuilding, insurance revenue, and total building expense. At the agenda/special Board meeting of 2/9, the Board approved rebuilding Chicot with walls for an additional cost of $150,000 over the insurance. The money is in the bond fund. No business case was prepared. 8. Loan payback LRSD/ADE negotiations regarding achievement disparity and the loan payback. What is the status of the negotiations, and what contingency is being planned for the payback of the 30loan. 9. Facilities Study. The cost of the facilities study needs to be included in the budget. Some will be current year, but the final payoff will probably be in the next fiscal year. As of the joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting on 2/21/95, the facilities study is now in three phases: the first is due soon and will cover everything needed by the Judge\nthe second will be delivered on 8/15/95 and will cover what is needed by the District\nthe third will be due sometime after 8/15/95 and will be even more comprehensive than the second phase. 10. Magnet School budget. The calculations for the Magnet School budget need to be changed to reflect the changes pointed out by Bob. 11. Middle Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for middle schools. 12. ServiceMaster. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, ServiceMaster made a presentation to take over the management of the districts custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. It was projected that no additional costs would be required, however, nothing was mentioned on how the dollars would be handled. No business case was prepared. 13. Green factors. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, the superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12k-$15k each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared. Locate and annotate expenditures for the Green Factor committees. Verify Board approval. No business case was prepared. Board action made this a dead issue. 14. Superintendent incentives. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, Riggs proposed an incentive package for the superintendent. The cost of the package was not given. No business case was prepared. How the money will be handled was not discussed, but there were indications that the district wanted to pay it from the remainder of the deseg loan. Locate and annotate projected budget expenditures for incentive payments. The Board put this on hold for the year. 15. Beacon Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for beacon schools. A business case has been submitted for the additional funds, and the funds have been added to the Final Budget Document. 16. Great Expectations. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for Great Expectations. 31No money was identified in either the Tentative or Final Budget Documents. 17. Outsourcing Transportation. If the district fails in the outsourcing attempt, what is the contingency plan and what will it cost? This is a done deal. 18. New Futures. Locate and annotate expenditures for the New Futures funded Board retreat and Strategic Planning effort. Identify the fiscal year. Identify follow-on expenses. New Futures cuts were added back into the budget. 19. Administrative Positions. The Board approved a $400,000 cut in administrators. The cuts recommended by Williams total $628,130. A difTerence of $228,130 has not been approved. Williams said that will be taken by the addition of new positions. No new positions have yet been identified. Those positions should have business cases, should be approved by the Board, and should be included in the tentative budget. The Final Budget Document had a revised business case with the following numbers\na gross savings of $566,312, with an add-back contingency of $150,000 and a net savings of $416,312. 32MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosuTienefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 331 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoffrRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. Bus driver recommendation to combine certain routes. * Lease purchase refinancing. Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for th\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_355","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"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 improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/355"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Oiirr,pl\n4C- ocr/i Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown//i'll Date: March 6, 1995 To: Judy Magness From: Subject: Court Orders ?Vy.\u0026lt;4nn Brown In Judge Wrights most recent order (regarding the LRSD budget and the March 24,1995 hearing), she referred to two previous orders, one dated December 30,1992 and the other August 26,1993. Since both of those orders pre-date your election to the LRSD Board, I thought you would want to read them for yourself. So here they are. Ive also sent them to Linda Pondexter because, since she hasnt been on the board too long, I wasnt sure whether she was aware of them. Both of these orders are very important documents which LRSD administrators should have taken into account (along with the desegregation plan and other court orders) as they considered proposals for initial budget cuts and business cases. The mandates contained in these orders should have been included in the LRSD audits which the district has filed with the court. (I know that the importance of the McClellan Advisory Committee is in the October 25, 1993 LRSD audit.) These audits, for which Russ Mayo is responsible, are the means by which the district is to stay on top of court orders and other desegregation directives. The audits are to be accurate, accruing catalogues of desegregation obligations culled from the desegregation plans, hearings, ODM reports, and court orders from month to month. It does not take a lawyer to either do or keep up with the audits. (In my office, the assistant office manager keeps our audits current\nI set the expectation and model for these audits being used as part of our daily life at ODM.) A histoiy of good faith on the part of the LRSD is crucial to \"getting out of court.\" When the district gives even the appearance of willfully disregarding Court orders, good faith goes down the drain. Also, ignoring the plan or Court orders invariably results in wasted time and embarrassment for the LRSD. And, because John Walker currently has a motion before the Court to hold the LRSD in contempt for failing to follow the desegregation plans and court orders, sanctions against the district could also result./r/. 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 March 9, 1995 Mr. John Riggs, IV J.A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear John: Thank you for your fax, which I received this morning while I was in my office. I appreciate your suggestion for convening a committee to help name experts and issues to address in future hearings on desegregation progress. However, Judge Wright has been very clear that she does not envision anything that approaches a public referendum on the desegregation plans. Since you were in the courtroom this morning, you probably heard the Judge's response to Mrs. Hendrix's inquiry regarding public input. While citizens are free to call me to talk over concerns and suggestions, or to communicate their ideas to counsel, I will follow the procedures for identifying potential witnesses that Judge Wright outlined this morning. Sincerely yours, lA Ann S. Brown i_i\\bD ur I \nUt-r K , j0: H01 riAR 14 \"95 11:24  i!\u0026gt; \u0026gt; 3 Little Rock School District 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 SUPERINTEP4DENTS OFTICE FAX (501) 324-2146 DATE TO FROM SENDERS PHONE # SUBJECT SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: No. of pages (including cover page) Fax Phone No. OlPQ Speed Dial IT School Bale Bradv Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowciiff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) ( December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (Isi) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 510,000 510,000 510,000 I 510,000 $8,700 (partial) 58,886 (partial) I 510,000 57.070 (partial) 52.852 I 510,000 510,000 510,000 57,900 (partial) 510,000_________ 55,102.20 (partial) 52,686 (partial) 510,000 TOTAL: $135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulasld Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 January 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEimVE GRAxNT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL: $20,600Little Rock School District RECEIVED To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown Russ Mayo March 21,1995 Memorandum of March 10,1995 MAR 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I have researched questions from your March 10 memorandum. The subject of that memorandum was the Report to Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Districtwide Recruitment Plan, November 11,1994. Unfortunately, the author of that document, Jearmette Wagner, is no longer with us. So my answers are limited. I was told by Dina Teague, Communications Specialist, that Jeannette prepared and sent this document to you as stated in my earlier response. I am uncomfortable to learn that you did not receive it. Considering the date of the document, this was the period of time when Jearmette was about to take another position outside of the school district. Dina was attempting to carry much of the responsibility until a replacement for Jearmette was found. Notice the date of the attached memorandum about Becky Rather assuming districtwide recruitment responsibilities. This was during this same time period. Nothing has changed from this memorandum. Becky is responsible still for districtwide recruitment. While I did not see this document until it was sent to you recently, I am aware that the table, LRSD Recruitment Needed by School, reflects inconsistencies. I am uncertain as to why. I do remember a discussion that concluded with the + sign meaning that additional students could be recruited beyond the number given. As I understood the discussion, the number itself is the minimum necessary to achieve balance. Had I been aware that you did not receive this document in November, I would have requested a revision with updated numbers and accurate listings. I note the two day difference in dates on the survey cards, as you have. I can not be certain about why the difference exists. As you probably know, a date like that on the survey card usually reflects the computer print date and helps us know the latest revision. Occasionally, I type documents, with attachments, dated the day I type them. I ask others to review the document. That can take several days. If 1 revise an attachment, I may not change the date of the document. Thus, the revision date and the date of the document may be different. Attch: (1) C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM T o: Becky Rather, Coordinator of Parent Recruitment From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: November 20,1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Responsibilities Attachment / As you may know by now, Jeanette Wagner has resigned as Director of Communications. Her last day will be November 30. Though the position is advertised, time will be required to interview and acclimate the new person. Currently, we are estimating that the new person will join us no later than January 16. Unfortunately, that person will begin in the middle of the busiest part of our recruitment season. Once in the position, that person will need time to learn policies and procedures of the district. Dina Teague will assume temporarily the responsibilities of the communications department and have no responsibility for recruitment beyond assisting in having materials printed. As a result, 1 am asking you to take full responsibility for implementing the LRSD District-Wide Recruitment Plan beginning immediately until further notice. You have the experience and were involved in writing the plan. Please include in your responsibilities the revising and writing of all printed materials noted in the plan. 1 suggest that you establish a tickler system for reminding you of what must be done when. 1 suggest also that you meet with Jeanette before she leaves to make the transition as smooth as possible. The recruitment plan is specific about when things are to be done. Please let me review anything you write or revise that will be sent to district employees or to our patrons. This includes any memoranda. One responsibility not in the recruitment plan is the bimonthly updating of the Bi-Racial Committee on incentive school recruitment. The next update is due at the January 10 meeting. Meetings are held the first Tuesday of the month, except January. With your experience in communications and in recruitment, 1 am confident that we can continue executing our recruitment plan without missing a step. Let me know if you meet obstacles or need me to speak to the topic in principals meetings, council meetings, etc. Deana Keathley will schedule a meeting soon which will include you and Dina Teague. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss recruitment and communication concerns during the transition period. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Council Dina Teague, Communications Assistant Ann Brown, Monitor Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyCo^T'plc^t A  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV. P.A. FREDERICK S. UR8ERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 JAMES C. CLARK. iR THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL S. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKtIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON 11. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ml. P.A. TELEPHONE 601-376*201 1 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 March 23, 1995 7.1 |995 Office of Desesresaton\nv!cfiorjng KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P CLYDE *TA8* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR.. P HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY O. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY COUNBEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A B.8. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A. VRITIR** DIRECT NO. (6011 370-1606 \\ Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Counsel: I have enclosed for your consideration some proposed modifications or refinements to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD desegregation office has conducted an initial review and analysis of these proposals. Please review these proposals so that we may have the benefit of your responses before the desegregation office makes a final recommendation to the superintendent. I request that each party provide a written or verbal response to these proposals within two weeks. Please let me know if that will not be possible. I will be happy to meet with any of you or ail of you and to provide any additional information that may be helpful to your review of these proposals. You: Christ' er eller CJH/kEnc cc: Ann Brown Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo05032302 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney AM Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration, Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank Williamsc.c: 'ia/ 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\nMarch 27, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: m Brown Information on Board Retreats I noticed in both the January and Februaiy Project Management Tools that the district had reported the outcomes of the Board retreat held on January 24, 1995. I would appreciate your sending me a copy of that report. Also, I read that you had determined the need for an additional Board retreat, but I havent heard whether any date had been set. Will there be another retreat during this budget cycle? If so, when? Thanks for the information.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: March 30, 1995 To: From: Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Little Rock School District oily Ramer, Office Manager I- Through: ^V.Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor Subject: ODMs 1994-95 Budget Attached is a copy of ODMs 1994-95 budget and the court orders adopting that budget. You will note on page two of the annotated budget that LRSDs share, after the 1993-94 credit, is $175,061.00. Our records indicate that from July 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995, ODM salaries paid through the district have totaled $304,379.56, resulting in $129,318.56 more than LRSDs portion of our 1994-95 budget. Enclosed you will find a check to reimburse the district for that amount. Hereafter, by the 15th of each month, beginning in April, you wiU receive a check to reimburse ODMs salaries for the previous month. When LRSDs 1994-95 books are closed, please send me a year-to-date print-out of each ODM employees salary, social security taxes, and benefits. For your information, I am including a breakdown of the enclosed check: Salaries FICA Insurance Total Regular Payroll 278,105.50 18,101.54 4,702.89 300,909.93 Supplemental Payroll 3,223.06 246.57 -0- 3,469.63 Total 281,328.56 18,348.11 4,702.89 304,379.56 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Mattliis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondaiy Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources i/Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEh^SD fromO La^' r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles Oificu oi Dosenropalion MQinicriiig DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools that have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall. Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the enrollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc\nDr. Henry P. Williams SchoPr_2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL\n007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED f, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: Oil SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80.7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Diack White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97 . 1%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 07 60 11 5 0 0 171 90.6%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE Date: To: From: Re: 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 March 30, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Henry P. J^ni^nl^p^^nifeident Requested Information WKS. /SD APR 3 1995 Office Ct Desssi .ng This is in response to your request for information, dated March 27,1995. The board retreat conducted on January 24,1995, was for the purpose of improving internal board relationships. There were no minutes taken and all board members agreed that the session should be conducted in confidentiality. A reporter from the newspaper attended the meeting for a short time early in the day, but excused herself from the meeting because of the sensitive nature of the planned discussion. There is, therefore, no report. A follow-up to this retreat is tentatively scheduled for April 29, 1995. If the decision is made to hold this session, we will let you know as soon as the plans are final. Im sure the board will also be conducting worksessions as we follow through with this years budgeting process. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.Little Rock School District Board Retreat January 24,1995 Sponsored by New Futures for Little Rock Youth Facilitated by Center for Leadership in School Reform Phillip Schlechty, President Marty Vowels, Vice President Agenda Anticipated Outcomes:  The superintendent and the board will have reviewed present operations and, where appropriate, made changes in those operations.  The superintendent and the board will have increased their understanding of the nature of the issues the board must address in the future.  The superintendent and the board will have developed strategies for dealing with those issues.  The superintendent and the board will establish a framework to assist the board in making the tough decisions it will face. 11:00 a.m.. Welcome and Overview Framing the Roles of School Boards and Superintendents Individual Assessment of Board Operations 12:30 p.m. Lunch Group Analysis of the Assessment Establishing a Framework for Operations and Decision Making ) 6:00 p.m. Next Steps 6:30 p.m. Adjournment Center for Leadership in School Reform 1.19-95 lr-ioOffice 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 12, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 3s. From: Melissa Guldia,' lociate Monitor Subject: Job Descriptions for Instructional Aides On April 10, 1995, you testified in District Court that the LRSD had prepared a job description for the position of instructional aide several years ago. Could you please send me a copy of that job description, as well as those you may have for other types of aides such as: supervision. Writing to Read, computer, and the like? Please forward that information to me by Friday, April 21, 1995. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Fl i jj Ac 1 a 1995 LmuE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OffiCS or DeScCJi'tQSij: April 13, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: In John Walkers parting remarks in court Monday, he suggested that we were moving toward segregated staffs and were out of compliance with the racial balance of two of the districts departments\nthe student assignment office and information services. Since his allegations were not refuted in court, I want to offer the following information as evidence of how carefully we are balancing the administrative services of the district STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION TOTAL V/ TOTAL I tvicriitOMiK^ B W B Student Assignment Coordinator Information Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parent Recruiter 2 2 1 1 2 Student Assignment Assistant 4 1 5 3 2 5 Secretary 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 4 6 10 5 5 10 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 334-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 INFORMATION SERVICES 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Manager - Systems Development Manager - Computer Operations Computer Electronics Technician Computer Operator Programmer Analyst Systems Analyst Training Coordinator Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 6 12 7 5 12 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools \u0026amp; 1 Lrio APR i 8 19'^5 \u0026lt; OUice of iDesogrbgaiicn \u0026lt; - LriTLE Rock School Disraicr 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: J 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\nChris Heller John Walker1 /'j .7 c-r- 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 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition, Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads. 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 Idndergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration...\" Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in the Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.APR 2 0 1995 0ffic3 of Desegreqsiion ivicn'i log LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Offtce of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: He! .ms,^Liperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce 3 On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.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 24, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and 1 send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents tliat, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that \"free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible,\" and then emphasizes that the Court will \"not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM.\" 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of fiinneling. If you're experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 1995 mi Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I From: Heni4 C- WillBi\\qs^ \u0026lt;/ u^rintendent Re: ODM Correspondence I In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any \"funnelling.\" All I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor.n APR 2 0 1995 ffica of OesegregoGon ivton-\no\ning LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: ffice T P. ms. uperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce H On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales 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) 3710100 Date: April 21, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram From: /'^^nn Brown Subject: job Descriptions for Aides Tlirough my associate, Melissa Guldin, 1 have received your response to her request to forward to us the job descriptions for aides, which you recently testified had been prepared several years ago. I see that what you sent us are various job announcements for aide positions, which the district posts as a means of publishing job openings. You noted that the district didnt have any job announcement on file for a Writing to Read aide. However, our request was not for job announcements, but for the job descriptions you testified about in court earlier tliis month. In some of our monitoring reports, we have noted the lack of job descriptions for aides, and recommended that the district develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for all instructional and supervision aides. We have observed that such descriptions would be especially useful at the building level, not only to help delineate job responsibilities during the hiring, orientation, and training process, but also as the basis for performance evaluations and developing professional growth plans. It was this recommendation for developing such job descriptions that Judge Wright was referring to when she asked you .about job descriptions during the hearing. So, please sent us the written job descriptions for aides. Tliank you very much.OF  Gat April 24, 1995 fj 1*1 MAY 1 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rode Public Schools 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 3\u0026amp;3 of DessgregaiiCT Monitoring REF\nMrs. Diane Barksdale Dear Dr. Williams\nThank you for allowing us to address you with our recommendation of Mrs. Diane Barksdale, the interim Principal, at Carver Magnet School. We began tins year with mixed emotions as we had on board all new office staff. We appreciated your letting Mrs. Barksdale have the internship and this year to show all of us and yourselves that her qualifications were not mere words on paper but words in action. We have found her easy to work with, attuned to all situations and always ready with solutions to problems that have worked. She has always made hersdf available to us and is more than willing to meet with different committees during school or afterwards. We have not had any instances that we have called upon her that she matte us fed she didn't have the time to consult with us. We feel our school in its excellence has progressed under her leadership. That we have not only survived the change of leadership we have made excellent progress in the same direction in winch we had previously been led. We, as the Patent Teacher Association Executive Board, give her a standing ovation as wdl as a hardy well done. We further solicit your approval to appoint her our permanent replacement this coming year. Mrs. Barksdale has a heart for Carver and fbr it's students andfiKuIty. We feel that we are the Best in the State and are led by the best...Thank you for approving her as our new Principal, we remain Sincerdy, PTA Executive Board George Washii^on Carver Magnet School CC\nL.R. School Board Magnet Review Assistant Superintendents Office of Desegregation MonitoringOffice 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 24. 1995 To: Hank Williams From: m Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and I send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents that, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that \"free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible,\" and then emphasizes that the Court will \"not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM.\" 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of funneling. If youre experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM. ^cc: (2^1,5Office 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 28, 1995 To: From: Linda Pondexter and Judy Magness in Brown Subject: Business case guidelines At last nights board meeting, I was puzzled by questions and comments that arose about business cases. If I understood correctly, your discussion was whether or not the board should expect to see business cases in conjunction with certain programmatic and position changes that are proposed during the budgeting process. For quite some time now, the Court has routinely required business cases for all programmatic and position changes. Tliat requirement has been clearly specified in several Court Orders. Long-term board members will recall that the district requested assistance from ODM in developing the business case process as one of five short-term district projects in the spring of 1993. Furthermore, die district has led the Court to believe that business cases are a decision-making tool that have been institutionalized within the LRSD. For example. Im enclosing a handout which was developed by district administrators and distributed to employees during the December 6 and 8, 1994 sessions which the district held to train its budget managers in the program planning and budgeting process. Participants were given guidelines that all employees were to follow in using business cases as an integral part of decision-making and planning. When leaders set the expectation that employees will follow certain procedures, it is incumbent upon those leaders to set an example by following those procedures as well. 1 want to stress that the Court requires business cases not as a written exercise in a fill-in-the- blanks format. Rather, business cases represent discipline, thoroughness, and quality in guiding the decision-making process before decisions are made\nthey are not designed to serve as rationalization or justification after decisions are made. The real issue wrapped within the context of business cases is the execution of decision-making in the Little Rock School District. Its also important to keep in mind the link between decision-making, accountability, and public confidence. Solidly-built business cases can do important work for the district they can help the community understand the problems and constraints you face, and they can also demonstrate the level of care and skill you devote to making the decisions that affect so many. Business cases can be an open, honest, and easy way to let the community know-before decisions are final-what changes you are considering. Such openness can help the district avoid even a hint that publicly- accountable officials are making decisions in a clandestine manner.Page Two April 28, 1995 Sure, developing business cases takes time, but time invested in solid decision-making will not only pay off in planning and management terms, but will yield a bonus in public trust. After all, the desegregation plan promises that the district will refrain from springing surprises and that it will work to build a strong, trusting relationship with both its internal and external publics. 1 know that both of you understand how vital that relationship is. If the board should decide to ask the community to support a millage increase, the success of that campaign will doubtlessly be determined by the extent to which the public believes in the dependability, credibility, and integrity of its leadership. Enc. CC: Hank Williamsn^^C^iS t43K.KSH0f^^ In general, a Business Case should be developed when one or more of the following condition(s) exist: Position Changes or Additions  Addition of a position  Deletion of a position  Modification of a position (i.e., when changes in job function are substantial) Monetary Amounts  Any change for a dollar amount exceeding 525,000 Program Changes  Major program changes in philosophy, direction, etc. Superintendents Directive  Business case(s) as directed by the Superintendent bus^reql.docODM MONITORING REPORTS AND FILINGS 6/5/92 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 7/31/92 Monitoring Report on the 91-92 LRSD Four-Year-Old Program 10/8/92 Status Report: LRSD's McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program 11/16/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees 12/18/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 2/26/93 Monitoring Report: NLRHS - West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Teams Recruitment and Selection Process 7/19/93 Monitoring Report: PCSSD School Racial Balance 12/9/93 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report 1/12/94 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/6/94 Monitoring Report: Involvement in the 1994-95 Principal Selection Process in the LRSD 12/1/94 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached revised business case for the Director of Student Assignment 12/21/94 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^12/22/94 Monitoring Report: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the LRSD 1/19/95 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached 1994-95 MRC budget \u0026gt;^5/17/95 1994-95 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^/26/95 Monitoring Report: 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD 6121/95 Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD Z'V15/95 Status Report on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/20/95 Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD Cf- O - o 1^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT T X   DATE: January 5, 1995 TO: Bill Mooney, Office of Desegregation Monitoring JAN 1 5 1995 FROM: r, Robert Glowers, Director Office of Desegregation .Moniiorinc RE: Desegregation/Non-Desegregation Extended Program Evaluations Below is a listing of the Desegregation/Non-Desegregation programs that were selected for an extended evaluation. They are listed by program sequence number and program names. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. SEQ # Program Name 4-Year-Old SEQ # 15 14 ~3~ 227 2^ 24/23 33 231 07 207 213 215 01 228 Academic Incentive Academic Support Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing Facilities Family Life/New Futures Federal Programs Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY Human Resource Services 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 203 05 ~2i 204 08 Program Name McClellan Community School New Futures Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transport Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict School Safety and Security Services Special Education Special Education/Learning Staff Development Vocational Education Vocational EducationLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Principals From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent ^4^ Date: January 6,1995 Subject: LRSD 1995-96 Pre-Registration JAN 9 1994 Clbca of Deseci LRSD 1995-96 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE DATE JANUARY 23-31 JANUARY 23 JANUARY 24 JANUARY 25 JANUARY 30 JANUARY 31 FEBRUARY 6-17 EVENT MAISCH 17 MARCH 27 - JUNEl MARCH 27- APRIL 7 APRIL 3 APRIL 17 \"Check Us Out' Week at LRSD Elementary Schools Open House - Incentive/Interdistrict Schools_______________ Open House - Elementary Magnet Schools_________________ Open House - Secondary Magnet Schools__________________ Open House - Elementary Area Schools___________________ Open House - Secondary Area Schools____________________ PRE-REGISTRATION at all schools and LRSD Student Assignment Office____________________________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for students in grades K-12_________________________________________________ Pre-Registration continues at Area Schools TIME 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. JUNE 2- JULY 21 Desegregation Transfer applications (Secondary students) accepted in Student Assignment Office____________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for 4 year old students Assignment notification letters mailed for secondary Desegregation Transfer applicants________________________ Summer registration at LRSD Student Assignment Office 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. FS[JOB r^. * \"Check Us Out \" Week is a time we have set aside encouraging prospective patrons to tour our elementary schools during school hours. C\nSuperintendent s Council Office of Desegregation Monitoring North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors Chris Heller I asatssssss^ .iKafii't!!g^ j^anfAt LrrTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 6, 1995 Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann, JAN 1 1 1995 OHice of Deseg! As a follow up to my letter of November 11, 1994 regarding the Beacons additional inforaation Initiative, for attachments\n1) you I in am the providing following Little Rock City Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative and, 2) Little Rock School District Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative. Both the city board and the school board voted unanimously to support the respective resolutions. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sincerely, Henirryy PP.. WW\nillies, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Art lAtf .-s 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: January 10, 1995 C To: From: Subject: Pat Price, Early Childhood Education Coordinator Little Rock School District Melissa Guldin,\"Associate Monitor Monitoring Visits to Classes for Four-Year-Olds As you know, early childhood education is an area of great emphasis and importance in the LRSD desegregation plan. This school year marks the first time that the district has operated the full complement of early childhood classes. In order to monitor the program for four-year-olds, we will be visiting a number of early childhood classes. These drop-in visits will be informal, lasting no more than thirty minutes or so. During each visit, we will note areas such as curriculum and instruction, staffing, class size, racial balance, materials and equipment, facilities, and outdoor play areas. I am not publishing a schedule of visitations, but schools may expect a drop-in visit anytime after January 16, 1995. Monitors will not require any special documentation or an interview with the principal or teacher(s). As always, monitors will check in with the office staff before going to classrooms. In addition, we will conduct an exit interview, if the principal requests one. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this monitoring, please contact me. Thank you. cc: Dr. Hank Williams Estelle MatthisRE- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JAW 1 6 1995 To: From: January 17, 1995 Safety and Security Task Force Jo Evelyn Elstdn/^irector, Pupil Services Oifice Of Morhjor.iiig Enclosed is a \"clean copy of the Safety and Security Task Force Recommendations Checklist that we reviewed at our January 4, 1995 meeting. refine the draft. Thank you for your comments and suggestions in helping to I will be presenting this information to our Board of Directors at the January 25, 1995 regular board meeting. You are all invited and encouraged to attend. Your support would be appreciated. Thank you again for agreeing to continue to serve on the Task Force. Your commitment to the District and our children sincerely appreciated. is We agreed to meet guarterly. Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom. We hope you can make the January 25th Board meeting. JEE/mab\n:c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 SAFETY AND SECURITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST January 12, 1995 A. D. IMPLEMENTED B. PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION NOT IMPLEMENTED [ C. DEFERRED DOE TO BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS 1. Implement a standardized Violence Prevention curriculum in all schools. 2 . Establish Peer Mediation Program in all schools. Violence Prevention Curriculun Conflict Mediation C D B D A B C A z Central z Z Fair Z z Hall Z Z McClellan Z z Parkview Z z Cloverdale J.H. Z Z Dunbar Z Z Forest Heights Z z Henderson Z Mabelvale J.H. Z Z Mann Magnet Z z Pulaski Heights z J.H. z Southwest Z Z Badgett Z Z Bale Z z Baseline Z z Booker zA B C D A B C D X Brady X X Carver X X Chicot/Ish X X Cloverdale X X Dodd X X Fair Park X X Forest Park X X Franklin X X Fulbright X X Garland X X Geyer Springs X X Gibbs X X Jefferson X X King X X Mabelvale X X McDernott X X Meadowcliff X X Mitchell X X otter Creek X X Pulaski Heights X X Rightsell X X Rockefeller X X Romine X X Terry X X Wakefield X X Washington X X Watson X X Western Hills X X Williams Magnet X X Wilson X X Woodruff X -2-IT ir A A I 3 J . Provide 1g JG event ion and A I 3 D Confli staff. t Mediation Training to a 11 --r X I --r 3 3 5. C D X X C X j * D 3 C D X 1 Educate and Sensitize all Teachers and Staff to the correlation between students being fully engaged in a positive educational experience and the low incidence of those students becoming involved in violent or disruptive school behavior. Provide Conflict Resolution Training to parents and students involved in violent or disruptive behavior. a. Require students involved in weapons violations and who commit acts of violence resulting in a L.T. suspens ion/expu Is ion to attend conflict resolution training as a condition reinstatement. b. Teach conflict resolution skills t for to all students assigned to in-school suspension because of physica**. verbally aggressive benavior. 6. Expand the District's Alternative School Program to provide a variety of educational options to meet the Educational, Personal/Social and Career needs of At-Risk Students. 7. Locate and utilize additional community resources. Designate one person in the District to be responsible for developing a comprehensive directory of community resources and serve 3s indistrict contact for referral assistance to Little Rock School District staff. -3-5 I:' ii T ! T -cc DI 11 co sccondarv I r 1554-95 II I li li school vear and to all eemen extent ary chools to the 3 D 5 . ir li ir T n I I r I I II i: 1! Il Prov Staf trail ie Violence Prevention Development and to all ittle Rook School District employees. A 8 D ! ! X ! li p I i I II 10. Strenpthen Parental Ivenent in the schools. 8 D n 11. ' X I T A I I Create and maintain an ongoing Safety and Security Task Force. 3 h I.. I X I i + I A 3 h X I I  I D I I |l I D I 1 -4- 12. Enhance school bus safety. Utilize transportation department security personnel to make random scans on school buses. 13. Develop safe school plans distrcctwide.A B X I I I X i) A B C D a. i I i X b. c. X I X d. e. f. X X X . De 1 t f.1 . ~p]eneat or d i n po i Hid n.indatc-\nn 11 1 A. Request Li Department tie Roch Pc lice to enforce loitering law round school canpuses. B. Request Alert Center assigned police officer be allowed to monitor school grounds in areas where Alert Centers and schools are in close proximity. 15. Establish \"Target Hardening Procedures\". a. Selective fencing around school campus area. b. Locked doors. c. Rearrangement of existing facilities for better security. d. Use of cameras \u0026amp; mirrors. e. Safe environment design for new or remodeled facilities. f. Trimming of large shrubbery and trees to limit hiding places. A B C D X 1 16. Enhance Metal Scanning Procedure. B C D X 17. Study the feasibility and advisability of school uniforms. -5-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: January 17, 1995 To: Hank Williams n From: /-^J^Ann Brown Subject Information Request Thanks for bringing us up-to-date on some of the districts activities in todays joint staff meeting. We share your concerns about the budgeting process and the tough decisions that will be necessary to align the budget with declining revenues. Weve received copies of the needs assessment which the district recently completed, but we would like the folloAving information so we can keep current: 1. All of the extended evaluations. 2. All of the business cases which have been submitted so far, and others as they are submitted. 3. A copy of the status chart on the facilities study which Russ referred to this morning. Thanks very much for your assistance.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) 3710100 c January 18, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: When I attended the December meeting of the LRSD Board of Directors, I was pleased that you have revived the practice of a monthly desegregation update. It is important that the board members be well informed regarding desegregation issues. I noticed that your oral report was accompanied by a rather weighty packet of written information. Would you please furnish me a copy of that packet and any other written updates you provide to the Board in the future? By receiving copies of these monthly updates, our office can keep abreast of the districts progress towards meeting its desegregation goals. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor MH Little Rock School District OFFICE OF TKE SUPERINTENDENT 4^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Offics of Dsc\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street 11 a I I I a Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illicims Superintendent of Schools Leser- fe- -- *,Su Ltitle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT REcsnz.?^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring ffics tj! 2C1 Eai Little Rock, AR Markham, Suite 510 72201 4 \u0026lt; Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. Building, 810 West Markham. in the Board Room of the Administration Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to meike your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illiams Superintendent of Schools -i'  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 (SOD 371-0100 Date: January 25, 1995 C.om 4o To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School schowU I From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since e programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/ Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Cc: i =/ R' JiN 3 0 Ottice ct Desegr it-. I*of: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: AnfLBrowri\u0026lt;-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.JW30'W OHice ol Desegtsi iPauCn w*- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: Ani\u0026lt;Brown\u0026lt;-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.4 A r t J J. Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE 1100 Wright Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Elizabeth Shy Dowell, President January 26, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 a' JAN 3 1 1995 0. 'ij\ne.i M\nDear Dr. Williams\nig In follow-up to the Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Position Paper of last fall, we reiterate our concerns for the International Studies and Gifted and Talented magnet programs as outlined. While all four points remain very high priorities, at this time we want to recapitulate item 1 .b. of the position paper,(see attached.) Specifically, the ratio cap among attendance zone black students and the recruitment of identified gifted and talented black students from outside the Dunbar attendance zone. When Dunbar Junior High School opened as a magnet programs school, to meet court ordered desegregation guidelines, a 60% ratio cap for black students from the attendance zone was established. The Student Assignment Office initially required a student, who elected not to participate in either program, to return a form to the SAO. At that point, the student would be assigned to another school in the district. If the number of black attendance zone students electing to opt out of Dunbar dropped the ratio below 60%, the school could then recruit G \u0026amp; T identified black students from other attendance zones. Three years ago, without informing either the school administration or the parents of participants, the Student Assignment Office stopped sending out the above mentioned forms. This left prospective students and their parents with the impression they could come to Dunbar and not participate in the either of the magnet programs. As this information circulated and SAO never said anything to the contrary, students who in the past had opted out, returned to Dunbar. Not only did this unpublished SAO policy have a devastating effect on our programs, i.e. the elimination of some courses and the number of sections available in others, but each year we fall further behind in meeting the court ordered desegregation guidelines. Our numbers are approximately 69% black, 31% non-black for the current school year. We believe it is imperative, for the viability of the programs and for student recruitment, the Student Assignment Ofiice for the 1995-96 school year should: A. in order to be in compliance with the courts, reinstate the ratio cap\nB. require students to return a form committing themselves to the Dunbar program(s) or be allowed to opt out of Dunbar.As cautioned in my cover letter of October 11,1994, regarding what might happen when the quality of Fuller Junior High School's G \u0026amp; T program became known, we have lost two Pulaski County Special School District white students to Fuller and a third is actively looking into making the switch. Lest this leave the impression that Gifted and Talented programs are of most import to white parents, I pass along the concerns some black parents have brought to me. More pointedly, the small number of black students in the G \u0026amp; T program at Dunbar. One parent told of how her son felt uncomfortable with so few black males in his G \u0026amp; T classes and the pressure put on him by peers to not participate. Of those who came to me, all said virtually the same thing, their children need others like themselves to withstand the peer pressure. We can only accomplish this through the proper use of the ratio cap. While we understand and sympathize with your daily pressures, we implore that these matters be given an immediate and high priority by you and your staff. Sincerely, Elizabeth Shy Dowell President, Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Enclosure: 1 cc\nMs. Aim Brown, Desegregation Monitor Dr. C. Russell Mayo, LRSD Student Assignment Office LRSD School Board Members: Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Oma Jacovelli Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John A Riggs, IV Ms. Nancy Acre, Dunbar Principal ESD/esd 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 January 27, 1995 31 1995 s. !: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of ti.ming and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain e magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Members, LRSD Board of Education 'i 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 (SOI) 371-0100 January 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the district's grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also 1 who, at the districts request, arranged with judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court for approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, e amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one ing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education 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 January 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nI am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on e agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete e grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. 1 am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education I   w-'-*  SENT BY\nJ A Ri, \u0026gt;r Cpaftiany 1-31-95 : 8:12AM\nJA RIGGS LIHLE ROCK-P. O. Box IJW, Little Rock, AK 72203 50137101\u0026amp;(\u0026gt;:i 1/ 6 t J. A. Riges Tractor Company Date\nLLLL-Number of pages including cover sheet: i S II I .n I To: j From: { t 1 if I 'I Phone\nFaxphone: CC: Phone\nFaxphone: (501) 570-3100 (501) 570-3525 i-REMARKS\n Urgent For your review  Reply ASAP Q Please comment i ^1 -1 SENT BY\n1-31-95\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 5/ 6 fC'S rfOff.Al -CAP I r fi'x kue LlTTueO 'X AA ^22^3 rpSDT Coordinator County Social Services Section 1 - Patient IdenUflcafion [ |*TlF^tTSkA^^#)MMt7n ORIGINAL epsdt Provi der County Office HAS 12) U\u0026lt; \u0026lt;31 1 fLA$gnf AOS NANfeTf.)' TCr\u0026gt;jAt'^\u0026amp;^ ' fftilLLNCt\nn I iF HAIgNT IS A AtFtHRAL HU ENltANAMEOF OFCapiNU PH*SI31AM pnOk'ipfr OThCfi HEAL*H INSLPANCE COMEHAceTiAJ 'iTnT eh HAMe'Hp Pi jN ANO PatCVNl.'MSEA) I PRiMAR* OACNOcrlG on NATUAC OT INJUO* SECTION II - Social Worker Identification .isi Signature Telephone No. f Section III  Examination Report iWi Type of Tear or Examirtdton ! A,. Resic Scfeerting  I--------- Hn- - T Growth and Nutrition 2. DeyfUQprtcr.i Asse^ssment 1 i IiEA (41 TiKffc tTyaiH foT MO f)Ar YlAft 1 1 ! I I yMEPICAI Afcono HvMeEO (Vl I DiAGnOS.S CO ! \\!2Q.2 1  3 a o 2 t A \u0026gt;'rffeE Ao'dHESS idi On , PATIENT i 15 \u0026gt;, C^TV (N6 T*pncvioen PHONE NVUBER j 324-2161 a w 3 lAiASCOND\u0026lt;TlONALArOTo (IS) A Patients 6mplovwent  *E3 a AN accident  ves  mo  no A.ii^Oi^rt^Lnr OKinui MO TIME. DAY_______YR PAY TO: PBOViOEH NAME ANO ADDRESS tl3| Little Rock School District PAY TO PROVIDER NUMBER 121047761 EPSDT Request Date or Certification Data TTpecrfscResN (isj initial PERIODIC y I I I- .... I 3. unciotnca Physical a. Neurological Exam_________ 0 Cardiac Status_____________ 4. Vision 5. Hearing 6 Teeth (Children under 3 years) 7. Lad Tests (Appropriaie tor aga and population group) a. Hematologic b. Urinalysis C, Other (Specity)______ B. immunization Status C Other (Specity) (B) fC) (D)  1 (E) (f) (G) (H) (I) rSh I PHOM f\u0026gt;ATt OF SERVICE TO 1 T a I I I I (J) (K) fl) (M) (2) 4 I t 1  Date 5S-694 Sent to Provider o Ui LU VJ. 2 I 5 a* c o 3! o I I O LU LU a c c UJ w 9 COMMENTS .711 C KtALT CiESuH\u0026lt;\u0026lt;t: *AtXiuuPE\u0026amp; MEUiual SiWViMi^ on Sv*PLIC^ ' KACe fOfi EACH Pa~ GIVEN OF *:*wc 0 0 O HAOCEOuRe CCbt JOINTIFy  Z1636 ! Z163? I tCtPkAiff WVtVAL 5f*V'CfS on C/ACt/M5 ZANCf SI 'Periodic Vision Screening Periodic Hearing Screeninc Thu IS Id crf^y t^tl lh lOt^tfOih^ inlormat-crA u iruv ACCt'rRta Ann compteto 1 u^dprtlAnd Ihtl payTient tna nt stfct'on ol this ciAim wA Ct Iront Pt3ri inci \u0026amp;iaie funds And th1 any dlAimi. sia(mniA Qf decumantt or coi^CAAirn^nt of a riatria\u0026lt; ftM my c\u0026gt;A p/QiACt^led under appirCAbi* Fcdc'A dr \u0026amp;ia( law* Ma I adatirpnat chargos lor cAu^Dvr'saOci )kA*\u0026gt;'CM w.n be made AtiA'f'A' 4nyn/t paym^t *fi Q4iACAbt^\u0026gt; ai DAyfficnl \" Full, that tre acow \u0026gt;\u0026lt;r\u0026gt;yi-.*B clotmAC fi)/ [-^yrnttrf r\u0026gt;Ay\u0026amp; been botrpieied inn inAi irte aoova aav* rueen furnished n rufl cOr'iCf'I'ice I'Aiiinout dSer rn nti(\u0026gt;ni with'n Ihe cit(ivi\u0026lt;,i(\u0026gt;ns ftl Tiii* Vi of me Frcerai Civil n\u0026gt;Q(it\u0026lt;i Ad ana ^ert'or- 60* Monetji .taiir.n a\ni ai t^yj I ,i I PROVIDER S SIGNATURE. ~^bS4 'Hbv 7 Gt? Billing DATE (?: lAQNO\u0026amp;tS ) cooc E Charges F 0**0 Cft UNITS T G* I FEA6C)6M'f*i\u0026gt;RCv'befi 105 ^12^.2 V20.2 IZJI TOTAL CHARGES' (2X1 COVERED BY INSURANCE .3S\u0026gt; i 16 ii 29 00 66 66 I I 1 1 .. HANV^ ri . __0_ BALANCE due I _________j__2a. 00 J i Uttle Rock 6 School District ILittle Rock 4 .School Dis inc _L FOR OFFICE USE (?*|SENT BY: 1-31-85\n8:12AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100:# 2/ 6 To: From: Through: Re: Little Rock School District Health Services January 24, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Gwen Efir\u0026lt;r^ Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Medicaid Reimbursement for Health Services Currently, the Little Rock School District is being reimbursed by the Medicaid program for selected services provided by our school nurses. Listed below are the amounts we have received since the onset of this program. Year Applications Filed $ Received Medicaid Private Insur. S Received 91-92 Approximately 200 $1,387,26 None None 92-93 Approximately 1000 $11,471.37 Approximately 1500 $59.00 93-94 Approximately 1100 $12,365,44 Approximately 1600 $29.50 We receive a total of $23.73 for the hearing and vision tests, and $50.50 for the EPSDT screening. If the screening is the child's initial screen, which is unusual because roost children have been examined prior to age 4 o 5, the fee goes up to $80.00. Application Process Applications were filed with the Medicaid office requesting the provider numbers that would allow us to bill Medicaid. Separate numbers are required for the hearing and vision screening and the Early Periodic Screening for Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT). Nurse and Health Room Certifications Our nurses have been certified by the Arkansas Department of Health to provide hearing and vision screening\nwhich is a requirement to receive a provider number. Eighteen nurses are now certified to do EPSDT, however only 9 health rooms have received the additional certification from the Health Department required for provision of the EPSDT, The additional equipment to meet the requirements costs approximately $500,00 per health room.SENT BY: 1-31-93\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100\n4/ 6 Pulaski County School District has used an electronic system which assists them with the billing and assures them of a more accurate medicaid number. billing. A staff person, who works half days does their It is uncertain how they handle the private insurance billing. The medicaid office has provided some information on the availability of using the electronic billing. However, it is to be recognized that even the electronic billing will take an individual's tine and will only do the medicaid portion, which is the least time consuming. hiring someone individual was $640.00. to work after hours. We have accomplished both parts with The amount paid this As has been noted, some medicaid money comes from providing EPSDT physical examinations. provided than we have been reimbursed for. Many more physical examinations have been This relates to the fact that EPSDT screens are provided according to a periodicity schedule. Several of our younger children have had a physical within the limited time frame and payment for the physical given by the school nurse was rejected. As parents become more aware of this service, they may rely on the schools to provide it. Nurses, particularly in the Incentive Schools have been encouraging non ... , This could participants who are eligible to apply for medicaid. also contribute to a greater amount of revenue. School nurses provided several clinics this past school year to give Kindergarten children their required physical examination. Increasing the number of certified health rooms will assist us in increasing revenue, year. We intend to increase this number by four thisSENT BY: 1-31-85 : 8:13AM .JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 50137101006/ 6 HS 36 9-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dear Parent: Teacher's Name The Little Rock School District can be reimbursed for certain health services provided by our school nurses. hearing/vision screening and a modified health assessment. These include Medicaid is the main source of reimbursement, but other insurance plans are also involved. We are asking every parent to complete the information below and return it to school tomorrow. Thank you, School Nurse Child's Name Birth Date (Be sure that you use the name known by Medicaid or your insurance provider.) Insured Parent's Name Parent's SSN Is your child on Medicaid: Yes No If your child is on Medicaid, please indicate the number or send a copy of your Medicaid card. Do you have other health insurance? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information: Name of Plan Policy Number Name of Insurance company Address of Insurance Company ****************************************************************** (TO BE FILLED IN BY SCHOOL NURSE) School Nurse Hearing screening Date Results Vision Screening EPSDT EvaluationSENT BY: 1-31-95\n8:13AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100: s 3' 6 Student Medicaid Numbers Starting in the 1992-93 school year and continuing to  . present we have requested medicaid numbers and private insurance numbers from students who were scheduled for hearing and vision screening. This includes Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, first, third, fifth, seventh and tenth grades. insurance companies if we bill medicaid. We are required to bill private Billing Process When the forms with medicaid numbers are returned to the nurse, she uses the information to complete the HICFA form, (see attachment A.) 4 !. i nd i rt This information is sent to the Health Services office where RS are made and then sent to the Medicaid office. Forms that Sf company. the child is on private insurance are completed with the f the hearing and vision tests placed in the appropriate (see attachment B). The bill is then sent to the insurance concerns one would hope that the Medicaid reimbursement money could provide more financial benefit to the district. that it would fund positions. Initially, we had hoped Because of budget cuts in recent years, the reimbursement money has provided funds to replace the budget reductions. The money has been used to , part of the school physicians salary, purchase health room supi^^ies, provide money to purchase more equipment for the health rooms and the cost of the person who does the billing. It should also be noted that 25% of the money received is to be returned to the state. Because of the time involved in the billing process, especially the private Insurance, we have paid someone to work after hours to do the billing. This year, we hopefully will equip four additional health rooms so they can be certified for EPSDT. For consideration: Although we do not know exactly how many Little Rock School District students are medicaid eligible. it should be more that the 1000 that we are billing. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 % of our children may be medicaid eligible. We screen approximately 12,000 students which would result in 1800 being eligible. If we could get accurate medicaid numbers from more students and in some cases assist children who are eligible to get on reimbursement. the program, we could receive a greater amount of Sending requests home to parents for medicaid numbers has had limited response. Consideration should be given to obtaining this information when the child registers. The parent at that time could fill out the form providing the medicaid and insurance information, or a copy of the medicaid card could be made.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: January 31, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject in Brown Second Information Request Thanks for getting back to me in your Januaiy 26, 1995 memo about the business cases we requested on January 17. Since I havent received the business cases and other information I had asked for, 1 apologize if my original memo was not clear. Ill try to clear up any miscommunication on my part by restating my request below. Realizing the district had a deadline of January 13, 1995 for business cases to be submitted to the Superintendent and Board (Task 215 on the 12-22-94 Project Management Tool), I am requesting all of the business case write-ups being considered by the district as of todays date. At this time. Im interested in seeing the input coming from the field into the decision process, rather than a finalized product after you have made decisions. In other words, what you have received so far to date is what I want to see. In your memo to me, you did not mention the extended evaluations and the status chart on the facilities study which 1 had included in my earlier request. I assume those documents are being assembled and will be forwarded soon. ODM still needs them so we can keep current. Thanks very much for your assistance.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: January 31, 1995 To: From: Brown Russ Mayo Subject: Riling spaces in the Rockefeller Infants and Two-year-old Program On December 2, 1994, I sent you a memo asking a number of questions about the Rockefeller program for infants and two-year-olds, including the number of openings. Audrey Lee responded on your behalf and indicated that, at the time. Rockefeller had one vacancy for infants and six openings for two-year-olds. 1 had asked to be notified of the date as each of these vacancies was filled. In the same memo, Audrey indicated that the one opening in the infants had been filled along with five of the seats for two-year-olds. Since that time 1 have received no update as to the dispensation of any remaining empty seats. Please let me know immediately the number of any openings in the infant, two- and three-year-old program at Rockefeller. Id also like to know total current enrollment by race in each of these groups. Thank you very much. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 RECEIVSi^ FEB 21995 Date: February 1, 1995 Office of Desegreg3iiCi\u0026gt; i'-! To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: He, Re: ntendent Requested Information I am enclosing the requested facilities study chart and a set of the extended evaluations as requested by your memorandum of January 17, at this time. As I stated in my memorandum of January 26, the business cases are still in draft form and continue to be working documents. They will be submitted for your perusal when they are completed and ready for submission to the Board. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. i) ^'^0(1 uaL'cn s /* 2- hbira^y ) if Fac.'h-hei Pc\u0026lt;c:li4i\u0026gt;i)Little Rock School District ecc^SVSD February 3,1995 TO: From: Thru: Subject: Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate superintendent J/\\ Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 ctxe oi Ds32ii.'e3C.u: h'Aj As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies B 5 6 7 NB 5 9 4 students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Office 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: February 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: ^^^j^nn Brown LRSD Registration Information Yesterday, I received in my mail at home the new LRSD brochure which contains a variety of information pertaining to pre-school registration. The brochure is certainly attractive and contains handy references to dates for open houses and registration, along with information on enrollment options. Unfortunately, the usefulness of the brochure is limited because it was not mailed in time to give parents adequate notice of many of the dates listed. For example, none of the brochures were distributed until after the open house dates (all in January) were past. When I called to inquire about the dates the brochures were mailed, your associate, Deana, helpfully answered my questions. She said that the brochures targeted at private school patrons were mailed February 1. Those for LRSD patrons were processed by a local advertising agency, and about two- thirds of those brochures were mailed on February 6 and 7\nhowever, because the agency discovered it was short some 5,000 covers, the remainder of the brochures will not be mailed until the week of February 13. In addition to the timing of the brochure, I also have concerns about the costs associated with it and some of the information it contains. I'll appreciate your answers to the following questions: 1. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 30, 1994. Why, then, were the brochures distributed so late, after pre-school registration activities had begun? 2. How much did it cost the district to produce this brochure, including preparation and printing? How many hours of LRSD staff time were devoted to all phases of preparing the brochure? How much was (or will be) paid to the local advertising agency which helped process the brochures for mailing? What is the grand total of the costs associated with producing the brochure?Page Two February 9, 1995 3. How many brochures were mailed to private school patrons, how many to LRSD patrons, and how many to any other category? What is the total cost for mailing the brochures? 4. The brochure contains an insert entitled \"Applying for Choices.\" which includes information on M-to-M transfers and directs readers to refer to another insert. \"Choices,\" for schools involved in such transfers. \"Choices\" lists only the three PCSSD interdistrict schools as options for M-to-M transfers for LRSD children, and states that PCSSD students may apply for transfer to two LRSD schools. Why does the brochure not inform parents that most PCSSD schools, not just three, can accept M-to- M transfers from the LRSD? Why does the brochure not inform parents that PCSSD students may apply for transfers to many LRSD schools, not just two (even though the LRSD has three elementary interdistrict schools)? Why is the information not explicit that only black LRSD students and white PCSSD students may apply for M-to-M transfers?k\n! ' 1 i' /ys' '*4 / J - l^ [l h' I i\u0026lt; .k iV L p k. -. t  .u k S53! \u0026gt;ggy ,t. ^U'-'i* B5020801 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS CONCERNING JANUARY LRSD PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL FEBRUARY 9, 1995 Note: All task numbers refer to the January report, dated 01/30/95. Summary task 6. The April 28 scheduled finish date for the summary task is keyed to the scheduled finish of task 154, a Board work session to review the data from the needs assessment. If the Board is not going to review the needs assessment data until April 28, the reason for having the session will have passed. The intent was to use the data to assist them in making wise decisions during the program development phase, a phase which will hopefully be completed by April 28. The Board should use the needs assessment report now, not in April. If the scheduled finish of task 154 is not prior to 3/9/95, the date the proposed budget is prepared, I would recommend deleting task 154 and saving the effort. Summary task 71. The report shows no progress on the facilities study since last month. This is a key part of decision-making for school closings and budget actions. The facilities order came out this morning, and, while I have not yet read it, it may have some impact on your plan. I fear this task is slipping behind and will not make the target of August 15. We should get busy on this one. Task 75. This task shows that data collection will not be completed until the date of the final report. This date should be adjusted to allow for time to analyze the data and write the final report. Also, see note below. Tasks 76-78. These tasks were written when the original plan was to produce a facilities study by 11/23/94. Once the district changed its mind to go for a study running to 8/15/95, the tasking should have been updated to reflect the new strategy. Additional tasking should be inserted at this point to show the districts plan for completion (bidding, award, start, data collection, data analysis, report preparation, report delivery). Summary task 79 and summary task 87. The October 93-94 audit was filed last week. I recommend you consider adding a task into each section for incorporating the results into the PBD. Even though after the fact, it will serve as a reminder next cycle and help us stay on time. Task 157. In my opinion, the needs assessment document is an improvement over what we were able to achieve last cycle. We are still not where we need to be with the assessment. The document contains many recommendations rather than needs. I suggest a training session for council-level folks to make sure they understand what a needs assessment really is. The needs assessment is the variance between our goal and our current position. A need is to close the achievement disparity gap by x points, not to add a new reading program. This is something we should work on for next cycle. Summary task 196. This task shows 100% complete. I assume it is complete because this work session was the Board session with the consultant held on 1/24/95. If this is the case, then we have really screwed up our tasking. Again, summary task 196 was set up to review the needs assessment data and go right into program development, the very next set of taskings. I have been assured that the Board session on 1/24/95 did not deal with decision-making on any substantive program or budget issues. This Board session was for bonding and bringing the Board together. I fear we might be changing our tasking to cover unplanned wants, rather than working our plan with discipline toward defined needs. Task 204. Task 205. Task 210. I would like to get a copy of this report of outcomes. Will an additional Board retreat be needed? What was done here? What trends and what experts? Task 214. What were the results? Tasks 215, 217, 218. These tasks show that the business cases are 100% complete, but the Superintendent has told us twice that they are only in draft form. These appear to be conflicting statements. What is the deal? Task 216. What program modifications were reviewed? Task 229. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 232. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 233. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Tasks 239 and 240. Good to see you modifying your plan as you go. Task 254. Mark? Task 308. (Was task 253) There were still no changes in the one day duration. Is this fine with Where do we stand on Q2 PBD? Task 349. We were able to get the extended evaluations after twice requesting them from the Superintendent. We are in the processing of reviewing them.Task 383. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 384. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 385. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 386. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Robert, I am getting concerned that we may be falling behind on our process timing. Many things must be done in order for Mark to be able to produce a meaningful proposed budget document on 3/9/95. Our decision-making seems to be following the same pattern as previous years. Past performance tells us that delaying decision-making benefits no one, and places an unnecessarily difficult burden on Mark to produce budgets within deadlines. When I see us start shorting performance on tasks and not tasking out major evolutions, it suggests to me that we may be abandoning our planning process and rushing ahead without the benefit of sound, informed decisions. This would be a return to past practices which got us into this financial mess. If there is anything I can do to get us on task, just let me know and I will do my best.\\u-.Jt^ 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: February 9, 1995 To: From: Subject: Incentive School Principals Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Barry Ward Monitoring the Incentive Schools Enclosed you will find a schedule of our upcoming visits and a draft copy of the incentive school monitoring guide. The guide has changed very little since last year. During our visit, we will need to interview you and conduct classroom observations. We will need a workspace and a copy of the following 1994-95 records. Staff development activities held specifically for Instructional and Supervision Aides Teacher inservice sessions regarding the use of instructional aides Theme implementation plan Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Field Trips Pre-professionals Individual student test profiles Building-level counseling plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center Monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets The total number of home visits conducted as of February 1995 A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up proceduresSpeakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Extended Day schedule Extended Week schedule If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.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 Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 10, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last night's Board meeting, I heard you tell the group that the district often was not receiving copies of court orders until some time after the date of issue. You expressed frustration at sometimes first learning of an order by reading about it in the newspaper. I certainly understand how you would find such a situation aggravating. I would too. You suggested that this problem would be solved if you had a staff attorney. However, adding another lawyer to your payroll won't eliminate late receipt of orders. That's because the rate of receiving orders isn't a function of having more or less attorneys\nrather, it is related to the mechanism the courts use for distributing orders. When the Federal Courts issue an order, the documents are filed in the Clerk's Office. The Clerk then mails copies of the order to the relevant parties and simultaneously places one in a press box, which newspaper staffers routinely check once or twice a day. That's why the reporters usually get orders the day of issue and you read all about it the next day. I wasn't aware that it was sometimes a matter of days before the district received orders. In the future, since I usually know the same day that Judge Wright issues orders in this case, I will be happy to notify you immediately by phone. Then, you can send a runner to the Clerk's office to retrieve a copy of the order, just as the newspapers do. A simple phone call from my office to your's should prove to be a very economical solution to the problem you've described. 1 know how concerned you are about finding ways to hold down expenditures, so I'm happy to do what I can to contribute to cost-containing measures for the district. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Board members Chris Heller C-C: EEEEHS Little Rock School District d u Ft3 J c 1995 OilicQ ot D February 14,1995 TO: From: Thru: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information f Dr, Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Subject: Filling Early Childhood spaces at Rockefeller Since my last memo i stated that there were seven vacancies in the three-year-old program, as of February 10, there are only two vacancies in the three-year-old program and one vacancy in the two-year-old program. In the past Rockefeller's recruitment team has been responsible for recruitment. However, we have provided assistance in the following ways: 1. Providing pre-school and private school directories, so that these parents could be invited to open house and other events. 2. Assisted in providing information to west Little Rock churches. 3. Provided brochures to parents who called with inquires. 4. Highlight the programs in all recruitment presentations. in an effort to capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool, we are only filling the seats with students that help to maintain the racial balance. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 J 'J Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor A gV-xA-'' 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: February 14, 1995 To: Estelle Matthis From: Melissa Guldin  fV' Subject: Monthly Meeting Between LRSD and ODM After surveying the staff members in our office, we have five items to be placed on the agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday, February 21,1995. If any additional issues arise, I will contact you. We look forward to meeting with you. Proposed Agenda Items Strategic Planning Effort Legislative Initiatives Budget Status Facilities Study Status Progress Report on School Closings'k' Tv KtCBBBS Little Rock School District R itiSi TO: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAR 1 1995 Office cf Dessgragcticn wZ:.-, C. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation February 17, 1995 LRSD Registration Information This is a response to the concerns raised in your letter dated February 9, 1995, regarding Little Rock School District registration brochure information. J. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 3\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_362","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"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 improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/362"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I I From: Re: ODM Correspondence In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any \"funnelling.\" Ail I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent1 IS I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J \n-^v i, May 4, 1995 ^JAY3 1995 On'iSS Gf D: 1 'V!Ci':iiiv Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 501 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The following letter has been sent to members of the boards of directors of the three Pulaski County school districts. This invitation, of course, is also extended to you. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District I would like to invite you to attend a joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts. This meeting has been scheduled for Monday, May 22, 1995, 5:00 p.m., in the Governors Conference Room of the Arkansas State Capitol. We do not expect this meeting to last more than an hour or so, but we are hopeful that the initial meeting will lead to progressively productive dialogue in the future. Of course, school consolidation is a topic which not only our school districts, but all districts in Arkansas have an interest. If your board has items that you would like to include on the agenda for this meeting, please feel free to contact Mrs. Griffin at 324-2012. I look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 / 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 May 9, 1995 Mrs. Rene Carson LRSD Instructional Resource Center 600 South Ringo Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Rene: 1 was so pleased to read about the 1995 Catalyst Award you've received from the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Congratulations! You richly deserve the recognition. I've always known you were catalytic, and so does everyone else who is fortunate enough to work with you. You never fail to be inspiring and energizing, not only to young students, but to us older folks too. As a monitor and a Mom, many thanks for all you continue to do for children and their teachers. You're such a treasure, and we're all very proud to claim you as a colleague. Sincerely yours. inn S. Brown I Sl'j iVtsi Mftrkhatn Streel Lntle Rock. .Vkansas 74801 (.501 )rta4 4000May 11, 1995 Little Rock School District MAY 1 2 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Public School Supporter, We've been asked by members of the business community to set up an exploratory meeting with a national nonprofit, \"Parents for Public S\" ch ools.\" A national representative will be in Little Rock on Thursday, May 18. You are invited to attend an informational meeting. We're asking you to come because we value your opinion. We'd like to have your input and feedback on this group and what, if anything, they can offer public education in our county. We are hosting three meetings: 9:00 a.n., 12:00 noon and 5:30 p.m. Meetings are expected to last about one hour. Choose the time that is most convenient for you. All meetings will be held in the Little Rock School District board room at 810 West Markham Street. Please RSVP to 324-2290 by May 16 so that we'll have a count for refreshments. others to attend. These are open meetings\nyou are welcome to invite We have enclosed a copy of the group's brochure for your perusal. We hope to see you on the 18th. Sincerely, Debbie Milam VIPS Coordinator Becky Parent Recruiter Coordinator 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 PARENTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS What exactly is Parents for Public Schools ? Parents for Public Schools is a non-profit, grass-roots volunteer organization comprised primarily of parents who telieve their children receive the best available education in public schools, and who actively\" recruit other parents to enroll their children into public schools. Parents for Public Schools seeks through its media campaigns to inform prospective school parents about the benefits of the diverse, high quality education available in e public schools. Parents for Public Schools has no official connection with any public school system. Do you have to be a parent to be a member of Parents for Public Schools ? Absolutely not. Membersliip is open to any person who supports our goals. While it is our experience that contact and testimony from a public school parent is the most powerful lobbying tool in convincing other parents to place their children in the public schools, all of our members mission is to encourage broad-based enrollment and support. How is Parents for Public Schools different from the PTA. or PTSA? Parents for Public Schools serves a very different purpose from the PTA. L'Itimately. the two oiganizations complement each other in significant ways. The primaiy function of Parents for Public .Schools is to recruit public .school students. Once those parents and students are in the public schixils. Parents for Public ScIkxiIs encour.iges atlivc participation in the PT/\\ or IWSA. .A great . number of Parents for Public Schools parents are leaders in their children's school's PTA chapters. PTA is a child adx'ocac)' association in the local school dial is also affiliated on the state and national level. PTA seeks to influence legislation, school policies and parental involvement. If your school does not have a PTA or PTSA, we want to encourage you to start one. Why form a chapter of Parents for Public Schools Chapters have been founded in different communities for different reasons. In our founding city of Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was formed to help reverse 20 years of white flight from the public schools and to demonstrate and publicize the economic, social and business development benefits that came to cities with strong public schools. In other cities. Parents for Public Schools was organized to counter social or economic .stigmas placed upon families whose children attend public schools. While there are important advantages to public school education which are common to all public schools, every community has its own reasons to support its public school system. No matter what those reasons may be in your community, our staff can help get your chapter started and organized to reach your specific goals.What are the benefits to my community of forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It is hard indeed to summarize all the benefiLs that flow from increa.sed community commitment to public education. Quality public schools ensure economic growth by attracting industry and businesses to our cities. Another benefit which results from broad-based enrollment is an ethnic, social and economic cohesivenes,s in our communities, and a better place for all of us to live and work. Increased broad-based public school enrollment results in greater public involvement in school programs, increased corporate funding for schools, and increased voter support for school bond issues. What benefits does a Parents for Public Schools Chapter receive from the National office? First, affiliation with the national organization saves your chapter the considerable time, expense, and worry of applying for tax-exempt status. This makes raising money for your Parents for Public Schools programs much easier. We will provide you with the Parents for Public Schools Chapter Manual which contains all the information and documents you will need to create and sustain your own chapter. We will provide continuing support with ideas for fundraising, successful organizational events, advertising, and a world of other ways to get your group going and growing. What does it take to organize a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It takes a group of people with a commitment ' and a desire to work toward a common goal. It takes a willingness to talk to your friends and neighlxirs, and the ability- to get them to talk to their friends and neightors. It takes a willingness to go to business and community leaders to get their support and funding for Parents for Public Schools public awareness and media programs. In 1989 in Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was started with 26 parents. Two years later, we passed 700. It takes personal time and patience to build your chapter in your community, but the return to public schools is an idea whose time lias come. How is a Parents for Public Schools chapter structured? A chapter is formed by the incorporation of a non-profit corporation, election of directors and officers, adoption of bylaws and affiliation with Parents for Public Schools National. The national office will provide you with the necessary forms for your use, as well as bylaws for your adoption. Once a chapter is officially formed, there are plenty of tasks and committee assignments for eveiyone who wants to lend a hand. Among these are:  School Networks  Business Network  Meetings/Progranis  Data Bank  Realtor Relations  Fundraising/Grant.s  Research  Special Events  .Media  Publicity  Newsletter  .Membership l.'kimatcly, a succe.ssful Parents for Public .Sch(X)l.s chapter is organized to maximize the talents of each of its volunteer memlx'rs. Once you decide to organize a chapter, we'll provide all the infoniiation, documents, and technical advice you will need. Our chapters do everything ey possibly can to spread the good word about the excellent education.s their children are receiving in public schools. How do we get started? Simple. Talk to parents and other interested people in your community who share your commitment to public education, and ask them to join you in forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Then just fill out the attached form and drop it in the mail. We'll be back in touch with you soon with precise information on how to get your group organized into a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Thank you for learning more about Parents for Public Schools, and for your interest in public education. NATIONAL OFFICE P.O. Box 1280' lackson. MS W236-2807 (6011 982-1222 F.AX (601) 982-0002 Thomas S. Howorth President Jo.shua J. Wiener Vice President Renee S. Jone- Secrelaiy Macy B. Han Treasurer SanJrj K. .Murley Execniire Director Ashley Watters Assisltiiil III Ihe DirectorOffice 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 May 17, 1995 Mr. Duane Barbour Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Barbour: Congratulations to you and the members of the Pulaski Heights Junior High Beginning Band, Advanced Band, and Saxophone Quartet for the splendid concert last Monday night! 1 dont think Ive ever heard a finer performance by such young musicians. The entire program was presented with poise and professionalism, and with careful attention to intonation, phrasing, ensemble, and over all musicality that resulted in a beautiful performance. 1 am so impressed with the tremendous progress these groups have in the short time youve been their director. Their growth attests to your superior skill both in instruction and in motivating your students to work hard and reach for their best. Im also impressed with the well-rounded and sophisticated musical education youre offering your students, as demonstrated by the carefully selected concert program, which featured a well-chosen balance of classical, traditional, and contemporary pieces. My opinion is also the result of being a parent of one of your students. From listening to my sons comments and practice at home. Im very much aware that youre providing a high quality musical education for your classes. Tlie only negative note last Monday evening for both the performers and the audience was the lack of air conditioning. As a fellow musician, 1 know how profoundly temperature and humidity affect both instruments and players. Nonetheless, you kept your professional cool, and sweated through tlie program with no less grace, composure, and good humor. My sincere thanks and commendations to both you and your students for your remarkable achievements and a most enjoyable musical evening. 1 hope you will convey my congratulations and appreciation to your classes. Sincerely yours, .. Ann S. Brown CC: Mona Briggs1^* 0 6 / 2 0 / 1 5 15:29 FROM JOHN Id.WALKER P.A.  3U-^ -urr iwC TO 3710100 P. 02. KOBng Lettle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1995 Mr. Jerry Malone, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. P,A. First Commercial Bank Building. 20th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jerry: pe date(s) you have asked me to block off on mv calendar fnr hearing have been blocked for a previously schedui\u0026lt;.d   , . . ' a court a previously scheduled comminnent. I have ^=rl, aLd conference for Urban Superintendents. This event has been planned * fit an event over The dates scheduled for the hearing fall at the start of r^uir. that I toto da of a flX an organized forum to discuss issues and problems that compound the role of superintendents and make schools unbearable to serve. the urban many of the children we I would not want to miss out on this opportunity. Therefore, I ask that sk to schedule dto hearing  h. the hearing be held to in your letter of May 16, at a later date. Sincerely, Henry P. Iliams Superintendent of Schools06x20/1995 15:29 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P . fl. TO 0 1 0 0 P. 01 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 1 JOHN W. walker RALRH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE,^ AUSTIN PORTER, JR. TO\nFROM: DATE: RE: MESSAGE\nTHIS FAX CONSISTS OF PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER P-A-G-E-. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187. OPERATOR\ny - '1.. DujP MX J * LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 b 7^  d Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201   iVtCi\" Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Charity Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc: Charity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team ^7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I'\nLi MEMORANDUM !i 5 ?995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OihCS vf Ds\n:3' r/sCjiuCl Jiiy FROM: RE: T. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: HaUHigh Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odnidocOffice 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 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nToday I received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning tliese forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. in S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank AnthonyOffice 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 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Today 1 received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning these forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. n S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank Anthony'S3 '* I b 1 it LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 G ' 3 Ms. Ann Brown OflBce of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3/ 'G-j,CEv\n''cniiofjng Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Chanty Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc\nCharity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)334-2000 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 D' MEMORANDUM Ju'j 2 !995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OfiiCS Qf DsSv0i wiCiiikviiiiy FROM: RE: 'r. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: Hall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementory Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odmdocex,: RECEIVED June 29, 1995 JUL 5 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring REFERENCE: SELECTION OF PRINCIPAL CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dear Dr. Williams: As PTA Co-Presidents of Carver Magnet Elementary School for the 1995-1996 School Year, Dewey Fitzhugh and myself, on behalf of the Carver Magnet Elementary PTA, would like to thank you for your support and selection of Mrs. Diane Barksdale as the permanent principal at Carver Magnet Elementary School. We believe that, with Mrs. Barksdale's proven record of success and the energized momentum, the upcoming school year at Carver will be great! We are looking ahead to another exciting and fun filled year of working together with the teachers and students, as well as with the Little Rock School District to achieve the objectives and goals that we have set for the 1995-1996 year. Again, thank you for believing in Mrs. Barksdale, the Carver Magnet Teachers and Staff, PTA, Students and Supporters. Sincerely, W^i Caradine, Co-President r^pwpv PitTbiiffb r'r_PrAC'ir1\u0026lt;\u0026gt;nt Dewey Fitzhugh, Co-President cc: Magnet Review Committee Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGA'TION MONITORING Margaret Gremillion ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - ELEMENTARY Sadie Mitchell ASSISTANT SUPERIN'TENDENT - ELEMENTARY Dick Hurley LRSD HUMAN RESOURCES LRSD Board MembersLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVKO July 5, 1995 TO: All Principals and Supervisors FROM: Ntorgaret Grenuliii THROUGH: SUBJECT: JUL 1 0 1995 Offiw of Dssegrsgaiiof) isistant Superintendent - ^T^Sadie Mitchell, Assistmt Superintendent e: fWiUi T^perintendent Principals Institute: \"Pathway to ExceUence - 1995-96\" All Principals^' Pl^: Date: Little Rock Hilton, 925 University Avenue Monday, July 17 ~ 8:30-4:30 Tuesday, July 18 -- 8:30-4:30 -Lunch win be provided- Eleineniary Principals Only Place: Date: IRC Friday, July 21 - 9:00-2:00  Lunch win be provided All Principals Place: Date: Parkview High School Monday, July 31 (1:00-4:30) Thursday, August 3 (8:00-3:30) - Lunch on your own. Friday, August 4 (8:00-12:00) Monitoring We want to welcome you back and express our sincere pleasure in having the opportunity to work together in getting a new school year started. A listing of the dates and places for the Principals Institute has been provided for you in order to have your calendar cleared for the Institute. The programs will be ready for you at registration on July 17. Dr. Williams has requested that principals contact their assistant principal(s) and invite them to attend the Institute and luncheon on both days. AU supervisors and department heads are also requested to attend both sessions and the luncheons. AU of the instructional and support personnel along with some of our principals have worked hard to make this Institute both motivational and informative to everyone. We are looking forward to seeing all of you at the EUlton.(J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)324-2012 Date\nJuly II, 1995 To: Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Jerry Malone Mrs. Ann Brown A**\" ' i \\  From: LiniwTondexter Re: Initial Meeting As agreed in our meetings last week, I am attempting to schedule a mutuafly convenient date ^d fime for the first joint meeting of the parties to the desegregation lawsuit At the initial meeting we will select a time for all future regularly scheduled meetings. Please check your calendar to fovorable Call Beverly Griffin a X*^ch of the following dates would be most 24-2012 to advise ofyounpreference. Wednesday, July 12 Thursday, July 13 Friday, July 14 / 9:00 ajn. 2:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. 1 feel strongly that we should meet thia week. \\ suggest an alternative date foi attention to this request. that is not possible for you, please week. Thank you for your prompt leetingr I I I f I I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECBVEd Jill I 7 W5 July 12, 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Monitoring Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Mon. 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast five on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, (? Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 RECE^iD Jill I 7 1995 LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J 1 J ORice of Desegregation Moniioring July 12, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin, Assoc. Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast live on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73201  (501) 324-2000 F. Y. I. Date: Ann I'-JI [J* Bill Bob 3 ^^^Gene 8 Horace I Margie Melissa Polly Return to: Linda t I I e ..W K7 i\u0026lt;c'^ '^e\u0026gt;/y) /L of' A ''zi J jt. Jk I \\ A r^Sr\u0026lt;. r ^,4-4^.2x 'h c 7l O'July 24, 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Chairman 201 East Markham Street, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 2 6 1995 Dear Ms. Brown: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Please accept my apology for not signing this letter. I am a teacher in the Little Rock School District who happens to be an African American, and I have two children in district schools. one of them at Hall High and another one bound for Hall. Neither my children nor I are trusting enough at this point for our names to be given and possibly passed around. We will come forth if we need to, however, as will others I have recently spoken with. My concern is this. Last year the only African American counselor at Hall resigned in the middle of the year and was replaced with a white counselor. We understood the need for filling the position for the rest of the year, so we did not voice our concern that this made Hall the only secondary school in Little Rock with no African American counselor. We assumed it was temporary. Now we learn that no change was made over the summer and that as it stands now. Hall will open the year STILL being the only secondary school with an all-white counseling staff. Ms. Brown, this is not acceptable, is totally unfair to the African American students at Hall, and shows an insensitivity on Dr. Anderson's part. Now that he has left Hall, rumors are that he will be replaced with another white person since replacing him with an African American would make all Little Rock District principals black. Frankly we would be much better served by having both an African American principal (Hall has never had one, you know) and at least one African American counselor, but the latter is a must. As I said before, it is hard to understand why it was even considered as an option beyond the temporary until the end of the year situation. Can you imagine this being allowed to occur at ANY other Little Rock School District high school? any everybody knows it. It wouldn't have, not for one minute. Please intervene while there is still time to make a change. We are not asking for much and are not asking for ANYTHING all other secondary schools already have, which is to give us at least one African American counselor. If we have to petition Judge Wright, we will. though, we dread doing this. Thank you for your time. As I said. We would rather it be handled professionally. cc: Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, counseling supervisor Mr. John Walker3^ \u0026lt;k) --A  Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL- LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director. General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO\nGene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry williams. Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 13, 1994, and concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. Members of the committee include Robert Glowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Gray, Bob Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened. a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: There is a perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem.- Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to Data should be reviewed in the context of race and gender alone. the following four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement .- socio-economic status, family structure, parent education level, and early childhood education.12:19 07/28/95' SU INTEC' SF-121(J PfiGE-ac Definitions of Variables: Socio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SSS data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier Family Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother*, mother and stepfather. foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collect family structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education comoleted by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate. college, college graduate, school, other) some trade Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Information Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as Headstart, hippy, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT: The language of the settlement requires the composite scores of Little Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the\"\" composite scores of Little Rock School District white students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock School District, This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-i\n2007. Sz  05 SU INTEC SF-1210 PhGE 03 Committee discussions around \"standardized testing\" included criterion-referenced tests, performance assessments, portfolios, and norm-referenced tests. The Minimum Performance Test has been abandoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide criterion-referenced testing instrument is currently available. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment is not comprehensive enough for the settlement purposes. Mathematic English Language Arts and Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers before reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District is the state-adopted norm referenced test. However, based on our research and the expert opinions from psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a norm-referenced testing instrument has a different purpose than the ettlement purpose and uses metrics which are not well suited to the requirements of the settlement agreement. A norm-refarenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement of students within the District to the achievement : student within the standardization group. Therefore, it would be appropriate to compare the achievement of black students Little Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of whit in students in Little Rock to the achievement of white students in the standardization group. standard outlined in the settlement. But that comparison is not the Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the achievement levels of black students white students in the Little Rock School District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use. according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) However, we have been informed that \"outside of the settlement mandate, such calculations would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used. the committee consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing should be the focus of the application of the 90% rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive vice President and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation and an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. lawyer and faculty member of Michigan State University. Also I have included a folder of working papers from the committee for your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. a time convenient to both your schedules. We shall be happy to do so at -3-12:21- 0' 8/  95' SU INTEC SF-1210 PAGE 04 Pr5m r' 5.E. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7874 Jul.23 1395 1:34Ri PHILLIPS, OONSOLTANT 9991 I r I A k \u0026lt; A  R * 1 t 0OVI OfHQJ OX M I r 1 ft  r Ntohlft I t    9\u0026gt;iT*rBltT pHeaft ( O  I .  I  . \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;(\u0026gt;\u0026lt; N r 4 ft  1 4 0 k ft  0  , \u0026lt;  1 T I \u0026gt; X r I  t. \u0026lt; 11 ( \u0026lt; TOf MSNORANDaX Onyic* Pottor^ XK Dapt  of Bdufl. moMt Ruonn Phill \u0026lt;-p DATS I July 21, 1995 RXl Raaponoa to Raoommandat ton trom JOAfin* I hftva ravlawod tho you forwardod to wo. momo and auppoirbtng daauiflantatlon from Joanna Lanka that Dr. Lanka Ruwfflarlzed the losuea involved in choosing hae provided uaaful data and nuoetnctly\na metric for the mandats of ths Little asttlement. Before commenting specifically on the 90% reguirament and teat acoro alternatives, I offer a few general comments regarding my interpretation of the language of the settlement. Rook test acorn I specifIcRlly Offer on The Litt la Rock Sett lament Aggewimant y phraeee in the portion of the Little Rook settlement shared with me which must bo defined in order to Implamont its tarmfl. the portion The following are aoma thoughta about theae definitiona. tiino\" indicotea that the event need happen -- ---------any time period during the echool and can be measured at only ones year. ~ the scanrord is a nationally normed, standardized achievement toot of high payohometric quality, If Liluin instrument, it would bo a logical choice \"atandardlted teat\" the scajiford ia a If Little for the settlement mandate. 3. H oompoaite acorea\"  intent that the uas of mm termuioiogy auggsata an the maaauremant be a total Bcote or one that aggregatea academic subject areas. With reapect to the uas be a thin terminology auggeata performance across acaaemio aubject areas. With respect atnnfard, this suggests that either the Basic Battery or Coojplato be used. The choice may bo affected by wording in of sattloment.  ' Battery sooren other parts that the For example, if inequity in baoic ^ho basic battery score may bo most appropriate. Alternatively, if sweeping statemonte have been made about equalizing the totality of education, score may be more appropriate. nkilla ie alluded to, if Btatemonta the broader complete battery-----------1: 1' 07. 2S/?' ' SWINTEC SF-i210 PAGE 05 Little Rock Settlement . . , p. 2 4 . aduoafcion otudnntn\" thin probably ofcudonta in tho I-Ittlo Rook eohooln who have *n ISP refers at the to all time of hnnh1 ng, plaead Praaumablyr studenta in aduoation opoolsl ahudanta aduoation would referrod for evaluation but not yat ba taatad. SCO olaarly Although apaoial exempted by the language ot the eattlomant, what about othor groups such as vocational students, abaantaas, or atudenta with qualifying dtsabilitloo under flootion 6047 oe aa What aooomfflodatiouB will ba available for nonqualifying atudenta with dioabilitioe (e.g,, a non-npacial education atudant with dyoloxia viaually impairod atudont in tho regular ith limited Kngliah profioionoy be teated? olaaaroora^ 7 or a Will atudantn 5. \"White students\" only those of Buropeen ancestry? does this include all Which gradaa are to What non-blftck students or about hiapanic Americans? ba Included, must all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are 6. \"90% or greater\"  the asttlament language aeams to indicate an intent for the mean score of blacks to he at Imm- p'- mean score for whites. be least nine tenths of ths tims frame and This may be obstacles to an unrealistic expectation given be overcome. Little Rock has approximately five years to overcome learning deficits and the affects of povorty which have developed over students' ItfetimsB. City, which has desegregation spent orders. has millionB I bean Achievement test scores. on unable the public Sven Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination tho foderal does not refer government has supported an in the employment arena, applicants hired. to heat Thus, scores but to 80% rule. under thia the Howovor, the 80% percent of available applicants are hired, at least 58% must also be hired to avoid Moreover, if an employer fails this a rule, if 70* of qualified white of qualified minority applicants presumption of discrimination. opportunity to demonstrate actions. a test, the employer still has an compelling interest to Justify its In cases such as between minority Dobra P-, at issue. and majority large differentials tn passing rates adminlBtrators to In such cases, the insure that earn a high school diploma. atudenta on graduation tests have been courts have imposed duties on tost minority students had a fair chance to minority scores to ba a certain However, these courts have not required req\\irement seems to suggest an percentage of majority scores. entitlement to Such n rather than an equal opportunity to achieve. a specified outcome ChPQBinq a Type of Score I agreo with Dr, Lanka that none of the major types of standardised teat  ooteo are well ouited to the requlremonta the Little Rock settlomont. Beoauoo no longitudinal oomparlsons none of a simple interpratstion of raw score are required, tho language lends itself to diffarencas. One might, for example,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the corner. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. 1 need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. 1 also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow. August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry MaloneOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the comer. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. I need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. I also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow, August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry Malone \u0026gt;\u0026lt; 4 ^7 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 (SOI) 371 \u0026lt;1100 Date: August 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: McClellan Community School As Im sure you know, the McClellan Community School program was incorporated into the current LRSD desegregation plan at the behest of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, with the concurrence of the parties and the approval of the Court. As such, it is an important aspect of desegregation in the district. 111 appreciate the following current information about McClellan: 1. Please explain the statement, which appears in your July 13, 1994 memorandum to Dr. Williams, that \"McClellan was a reduction which does not require a plan change.\" 1 am puzzled by this assertion, because the desegregation plan clearly establishes McClellan as a community school, and court orders (for example, those of August 4, 1992 and December 30, 1992) have reemphasized the importance of the community school, the Advisoiy Council, and an adequate budget for the program. 2. Page 94 of the LRSD desegregation plan promises that ODM and other groups will regularly receive reports on the progress of the community school and any recommendations for changes. Please forward to me the school districts report on the status and progress of the McClellan Community School for the 1994-95 school year. 3. 1 note that the McClellan Community School is among those desegregation obligations that does not appear in your listing of \"Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case\" dated August 1995. Because the community school has been prominently featured in both the desegregation plan and court orders, please explain why it was omitted from your listing. Tlianks for your assistance. S-U.' ? J J WSSSJSJS^ Little Rock School District - OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RPp^^ August 10, 1995 4UG / ] Office Of Oesesregafo iVfcniioMnj Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markliam, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: We received your fax yesterday in the District office after District hours. The information you have requested is not available at this time and will not be available until sometime Monday. Given the fact that we are currently involved with preparing for the Board meeting tonight, a court appearance tomorow, and opening of school in one week, your request seems to me unreasonable and comes at a time when district staff are extremely pressed for time. For me to pull someone off their assigned task to fill your request would delay the District in our preparations for the opening of school. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM AUG 1 5^ 1995 To: From: Date: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent jijtL August 15, 1995 Office of Dose:  if'-. Subject: Response to memorandum of August 9, 1995 The following is a response to your memorandum of August 9, 1995. My response to each of the three items is as follows: 1. We did not feel it necessary to do a plan modification for the McClellan Community School because all components of the program are being offered. We could find no reference to a minimum amount of money that must be budgeted for the program. Some money will come from other sources for this next school year. That which appears in our plan is more an historical account than specific action to be taken. The only exception is on page 94 as you have noted\n2. We have reviewed page 94 of the desegregation plan relating to the McClellan Community School. The appropriate items from that page have been added to our list of obligations. I have requested a report of the status and progress of the McClellan Community School. When I receive it, I will forward it to you\nand, 3. As noted in item 1 above, obligations relating to McClellan Community School have been added to the list. It now appears as a listing. If you have other questions, please let me know. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney M.UCCU1.00C3 c 'r. Little Rock School District Q August 16, 1995 AUG 2 j J995 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent OffiCQ of DeSS'^fg\nJaiion /'vicniicrspy FROM: Dr. Rid iirector-Human Resources SUBJECT: Ms. Ann Browns Request for Information (dated 8-9-95) I have, at your request, put together the information as requested, by item number. Item #1: Current Listing of Principals/Assist Principals by name, race, gender, and length of time in current position. Response - Provided as Attachment I Item #2: Interview and Selection Process Response - Provided as Attachment II Item #3: Involvement of Staffing Committees and Magnet Review Committee. Response - The Incentive School Staffing Committees were not utilized, per se. There may/may not have been members of the Committee on the team as appointed per Item #2. The Magnet Review Committee was involved to the extend that the Executive Director was apprised of each interview schedule and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, who participated on several of the teams, is a member of the Committee. Item #4: Days committee met, recommendations, and person selected. Response - Provided as Attachment III If you require additional information, please dont hesitate to let me know. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 ADMIN3.EXC SCHOOL CENTRAL HALL HIGH METROPOLITAN JAFAIR PARKVIEW McClellan ALT. LEARN CTR HENDERSON CLOVERDALE JR mabelvale JR. DUNBAR MAGNET MANN MAGNET FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS TITLE PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST, PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC DIRECTOR VOV. TECH VOC. ADMIN. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. NAME R. HOWARD B. JAMES VACANT N. ROUSSEAU W. MORRIS G. BRADFORD M. BREWSTER J. POWELL L. WATSON C. GREEN C. SPRINGER M. PETERSON W. BROADNAX A. FINCH B. BURR V. SMITH, JR. J. BABBS D. BOOTH A. HANSEN M. WOODS J. CARTER B. GRAHAM E. HAWKS C. WALKER W.MARSHALAK J. WASHINGTON J. MOSBY V. LINDBERG G. PITTS C. MASON D. DUERR D. PATTERSON J. FULLERTON M. GREEN R. WILLIAMS L.BROWN E. HUDSON D. JAMES M. LACEY VACANT J. MATTHIS W. WOODS D. BENAGE P. MCMURRAY D. WHITEHORN M. BRIGGS R. KNIGHTEN D. BERRY RACE BL BL CAU BL CAU CAU BL BL BL BL BL BL CAU CAU BL BL BL CAU BL BL BL CA CA CA CA BL CA CA BL CA BL CA BL CA CA BL BL BL BL BL CA BL CA CA BL CA GENDER M F F M F F M F F M M M F F M M M F F M F M F M M M F F F F M M F M F F M F M M M F M F M F Page 1 YRS IN POSITION TWO TWO FOUR NEW NEW SEVEN FIVE NEW TWO TWO NEW ONE ONE NEW THREE TEN THREE SIX THIRTEEN FIVE ONE THREE FIVE ONE NEW NEW ONE SIX ONE FOUR EIGHT ACTING EIGHT EIGHT NEW FOUR THREE SEVEN FIFTEEN EIGHT ONE THREE SEVEN ONE NEW NEWSOUTHWEST BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE EL. DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET JEFFERSON M.L. KING MABELVALE ELEM MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK P. HEIGHTS EL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL J. NEELEY A. MUNNS D. SMITH M. GOLSTON B. ANDERSON E.COX C. SIMMONS D. HALL A. KEOWN M.BARKSDALE Y. SCOTT O. PRESLAR E. CLEVELAND F. FIELDS F. DONOVAN S. BRANCH V. ASHLEY E. DUNBAR VACANT M. HUFFMAN B. JONES L. WARD J. DAVENPORT B. RAPER F. HOBBS F. CAWTHON H. HARRIS J. HARKEY VACANT N. WILLIAMS M. OLIVER f\u0026lt;. SMITH J. WORM M.BASSA C. TEETER L. CARTER S. BROOKS A. MANGAN B. BANKS S. DAVIS K. GREENLEE G. ZEIGLER T. PHILLIPS L. WILSON K. BUCHANAN S. BEARD T. COURTNEY ASST. PRINC. V. ROBINSON ADM1N3.EXC CA BL BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL BL CA BL BL CA CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA CA BL M F M F F F F F F F F M F M F M F F M F M F F F F F M F F M F M F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Page 2 ONE ONE NEW EIGHT ONE NEW FOUR NEW NEW NEW ONE EIGHT TWO TWO NEW TWO EIGHT NEW THIRTEEN SEVEN NEW NEW NEW NEW SIX ONE NEW ONE NEW SEVEN ONE EIGHT NEW FIVE TWO ONE EIGHT ONE ONE ONE NEW NEW NEW NEW ONE TWO ONEADMIN3.EXC WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL S. MORGAN M. MENKING D. MITCHELL F. DAVIS_________ P. HIGGINBOTHAM CA CA BL BL CA M F F M F FIVE ONE EIGHT ONE SEVEN Page 3ec. iNbtKrtu XN AGENDA FOR AUGUST 25, 1994 Atac/miekjt Ti LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA - Regulation SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. employed with Uttl Rock ^cJmI DisSfSt , District.) 2. ?o?'\"Sc:StSu!t??^ SU *.? \"PPllcents and references. 3. Superintendent and/or the A^\u0026lt;s^e^-a+. Superintendent (s) will nreoare a Hc-h  Assistant 4. The Human Resources Director will TZZd issues (ie\nE.E.O., Affirmative Action, ^ericans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be follows: selected/appointed, as Three Two Three (3) Parents/patrons (2) - Teachers (3) Adainistratioa Representatives Mote:i Hote:2 Mote:3 1. 2. 3. representatives will be selected by of^SS president of the or tne affected school. ^e toacher(s) representatives shall be from the ThZschool and appointed by the Administration. The Deputy Superintendent f --------- appropriate staff - Assistant Supervisors, and Principals) t, Administration representatives. NOTE: (in consultation with Superintendents, may designate the The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. ppppr-./rn SEP IS 1334 4...( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA Regulation 6. The interview committee shall recommend candidates, be provided folders 1) 2) 3) 4) meet to interview and The interview committee will containing the following\nAn interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview complete the ratings sheet, r  recommendation of the top three 3) candidates to the Superintendent. ^ated, the ratings are basis^ffr fiJ,IV 7 consensus and need not be thl sole nasis for selecting the recommended candidates.) the applicants and The committee, through consensus. 8. Interview Committee and select the for Board approval.  racomendatlons oi r. .J , applicant to be submitted JSeS 2ch oVSi* his/her option, three (3) applicants and committee reconvene to determine require that the new reconunendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected he/she will submit that individual^ Directors for approval. an acceptable applicant, s name to the Board of If the applicant is currently serving superintendent niay reassi^ Sxe ^riSSal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. ^^incipal 10. candidate shall receive a contract which ?=ation? pertinent his salary, grade, and othern A'nACHMPWT U? P LE. LeTTf^?. May 18, 1995 Little Rock School District To\nCarver Magnet Interview team members (listed below) From: Dr. Director - Human Resources Subject: Interview process First, I wish to express my sincere personal thanks to you for agreeing to participate as a member of the interview team for Principalship of Carver Magnet elementary school. As you might imagine, this team is charged with the extremely important responsibility of interviewing the applicants and, as a team, to recommend three top candidates to the Superintendent, who will then make a recommendation to the School Board. To assist you in the interview process, you will be provided the following items: 1. An interview schedule 2. A list of interview questions 3. A candidate rating form 4. The applicant's application materials (ie: application, letter, etc.) These items will be provided to you on the day of the interviews. I will attempt to schedule the interviews on a one-hour-per-applicant schedule. This will allow for the interview time as well as follow-up discussion among the team to reach consensus about the candidate. If you have any questions about this very important process, please don't hesitate to contact me at 324-2088. I will advise you as quickly as possible the date and times of the interviews. cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Donna Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee Team Members: Vai Henry, Parent/Patron representative Dewey Fitzhugh, Parent/Patron representative Roz Newton, Parent/Patron representative Joy Thomas, Teacher representative Kim Washington, Teacher representative Patty Kohler, Administration representative Leon Modeste, Administration representative Dick Hurley, Administration representative 810 West .Markham Street  Little Roek, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Sheetl At/K^Haj\u0026amp;kzt TTT DATE OF INTERVIEW MAY/22/1995 MAY/25/1995 MAY/26/1995 JUNE/29/1995 JUNE/30/1995 JULY/19/1995 JULY/25/1995 AUGUST/3/1995 AUGUST/4/1995 AUGUST/7/1995 SCHOOL CARVER HENDERSON JR. M. L. KING GIBBS MAGNET TERRY ELEMENTARY GEYER SPRINGS BRADY ELEMENTARY HALL HIGH SCHOOL FRANKLIN INCENTIVE DUNBAR JR. MAGNET RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES DIANE BARKSDALE JERRY WORM GWEN ZEIGLER JAMES WASHINGTON JAMES FULLERTON RON AUSTIN________ TYRONE HARRIS GWEN ZEIGLER ETHEL DUNBAR KAREN GREENLEE ADA KEOWN BETTY RAPER______ ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL J.J.LACEY KAREN GREENLEE BEVERLY JONES ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD LINDA BROWN JIM MOSBY KAREN GREENLEE ETHEL DUNBAR JEFF CARR_________ LINDA BROWN DANIEL WHITEHORN PATRICIA McMurray Page 1 CANDIDATE SELECTED DIANE BARKSDALE JAMES WASHINGTON TYRONE HARRIS BETTY RAPER GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD ETHEL DUNBAR LINDA BROWNOffice 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 To: From: Subject: Date: Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources, Little Rock School District Horace R. Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Request for Staffing Data August 17, 1995 As you are aware, ODM is in the process of publishing a series of reports focusing on staffing in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. We really appreciate the cooperation we received from your office during the process of gathering data for our initial report on the elementary school teaching force. In order to complete subsequent reports, we need the data listed below by Friday, September 1, 1995. If you have questions or concerns regarding this request, please call us at 376-6200. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Data Requested:  All secondary school teachers by school, race, sex, and primary subject area for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  All central office administrators by race, sex, department, and position for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Building administrators (principals and assistant principals) by school, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Non-certified personnel by location (school building, central office, etc.), position, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95Cf CF- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date\nSeptember 8, 1995 To: Principals SEP 1 I 1995 From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director JbMi' Planning, Research and Evaluation Office of Desegregatiwi Momionna RE: Local School Biracial Committee According to the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation plan (pages 224, 225), biracial committees of parents will be formed at each school to assist in monitoring educational equity. Site visits will be conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff with the assistance of local biracial committees consisting of parents/patrons. Attached is a list by school with the PRE Specialists name who drew the school for monitoring. If you have not already been contacted by the PRE Specialist for a monitoring date, you will soon be receiving a phone call for a discussion about a convenient date for program monitoring. All parent/patron committee members will be expected: 1. To complete inservice education related to program monitoring techniques and the desegregation plan. This inservice will be conducted by the PRE Staff prior to the first school monitoring visit. We expect to complete the inservice for the parents by October 5. The monitoring process will essentially be the same as that of the last two school years. Parents/patrons who have previously received training regarding the monitoring process will not be required to attend another inservice. However, they are welcome to attend, if they wish. Principals may wish to select some of the same parents/patrons who have previously served as monitors, since they would already be familiar with the process. 2. To complete one monitoring visit each semester. Parents/patrons should be advised that monitoring is a major function for the current school year and that the monitoring process could take a full school day to complete. During the monitoring visits, checklists will be used to record and gather data regarding the conditions and events at the school. Monitors will record and report findings only. Mediation of conditions and events are inappropriate during the site visit. The committee should be composed of six persons, comprised of two teachers and four parents/patrons, balanced by race (two black and two white parents). Like last school year the teachers on your committee will not monitor the programs for equity. However, if you add others to the committee, you may do so without a ratio being required. When you call the committee together to review the monitoring summary report2 and to give suggestions for program improvement, this is the time to involve the teachers and others on the committee. Efforts should be made to extend the selection process beyond a traditional parent structure to ensure broad representation. Please refrain from using parents/patrons who are Little Rock School District employees as program monitors. Please forward the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the four parents/patrons who will serve on your local school biracial committee to the PRE Department NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. Inservice for biracial committee monitoring will be held at the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Principals are requested to notify biracial committee parents of the inservice as soon as possible. Inservices are scheduled as follows: Elementary Area and Magnet Schools: October 3, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Secondary and Incentive Schools: October 5, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Site visits for the first semester are tentatively scheduled to be conducted between October 23 and December 15, 1995. Principals will be contacted to establish monitoring dates. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith in the PRE office at 324-2120. Your prompt attention and cooperation in this effort is greatly appreciated. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams Mrs. Anne E. Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary EnclosureLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE SPECIALIST ASSIGNMENT BY SCHOOL 1995-96 School PRE Specialist School PRE Specialist Central Fair Hall Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Kathy Penn-Norman McClellan Parkview Metropolitan J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby K Penn-Norman Cloverdale JHS Dunbar JHS Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale JHS Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights JHS Southwest ALC K. Penn-Norman K. Penn-Norman J.J. Lacey J. J. Lacey Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elem. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Magnet Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman J. J. Lacey Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Mabelvale Elem. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Interdistrict Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Selma Hobby K. Penn-Norman Selma HobbyOffice 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: September 12, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: Brown New administrative position In reviewing the latest LRSD organizational structure chart for 1995-96, which is dated August 22, 1995, 1 notice a new position for Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support. Please send me a copy of the business case which sets forth the decision-making rationale for this new position. 1 also want to know the job description, the proposed associated costs, the date of Board approval (or anticipate approval), and the target date for filling this position. Tliank you very much for your assistance.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 U 0)  o Q 3  \"5 n ATTACHMENT 1 Organizational Chart O O g* ca  T a\u0026gt; c o\u0026gt;  Cf) O 2 33 - o co o .i C C OT =? 3 c cn O T O g Q 4\u0026gt; s O *0 o 0 \u0026lt; C s = H X 3 o tM hl \"'5 ii d e \u0026lt;3 5 1 ? 3 s* IL - sH I3 -I 1 I I I I I I I s 1 i I  2 Ij iJi I Id Ji J 0 IJ ,1 fa JI Si kaU 'J 11 |d h \"d nl ai u  2 ?  r J 1 s 1 Jl 2L- I d si 3 c 4 U J? Hi w IL 2^^ $ c H 3 3 ad Ii J a Id . s i J 1 b. 4 = J H -2 H \u0026lt;5 -S ^3 o I J S \u0026lt;3? I = d p ir -5 3 \u0026lt; 11 t = 1 jil\nri s? ii .TTiHf p ill W __ I_ . . _ JRECEIVE^ SEP 1 5 1995 VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Office of Desegregation Monitonn^ MEMORANDUM September 13, 1995 TO: Administrative Departments FROM: Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator SUBJECT: Empty Copy Paper Boxes and Broken Appliances and Machinery A volunteer at the Alternative Learning Center needs copy paper boxes for a project he is working on with the students. We can be a part of this hands-on art project by collecting boxes and lids. He also needs broken appliances and machinery, i.e., fans, toasters, lawn mowers, coffee makers, clocks, condensers, etc. to use in helping the students leam to use tools. Please call Bill AUsop at 666-6367 (or 666-2030 answering machine) when you have two or more empty boxes or appliances and hell come by to get them. Thanks for your help.Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 0 1995 MEMORANDUM Office of Dssegrsgation Mcrawnng DATE: September 19, 1995 TO: Districtwide Biracial Committee Members Committee Members of Incentive School Monitoring Instrument Review Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Richard Rochelle, Knight Intervenors Attorney John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Incentive School Monitoring Instrument for 1995-96 Please find enclosed the Incentive School Monitoring Instrument to be used by the Districtwide Biracial Committee during the 1995-96 school year. Also enclosed are the 1994-95 Districtwide Biracial Committee Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools and the Spring 1995 Incentivi School Survey Report. If you have questions, please call me at 324-2120. Enclosures cc: LRSD Board of Directors Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of SchoolsOffice 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 \u0026gt;371-0100 September 26, 1995 Mrs. Sue Strickland 19 Peartree Place Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Sue: Congratulations on your election to the Uttle Rock School District Board of Directors. Your experiences with teachers, administrators, parents, and children give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. Im looking forward to getting to know you, and hope well find a time to begin that process soon. Please give me a call at your convenience and lets arrange a time to get together. 1 hope you will also feel free to drop by ODM at any time to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Under separate cover to your LRSD mail box, Im sending you some of our recent monitoring reports. I know that as a new board member youll be inundated with all sorts of paper, and I dont want to add too much to the pile. Well routinely send you and other members of the board our new reports as we issue them. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep an open door and a pot of coffee on at all times, and well always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. I know youre going to do a fine job. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: September 29, 1995 To: Board Members From: Re: Desegregation Representation For the past two years Ive watched with interest and concern the court proceedings related to our 12 year old desegregation case. As I have watched and been involved in what goes on in court, and observed the relationship between the attorneys, as well as the judge in this case, I have- become increasingly concerned and frustrated. The concern is essentially with the informality, the comfort, and the accommodating behavior exhibited by all the attorneys in the case. So much so, I believe, that very little is being accomplished in the way of moving the District away from federal monitoring, from settling any major issues, and not at all moving this District or any of the other Districts away from court supervision. Based on what has happened or not happened over the past two years, my thinking is that what is needed is a more aggressive approach by attorneys who represent the District who can and will focus on the major issues contained in the Plan by assuming a more aggressive professional posture and looking at the real issues in the settlement and not the \"nitpicking\" surface issues that prevent movement in the case. I believe that we can move forward. But we cannot as long as we are held to historic and undocumented elements of the Plan by Mr. Walker. Pieces of the Plan that at one time were important, but are no longer as significant as they__ once were, because of changing conditions and circumstances in the Little Rock Community. In order to move forward and become further enured in the rhetoric of the case, a determination and decision has to be made and agreed upon that we either follow the settlement agreement or modify what exists. I4 Page 2 Mr. Walker has cleverly, through legal maneuvering, delayed decisions, stalled proceedings, and in general slowed the process by using the threats of contempt of court against the District because he feels we want to change too quickly and without regard to black children. This is absolutely not true. The time has long passed for these kinds of delays, and the need to settle certain aspects of the case is of paramount importance because of changing conditions and circumstances. Little Rock is not the same city that it was in 1958, nor is it the same city that it was in 1993. It is now a city with greater potential for economic growth and development. Development and growth, however, that will not be realized until the LRSD has cleaned up its image, changed the Plan, and is free from federal supervision. I The LRSD cannot afford the current plan and if it has been followed according to the letter of the law, it carries with it serious financial implications and consequences. LR must do like-so many other cities and school districts across the country. Kansas City, Dallas, and Denver have recognized that changing social and economic issues have put a serious strain on their ability to operate without additional revenues, and they have moved aggressively to gain relief from federal court. We in LR must do the same thing and we must do it with legal representation that is both well-schooled in desegregation law and who share the same sense of urgency that we do to be released from federal supervision. With that in mind, 1 am suggesting that we look at other law firms in Little Rock, such as the Mitchell firm, the Kaplan firm, or the Hogan and Hartsen firm out of Washington. D.C. to assist the District with our desegregation case. I recognize that the Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm has  represented the LRSD for many years and has provided the major portion, if not all, of the legal battles and done a capable job. However, with the change of conditions in LR and what is happening with school districts across the country it is time for a change.4 I Page 3 I do not advocate that we discontinue our association with the Friday firm on other legal matters, only that we consider moving the desegregation portion to another firm. Until such time that we are represented by counsel who are willing to enforce the conditions and agreements of the settlement we will continue to \"spin our wheels\" in an attempt to reach a solid footing that will allow us to move forward or in the direction of getting out of court. 1 would respectfully request that the Board consider the need for representation from another firm with regard to the desegregation case. Consideration of this matter would be appreciated at the October 12, Board Agenda session. It is clear to me and to others who have followed this case that we are no further along the road to reduced court supervision than we were four years ago. We are bogged down by the notion that the intent of the Plan is more significant than the actual component parts of the Plan. The Board will recall that last year I proposed that we put into place an inhouse staff attorney. One that would deal very specifically with  desegregation issues and keep the Friday firm focused. This position was not funded. However, by restructuring the work of the Friday firm to deal with problems other than desegregation, it is quite possible that we will salvage enough resources to support this proposal. I would like your support in this area and I am prepared to discuss the issue with you at your convenience. IOffice 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 (SOI) 3710100 Date: October 3, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: , ^V/\\nn Brown Districtwide Recruitment Plan 1 was pleased to receive a copy of the districts newsletter News \u0026amp; Views, the first such publication in a long time. It was a newsy and interesting edition, and 1 look forward to reading the coming issues. The \"Desegregation Update\" section on the first page of e newsletter states that a districtwide recruitment plan has been written, and that the individual schools have put together strategies for action at the school level. The section goes on to say that the district and parent recruiters will work toward improving the image of the public schools to encourage voluntary student transfers. 1 was also glad to read that ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report has provided further direction for recruitment efforts. Because recruitment and public relations are areas critical to desegregation, 1 salute you for having completed the plans that will support implementation of the activities referenced in the Update. Its a credit to you and your colleagues that the district has started the school year well prepared with road maps. Please help us get a head start on monitoring this years recruitment activities by sending me a copy of the revised districtwide recruitment plan that will be guiding you. In conjunction with that plan, 1 would also appreciate the information listed below. Brief answers, summaries, or copies of materials will do fine at this point. 1. Point out how this years districtwide recruitment plan differs from that of the previous year. 2. State the districtwide goal of the recruitment plan in quantitative terms by race, i.e., the percentage increase in enrollment and the total number of students that percentage represents. 3. State the school-based recruitment goal in quantitative terms by race for each school, i.e., the percentage increase by school and the target number of students you hope to recruit to each school according to the racial balance needs of each.October 3, 1994 Page Two 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Forward the results of the evaluation (fast-track or otherwise) you did on the previous recruitment plan that enabled you to determine what changes needed to be made in the current plan based on the successes or failures of last years plan. The Court long ago required the LRSD to establish a tracldng system that would enable the district to determine which recruitment efforts are successful and which are not. Indicate the status of the tracking system, when it was established, who is responsible for it, and how it works. Summarize what youve learned from the system, and also how youve used that Icnowledge to modify the elements of your new recruitment plan. Summarize the recruitment strategies that each school has put together for this year. Or, if it will be easier, just include copies of the school-based plans. The desegregation plans state that parents and Parent Recruiters, along with such groups as the PTA, recruitment teams. Incentive School Parent Recruitment Committees, speakers bureaus, and the Biracial Committee, will assist with recruitment. Indicate the role envisioned for such individuals and groups in the current districtwide and school-based recruitment plans. Include the timeline of the current districtwide recruitment plan. Indicate who is responsible for the major events on that timeline. Describe the plans of the district and parent recruiters for improving the image of the schools, the timeline of the plans, and the responsible personnel. Indicate how you factored in the elements of the Public Relations sections of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Describe or list those elements of ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report that the district will be using in recruitment. Or, in other words, how has the district modified its current recruitment plan to incorporate elements of the incentive school report?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 onr Office of Desegregaacfi 'nr- 5 1^95 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 4, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I would be remiss if I did not request that you require the administrative staff under the aegis of Dr. Russ Mayo to be fully desegregated and integrated. I am also requesting that Dr. Mayo be reprimanded for his actions. I remain, Sincerely yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann BrownS! 4 11 Little Rock School District October 5, 1995 To: Area School Advisory Linittee Representatives From: Leon Modeste, U Special Assistant tothe Superintendent Subject: Reminder of next meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee Please mark your calendars for Monday, October 9, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. for the meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held in the LRSD Board Room, with Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District giving the latest report on the Districts Facilities Study. We look forward to seeing you there. LEM/dge 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)321-2000SHULTS, BAY \u0026amp; KUBKUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING SOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE BITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72SO1-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KUBRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TEI^EPHONE \u0026lt;CO1) 375-S3O1 FACSIMILE (501) 3Z5-6861 October 6, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OCT 1 0 1995 Office oi Desegregauon Monnoiiug Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, John and Hank: Based on present enrollment and demographic trends, we are failing in our efforts to promote quality desegregated education in Little Rock. I know that Little Rock School District students generally achieve at higher levels on standardized tests than students in surrounding geographic areas, and we have some other bright spots. Nevertheless, it is clear that the District is continuing to lose far too many students to private schools. The ramifications of these losses can no longer be ignored. As \"advantaged\" students leave the District, the District becomes more segregated, and the remaining students have more intense needs. Community sunnort wanes. We are at a critical time when the District must reverse the support wnen tne uibiricb mu\u0026amp;b levciac current enrollment trend, or we will become an all black \"have not\" district. We must not allow this to happen because it will ultimately result in a resegregated district incapable of educating its students. In order to see this point, you need only review the enrollment statistics for our elementary schools. These schools indicate future enrollment trends and demographic patterns for junior and senior highs, as well as demonstrate the immediate problems associated with elementary schools. This year it appears that Little Rock will have 14 elementary schools which are over 75% black and which have declining white enrollments. In essence, these schools will be one race schoolsSHTJBTS, SAY \u0026amp; KUREUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 2 with one race attendance zones. Other elementary schools are also experiencing severe declines in white enrollment. As late as 1992, white enrollment was on the increase, especially in the area elementary schools. In 1995, for the first time in several years, we see that several of the desegregated area schools are having declining white enrollments, even though the demographic patterns in their attendance zones have not substantially changed. These declining white enrollments will translate into substantial decreases in white enrollment in the junior and senior high schools. Unless we are willing to have a one race district which will have a much harder time maintaining community support, we must take dramatic action. If enrollment trends are not reversed for next year, the District will become a typical urban district with limited community support and with no real prospect of success for its students. This is not fair and this is not what I would like, but I can now clearly see that this is what will occur unless major steps are taken to change the trends. Continuation of the current plan will result tn resegregation. This was not the purpose of the plan, this is not what a lot of us want, and I want to work aggressively to see that it does not occur. I believe that continued acrimonious litigation will actually accelerate the resegregation of the Little Rock School District. I think it is up to the parties to the settlement to change it to achieve the goals and objectives which the parties share. In order to cooperate to make the changes necessary for success, the parties themselves will have to change the way they interact publicly and privately. Public interaction will have to be positive, cooperative, and cordial. Otherwise, the perception is that the District is unstable, mismanaged, and beseiged. The following actions need to be taken in order for the Little Rock School District to survive: 1. 1. The concept of incentive schools (characterized by better than 80% black enrollment) needs to be reconsidered because a great many more schools will have these same enrollment characteristics in the next several years. Rather than II \"incentivise\" all of these schools with programs which are designed to attract whites, we should recognize that these schools will not be desegregated withSHUKTS, RAY \u0026amp; KURRUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 3 enhanced programs. We should concentrate on providing smaller classes, incentive compensation to teachers and administrators in these schools, and enhanced special opportunities (Reading Recovery, Junior Great Books) designed to improve the skills of the students in these schools. It is not possible to desegregate these schools under current conditions, and the best approach is to simplify the program so that the schools work for the students who are there. 2. We need to consolidate some of the small schools in the central core of the city. At the same time, we need to build at least two new schools - one to serve the students in the central city and a new school to meet the growth in west Little Rock. Even though the west Little Rock school would be essentially all white, if we do not provide a school for the students in these areas, they will continue to go into the private system and will not be available to assist in desegregating area junior highs and high schools. The Little Rock School District should not abandon its obligation to serve all of the youth in the District just because of changing demographic patterns. This is illustrated by the demographic changes in southwest Little Rock. Even though the schools there are basically area schools, if the students tn those schools have exceptional needs, the District should plan on meeting those needs. By the same token, if demographic changes result tn the need for a new school in a new area, the school should be built and should have an attendance zone which insures that the students in that area will attend that school. Little Rock actually needs a new school on its far northwest border to serve the satellite zone for Forest Park and part of the Fulbright zone, as well as a school in the Wilson satellite zone to serve the major new subdivisions of Sandpiper West, Sandpiper Creek, Cherry Creek, Parkway Place, St. Thomas, St. Michael, and St. Charles. At the present time, these students, who are mostly white, are generally attending private schools. It is noteworthy and distressing that there are now more white students m Pulaski Academy than there are in Fulbright, Terry, McDermott, Forest Heights, and Hall, combined. Under the present desegregation plan, the Little Rock School District will not survive as a multi-racial district. In order to survive, the District must grow and must be operated in a way that instills public confidence. Up to this point, the three of you have not accomplished that goal. There is no room for blame and no time for mistrust. I believe that there is still a chance that we can marshall the community support necessary to construct two new schools and adequately fund theSHXTLTS, HAY \u0026amp; KUBHUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 4 special needs we now have, but only if we work cooperatively in the next three months to agree upon the major building blocks. If the three of you will graciously, publicly, earnestly, and optimistically cooperate, there is reason to believe the District can survive. Each of you will be required to compromise. We do not know that success can be attained, but we can clearly see that our current efforts are insufficient and are leading to results which are unacceptable for our students and our community. I am willing to try to help each of you. Despite what you may hear, there is a great deal of community support for an integrated public school system which delivers quality education to its students. I would propose that the District draft a short ten-point revision to the existing desegregation plan, based upon input from each of you. You should get together and compromise the differences which may exist, and then propose the plan by joint motion to the court. In this way, you will not only enhance the educational opportunities of the students who are involved, you would also demonstrate to the community a real commitment to cooperation and success. This alone will greatly enhance the possibility of a successful future for the District. We should then draw plans for the new schools, organize a millage campaign for next September, and then pull together and pass it. Sincerely, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb cc: Mr. Jim Hathaway Dr. Russ Mayo Mr. R. B. McDonough, Jr. Mr. H. Maurice Mitchell Mr. Gerald Osterman Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John Riggs Mr. Winthrop P. Rockefeller Mr. John SteuriLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM 11 To\n?1 Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ocr / .J 1995 From: V, Russ Mayo,*Associate Superintendent 0lfiC3 of ^oni iCf Date: October 13,1995 / '9 Subject\nMeasurement of Achievement Disparity The Office of Desegregation Monitoring released, June 21, 1995, a status report on achievement disparity. The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another. We appreciate recognition of this by ODM. To keep you informed, we are working with the Arkansas Department of Education in determining an acceptable method of comparing test data. Any information that you feel would be beneficial in our study will be appreciated. RM:dk C: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Ed Jackson, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation tMVAUXK\nW'' |^ f? i- z I\n'.' P R f n A Y , F. T. n R C ! TV\n. {, I A. ft' A I^AFfTrtftFgri\n?* cr '. 4- X '\nu- At? s' 'ii! 3 ? t C . hu-- Iff . \" \u0026lt;K JAW\n!t  ( i-'t''.*'-'  -1. *f 01- k. r.i. ! c \u0026gt; ('1i'Pt .'icf\n.) ytT. OsC t.h K 0  i', A i\u0026lt; tc is, 5:  L A S ^., ThCMo LUd? f r : . * A J\u0026amp;H*. L'tWtV W(. :\u0026lt;-.*(. r.\n.. n I./-\n^ - \ni  1 F*u* -J 5 * Cf' * A * ?- . 5 0 1 : /  2  * S-- i-C t * \u0026lt;.T- Iv. StAs  . c ' IK IH A I k \\ A rtc^cr- t m a /. hJf. '..ffrt r 'I T r-\" '. 7-2 viK e i A  i 3X*3 1-N ^Al\n7 1.'' A L  ' U * (* .? ,*. J ftTrtEJf i.i ' ,1. pic\n,!.-\n' ,1 * .V\nV y */ I: ii V J  Ji. .('\\ftfi tE T* Vi f.. ?l' A .'\u0026lt; a/I .^ . y . :\u0026gt; tA ' s '  ' ,  f. Oct oer i.-A*O A 0  '*11.* 71\n vrur .1. ms*-\n '\u0026gt; v- f\u0026gt;.'.i.. /'.V  0.XI rf- r \u0026gt;( L T Vfe A iSaAi'V \u0026gt;. -i: I : 'll sk'1C ? r*s '\u0026lt;\u0026lt; 'I* . A. '.A. 'J 11 ii, f d J t 'f J \ndO\nj c A J \u0026gt;{.'. 1'^ Ct. f f. 't 0. \u0026gt;1?,. R.  'i'iOMV . t S '* 'j si N ',o.'0''Cif urn  iihi.,.\n,' ,7.':*. h 1 4i^,\n*OMV 'iV ''k.6i3 X r.-As V , ,'(' 'i: Ki'. Mi7A)Z**a ui rciVi - K ^  V 4 sf. i.75 w SMcf i  1- U 'i i\u0026gt; W . I' i '  N c {  's\n, AOMii .\u0026gt; A /i I r\nA, .) fiiJ.''- \u0026lt; # . frC f H^nry p. is Reck Wil li-.Siins School Distr.ict t nt.'irkhara Aft 7 2201 :j'e.^r.incf - S3.tvrday, Hercher i you last\nwesx o i. JiOj ou+:  ther the hear i.ng achem Id ie'j notify you as scon O,\" ' : cihs purpesa - J- .r 'is': GOS - ci corLt\n. John .'he iie.'?rJ. \u0026gt; c^^nt.r'act. wil^ GG the I ,nsve -iLtfit thy i/ u X fs^.sr S Saturday, pooling niGt\ni o.n ?.e\nTned that lier^/ics JiisEter conttart. .ss c?\u0026lt;?tcbisr 3S hearing Qr- tor rstgardlng the. the s'i,tto\n5 iac of (J'S. n ths agreejsciTC and W i th you soon ii brsnrtl* the diifs Jsr.rv Kai.tr\ntisc?.- ! I ISCUSS fo^ .13 He w i i i hiBir inu. Your V  Chri tc^iisr' t id'll i\nSP flT o\u0026lt;S /f rFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1 994I ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EtSEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 October 26, 1995 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDETAB'TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES QSCHWENO, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY (Hand-Delivered) OCT \u0026gt; if 1995 Oifice Ct Dasegr iiu!) COUHSCL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WfllTCR'S DINeCT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD/Various Labor Issues Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for our telephone conversation on Thursday, October 26, 1995. We have discussed various labor matters over the past several weeks involving persons represented by your office. This letter is to outline the recommendations I will make to the Little Rock School District on resolving most of these matters. Please understand that it appears that these recommendations will be accepted by the District, but final numbers must be obtained prior to me receiving final authority, where indicated. Ms. Betty Forbes, in return for the execution of a release agreement to be drafted by me, will remain in her current position at the same salary she received in her previous assignment in the superintendent's office. as long as she remains in this position. There would be no reduction in her salary Should she voluntarily change positions, her salary would be computed in accordance with District policies and procedures on such voluntary transfers. Should she be circumstances transferred involuntarily, the nature dictating such involuntary transfer of and District's practices, polices and procedures will apply. the the Ms. diu\\pcud\\waiker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 2 Forbes will receive any raises she would have otherwise received in her prior position and her personnel file would not reflect any negative conduct or performance as it relates to the transfer from the prior position to the current position. Mr. Don Phillips and Ms. Debra Hamilton will be compensated the difference in pay (for the 1995-96 school year only) in the compensation they would have received had they remained employees of the LRSD when compared to the compensation received as employees of Laidlaw Transit. Please recall that the calculations on these amounts have not yet become final and the final authority to agree to this resolution can only be granted after those computations have been received and considered. in The District takes the position that Mr. Christopher Watson is different position from Mr. Phillips and Ms. Hamilton. Further, it is our information that Mr. Watson did not suffer any difference in pay from moving from the LRSD to Laidlaw. I have talked to Ms. Joy Springer regarding this matter as well as the others to be discussed herein on several occasions, whether ray information is correct. I will verify Ms. Debbie Jackson was formerly employed in the Information Services Department of the District. She was involuntarily transferred to the Purchasing Department at the same pay and benefits. It is my understanding that she voluntarily accepted another position with lower pay at McClellan High School. Under the circumstances, any loss in compensation is the result of her own actions. However, Joy and I did discuss the possibility of Ms. Jackson going back to Purchasing at the same pay as she had received in Information Services. I will check to determine whether the position is still open and whether she can be given a definite job description and job title. If so, it would be my recommendation to the District that she be allowed to return to that position. Ms. Zola Tyiska was reassigned by Brady Gadberry to her position at Forest Heights Junior High School. However, subsequent to the reassignment, Ms. Tyiska submitted a letter of resignation due to an illness, now become moot. Accordingly, it appears that this matter has Mr. Ernest Mason, a custodian in the District, has requested a head custodian position. that his health has played However, it is my current understanding consistently opening schools a on role time in preventing him as head custodians from are a dttna\\pcud\\wBlker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 3 required to do. Accordingly, there are currently no head custodian positions available in the District which would not entail the duty to open schools on a consistent and regular basis. It is also mv understanding that the nature of his illness would likewise prevent him from timely notifying others when he would be the school himself. It is also my - - - - unable to open . , It will be my recommendation to the District that we continue seeking an appropriate position for Mr. should an appropriate position come available, Mr' assigned to it. ' ' - Mason and, come available, Mr. Mason be Notwithstanding this recommendation, I must advise are continued concerns recardina Mr. Mason's you that there are, continued concerns regarding Mr. Mason's Accordingly, my recommendation would not constitute waiver of any steps or actions the District must take, should his absentee circumstances war-rAnt such. absenteeism. a if any, Please consider the recommendations notify me should you have any concerns. I am making herein and _ - - Otherwise, I will attempt to move forward and obtain final authority from the District resolve the matters as I have outlined herein to Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. JLM/dtw cc: Mr. Brady Gadberry diam\\pa*d\\w*lkar. 116 Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD AttorneyOffice 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 October 29, 1995 Ms. Stephanie Johnson 8701 Interstate 30 Apt. 206 Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Stephanie: 1 should have written this letter to you right after the election. Please forgive me for being slow to tell you how much I will miss you as a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education. Although your tenure on the board was brief, it was nonetheless very significant. You displayed a quick grasp of the issues and a sincere, steadfast concern for the welfare of the children, parents, and employees of the district. You stepped in during a difficult time in the districts history, but you did not flinch when making touch decisions nor did you waver when taking a stand for your convictions. As both the desegregation monitor and a fellow citizen, 1 greatly appreciate the service you gave to our community as a board member. Although this phase of your public service is over for now, 1 know youll continue to serve in other roles because your heart is ftill of love and you will always care for others. Thank you for all youve done to make our town a better place for all of us. Your have my sincere best wishes for every success. Please dont ever hesitate to call on me whenever 1 can be of any help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. ' ! . 'f 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 i October 30, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: Tliank you for your October 13, 1995 memo regarding measurement of achievement disparity. I appreciate hearing from you, but Im concerned about certain aspects of the memo and want to clear up some apparent misunderstandings. According to your memo, which refers to an ODM report on achievement disparity dated June 21, 1995, \"The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another.\" Although 1 think 1 understand the purpose of your correspondence, 1 must point out that the sentence which we wrote out has been taken out of context and also misapplied in your memo. First, the statement to which you referred is not a report conclusion. The sentence appears not in our Summary and Conclusions section, but rather in an introduction subsection entitled \"Report Purpose and Scope.\" Rather than representing a conclusion, the sentence is merely an expository statement to which the previous sentences in the same paragraph are antecedent. Secondly, we wrote the sentence as part of our explanation of how we presented information in the report. The comment addressed one specific test (the SAT 8), a certain time period, and the particular way in which we chose to present the test data in that report. We were pointing out that the SAT 8 data can be disaggregated and compared in a variety of ways and in various combinations, such as by grade level, subtest category, or complete battery. We were acknowledging that the way in which we presented our SAT 8 analysis was not the only possible way to do so, nor did we assert that our way was superior to other ways in which SAT 8 data might be presented. Also, according to your memo, you were keeping me informed by relating that youre working with ADE to determine an acceptable method of comparing test data. Gene Wilhoit told me many months back that the meetings on the topic of testing were initiated by the LRSD over a year agoPage Two October 30, 1995 and have focused on far more than simply comparative methodology. The discussions obviously have been sparked by the districts concern that it will very soon face the obligation to begin repaying millions of dollars in loan money if it should fail to remediate the achievement disparity between the races, as set forth in the settlement agreement. The parties are certainly free to discuss all aspects of measuring achievement disparity. As a matter of fact, our report points out that standardized testing is only one of several ways by which student achievement can be evaluated. Nevertheless, the settlement agreement is clear as to the method by which the parties agreed to measure student achievement. Until such time as the parties might propose and the Court might approve a change in that provision, the terms of the settlement-and the standard for measuring the disparity gap-are binding. Although 1 have no objection whatsoever to the parties weighing the various means by which to gauge student progress, 1 believe the parties would be wise to heed the closing paragraphs of our recent report on achievement disparity, and to concentrate their efforts and resources accordingly: Regardless of how academic progress is measured, if students are not making the academic headway our community requires of them, and the desegregation plans promised, then the districts are obligated to find out why and to alter their programs and approaches as necessary. .. (Tlhey must pay particular attention to assessing the links between programs, process, and results. To determine whether and how to change strategies for closing the achievement gap, the parties must thoroughly evaluate program and service concepts, the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation in all schools, and the extent to which the results represent steady progress toward the goals. Without such analysis, it will be impossible for the parties to make well-informed decisions that keep the faith and boost all children toward success. Conclusions, page 29.) (ODM Report on Achievement Disparity, Summary and Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Hank Williams Ed Jackson 3CC. Zz/dD-vOffice 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) 3710100 Date: November 8, 1995 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams I ,1 Brown ODM 1995-96 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1995-96 school year, which are listed on the enclosure. As is our custom, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from both the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a foUow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment, and the LRSD incentive schools. A few of the topics we will address appeared on our monitoring list for the last school year, but we are not initiating them until this year, such as the specialty programs in the PCSSD and the secondary LRSD schools with magnet programs. At the conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as double fimding of the incentive schools\nothers, such as that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and, therefore, lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged front previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument we've used in the past. As usual, we will review the guide with your staff before beginning formal monitoring so you'll know what we are looking for.November 8, 1995 As our monitoring timetable develops, we will notify you so you can plan accordingly. We are trying to establish a schedule that avoids dates which would conflict with the schedule of other monitoring groups, such as the Biracial Committees. As you're aware, some of our monitoring guides include charts that reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this data from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms or charts, please send the 1995-96 nmfiles QU all schools to QDM by November 22. 1995 if you have not yet forwarded that information to my office. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. We're looking forward to being in your schools during the year ahead. cc: Bobby Acklin Bill Bowles Russ Mayo Counsel of Record1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Radal balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non\u0026lt;ertified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and closing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the racial balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondary schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in the PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSD1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Racial balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non-certified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and dosing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the radal balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondaiy schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in e PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSDef i^-. \u0026gt;\u0026gt;: -r--' \n J- 1 fV ' c -''PH BttEf r 'oLn-' ANT , SEfty ICES { 12:05 No.003 P.02 i I TEL : 501- 0-4027 Nov 08,9 Little Rock School District November 8, 1995 Mb. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Brown: I 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together Implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education, Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.in., November 9, 1995, in 1 apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as * - - to you. a result of that meeting will be forwarded Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. sincerely yours, I h ug:i^s C. Eaton RECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invito 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73801  (501 \u0026gt;884-8000 \"f i I \u0026lt; - n '7. I 1I t I ! II I  -J 'i i   4111  ff TTIM r- I-  if I'- I.. I in?.  f[ i. 3 NCV- I- SUSAN W.BRIGHT District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: FAX fiO. 5013246576. Novemter 4,1995 c, . 0 -^:  Oi: '^r Per our phone conversation Friday, October 27,1 appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding how John Walker is handling various issues that involve the Little Rock School Di,strict. As an involved parent of children in the school district, I have ..  grown weary of xMr Walker's arguing for arguments'sake instead of truly protecting the interests of the children and parents whom he claims to be representing. 1 realize that you have a ven- dtflicult job tn overseeing the desegregation proces.s in the LRSD and am grateful that you take into consideration parent opinion when making decisions that affect all of die children in the district. I ioofc forward to corresponding with you about other LRSD matters in the future. Sincerely, Laura Doramus i v 4 I? ' 'f- 't'it .'S 'FAv Q\u0026gt;rc/\\u\u0026gt;^ A S'** 4\n.fi' r  :\nb\nV J  U'lU'^  I X .y * ---------- y '  ' Tor :resT' LETLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation RSQ'Pn h 2 2 1995 ^1 lii(j/lnj MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: h'krtrj } 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report c ' I iec - Tfsty Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney /^Office of Desegregation MonitoringA JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHD^TON 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) 3744187 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monaoruia November 21, 1995 Delivered Via Facsimile 501-324-2281 Dr. Russell Mayo Student Assignment Center Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Mayo\nWould you please share with me the District's policy which authorizes you to charge $.50 a copy for copies made under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Sincerely, /John W. Walker y JWH: krd cc\nAnn BrownFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H, FRIDAY (1922-1994) ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 November 21, 1995 RECEIVED KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE\"TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H, TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY NOV 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation wioniioring COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (50n 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL Sc STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol Sc Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's 1995-96 First Quarter Status Report which was filed with the Court on Tuesday, November 21, 1995. I'n By agreement, three copies of the above documents are being delivered to Mrs. Brown and two copies are being delivered to Mr. Walker. diaiH\\pcss\u0026lt;I\\filing4.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown November 21, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo Dr. Ed Jackson diana\\pcssd\\filing-4.)U'FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION district court eastern district ARKANSAS KOV 2 f MS JAMES VJ. McCORMACK, CLERK By\n__________ DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVFO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV ? 1 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS VS . LRSDs 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the first quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the first dianaXpcssdisuius. 1st -1-quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT erry L. Malorie Bar I. D. No. 85096 diana\\pcs5d\\sanis. 1st -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been hand-delivered on November , 1995, upon the following\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets 2^' diana\\pcssd\\satus. Isi Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street _____ Little Rock, AR 722 ry L. Malone -3- ^6^ A a 6\u0026lt;r f\\loy* Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court \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_1603","title":"Court filings concerning magnet school applications, school district project management tools, and Racial Balance Monitoring Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning magnet school applications, school district project management tools, and Racial Balance Monitoring Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1603"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_931","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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":["1995/1996"],"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 statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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/931"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nDate: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Behavior Document --------------- Class Period:- ----- Notice#: Teacher: Student: ------ --------------- ---------------- Reason for Behavior Document: [ ] Class tardiness [ ] Excessive talking [ ] Lack of class materials [ ] Sleeping in class [ ] Eating in class [ ] Cutting class Action Taken: [ ] Student conference [ ] Parent conference [ ] Parent contact [ ] Counseling [ ] Disrespect for teachers [ ] Disrespect for students [ ] Improper care of school property [ ] Disobedience to classroom rules [ ] Overdue library book - second notice [ ] Not doing assignments [ ] Other: _______ _ [ ] Privileges denied [ ] Detention hall [ ] Other Parent's signature: _______________________________ _ Student's signature: ______________________________ _ White copy - Parent Canary copy - Principal Pink copy - Teacher 1995-96 B-15 REF: DlS()211? Disciplin.:1ry B~ferral--Sururuary of Suspensions u/201~2 Sui\nPc:ILf\nion::\nfor 1881 - 1992 ' :'3chol\n~- ---SAC--- --HOME--- BOYS. CLOE --TOTAL-- B NB B NB B NB B NB n 1 2 l~C1l~TLllT TTLE f\u0026lt;OC'K HlGH :.\nc 112 62 12 2 29 6 153 7 (J n 1:., Wlli'l'H LITTLE ROCK HIGH SC :\no 1 lUl 15 9 32 ~ 348 119 U'.24 RIDGEf-\u0026lt;OAMDI DDLE SCHOOL 144 117 18 7 23 10 185 134 U2b LAKEWC10M1JI DDLE SCHO(iL 198 33 i:i 4 41 r~ 245 43 020 [\u0026lt;USE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 284 166 12 2ti 8 322 175 0:30 BAl-dNG Ch:OSS CENTER 1 1 031 AMHUYb :LEMENTARSYC HOOL 22 ~i 22 3 032 LAKEWOCiEDL EMENTARYSC HOO 5 1 6 11 1 033 H,lUI-IEl- 'ARK ELEMENTARYSC H 4 [l ,,-, 12 5 03r\u0026gt; :::iEVENTH:3 Thh:ET ELEMENTARY 13 13 037 LYNCHD HIVE ELEMENTARYSC 1 8 ~~ 8 3 038 CENTi\u0026lt;AL b:LEMENTARY 3 10 4 13 4 040 Mi:AJJOWP ARK ELEMENTARYSC 7 2 7 r, ,\u0026lt;. 041 NCRTHH EIGHTS ELEMENTARY 3 1 16 8 19 10 042 r.1-\u0026lt;ESTWC1EuLDh :MENTAl:\u0026lt;SYC HO 3 1 17 1 20 2 043 PARK HILL ELEMENTARYSC HO 9 b 9 8 044 p JKl!: vu:w b:LEMENTAl:\u0026lt;SCYH O 4 1 9 13 1 04t.\u0026gt; BcLWCJ(Jib\":JL b:MENTAHSYC HOOL 3 \"-:,  3 3 046 GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYSC HOO 11 1 11 1 047 f, (J:~ b: CITY ELEMENTARYSC HO 5 21 7 26 7 048 fNDlAN HT LL:~ ELEMENTARYs 2 4 l 6 1 048 l-\u0026lt;EUWCiOELDE MENTARYSC HOOL 8 l 8 l Dl3Tl:\u0026lt;ll:'l' TUTAL.~ 1039 479 96 27 320 87 1455 5~3 EXPULSIONS FOR 1991-92 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL GRADE/RACE/SEX OFFENSE Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Male wt.:apon Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Mi6le weapon Rose City Md. 8 Black/Male weapon l~LRH-East 9 Black/Female weapon NLRH-East 10 Black/Male Prohibited Conc:luct BLK/WHT DISTnICT POLICY 1 0 :E'BJ 0 0 FBM 0 0 FBO 4 0 FBP PROHIBITED CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIONS AND DISORDERLY ACTIVITIES DRUGS AND ALCOHOL WEAPONSA ND DANGEROUSIN STRUMENTS 5 0 Total: 5 INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME. ____ _ I Location or Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# CQMPLJJ.STN.lC'tlM.:mr.OiiMA,t{()~QT'W'.2':.c?oNM'.1':.t\n.A::lNet'.Je'/wVtIwC\u0026lt;'l' IM:.~JU\\t\nAn,Q,~f'.\n::t\ny::2Lust Name: I Fint: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I Dl.JSSN: DOD: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: T Race: l Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hehtht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Hl!t: W2t: Plwsical Descriution: Ph\\'Sical Descriotion: Em1loyee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlo,ee I I Student I I Other I SUSPltct'JDUltNb.ANTiiNPORMATlONM.%M@.%t@:SAU'WSMPWEC.t'l'I/ DEJl'ENDAN1JmokMAnoNWl@tH1iH@MLast Name: I First: I MI: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: l DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Eves: H2t: W2t: Phnical Decsrh,tion: Phvsical Descriution: Emulo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlovee I I Student I I Other I wrtNtSSffillORMATION%.tii?).:\n.g\nj\u0026lt;.'\n.'.i\u0026amp;i4~(.F.'./?~:~:w:-1~m.f.is2s\n:\nitflfN%F1~O .itMATiON:~.\n:~\nh~L.:J12\n,_::..\n: :\n\n:S\u0026gt;:Last Name: I First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: I Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Ens: He:t: W2t: Ph:-!sicaDl escri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emulovee I I Student I I Other I Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: Pro1\u0026gt;ert~D amae.e I I Gane Incident I Personal Iniurv I I Tbcft/Robberv I School Pro11erty Dama2e I I Dru2s I Wca11ons Violation I I Other I \\::\n::\n:::::::\n~:(::::=/f:f-t:)A::\n~0~1tC~-\n-~t1~\n.?~:-~\n\\\\?)~~\n.:~rtt?l:Jt)=A.:.~t f~t\\i~::/fb:l~tA~:thtsSY-iO:~F:f-fJ~NitC::Jdl~)lfl~tt~:}::J:t~:.::}::\\.f:~::~-:~::\n:_=.. . . \u0026lt;'''''  w,::g:i\u0026gt;.:::r,-.J.w i:  + w m@+%1.ao111JrtV1\u0026gt;AMAc.:Nvo.tvE.::a@wtwA:\u0026gt;w neYwm,igw@wiI+@::M#\u0026gt;Descri11tlon: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Suuerlntendent I I School I I Safctv/Securitv Office I I Other I Form Pre11nred B,: I Date: I Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POUCE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRJNCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENf AFFAIRS omCE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE_. ____ _ INC. DATE_. _____ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME._ ____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address of Inc: I Phone# coMPLAtNTMCTJMilNFOaMA'tlQNMIM!MMiW::tOid~/Ml.AMlN!@'t'IfVfWICW'l' IMUWOlU\\fA'rlQN-@d:\\N'\\tMWMMMFiMl\\ Lust Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Adtlress: AtldreH: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOD: / I Race: I Sex: DOB: Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Hei2ht: Wirt: Hair Color: Ph~sical Descriution: Phnical Descriution: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: Em11lo1ee I 1 Student l l Other SUSPECT/DJ:PBNDANl\\ffiia'ORMA.TlONiiWA@dMtM.iMSUMSMP#EfaCifT /DEFENfiMtr:mroRMAttoN:MtiM\u0026amp;t%%WMW%Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wirt: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!t: Wirt: Ph\\'Sical Decsriution: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo1ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I T Student I I Other Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Adtlress: Atltlress: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: I I I Race: I Sex: DOB: / T Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heieht: Wl!t: Hair Color: Ens: Het: Wirt: Ph'\\sical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other    .. i :\n:\u0026lt; s\" 5 t!TP\\ + \u0026gt;TJA hN Y : 'llli'. Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: . \u0026lt;\u0026lt; , x \n.= ,,,~ . .,v~.n: i\u0026gt;h,\u0026lt;= ~j I' NEIH .. t,1/:?  i +\u0026amp;\u0026lt;\"'  \n,\\\n.\n:,,_:\n::'.:''''''-i~c,:i::~:\"\"~}Pro11ert1D ama2e Gan2I ncident Personal lniurv Thcft/Robberv School Pro11erty Dama2e Drues Weanons Violation Other \" 'Ii ,,,,.,myy, \"'\"\"?-l'KI!'JH,%%\"::1:'==r = rxwvn.,,x. :M'.\",. .. ,.   ,.... mu------\"\"'+nI ,.,.,.,.,.,, :::\ntn:At:\u0026gt;\\ '.\n-:t:'?JIT:7. ....\" ..\". .' , Descrh,tion: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Su11erlntendent I I School I I Safetv/Securitv Office I Other Form Pre11nred Bv: I Dnte: I Time: WlUIE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPAIITMENf PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CALL TIME. _____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# COMPI.Al8'l'NIC'tlMfflll'Ot(MA}1y'lrOn:N2\u0026lt;Y'\u0026gt;.YEfW '.'2:c\\o}M PllAlNTNIC'flf.{:tmt()JtMA'l2'lON\\? :?::ES:rnt:\u0026lt;Lust Name: First: I MI: Last Name: ( First: I MI: Address: Addreu: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Heieht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Wet: Phnical Descrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlovee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I l Student l l Other SUSPECTIDEFBND.ANtriiNWRMATJON{ii\u0026amp;.M:HWM:!@SUMS\\tP%E%CMT/fDf EJi'ENfiANT'INFORMATION\\WMMNK@WHLast Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wet: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!:t: Wet: Ph~sical Decsrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I l Student l l Other WITNESSJN li'OitMATIONMt@\u0026lt;c tt\u0026lt; (j: ':~ EL'.\u0026gt;L':SfW\nrtNESSI NFOIU\\IA'.tlO'N. { 't\u0026gt;\u0026gt; ::ttLt::nnxLttW\u0026lt;\nY Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wl!:t: Hair Color: Phnical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descriution: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other E\n:.,.,\n.}S\u0026lt;\n:/A? \\bi,/C{hi .\\ VltntCLI.JNl()R.MA'J'iQN\"',., ,.,,,fr~, \\tt:Le,,,-~ . .. .\n,:..,. ,. ..:.: Make/Model: Color: License No: M  ~ \" )\u0026lt;.wWiX \u0026lt;.:\u0026lt;  / ~  -~ Prouert,D ama2e Gnni!I.n cident Personall niurv Theft/Robberv School Pro1,ertv Damaee Drues Weanons Violation Other Descrintlon: Cost: SeriaVID: Police I I Suuerlntcndent I I School I I Safctv/Sccuritv Office I I Other Form Prei,nred By: I Dnte: 1 Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STIJDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Suspension Student's Name _________________ Student ID# ____________ _ School ______________ Grade ___ _ Date ---------------- Address of Parent or Guardian: _____________________________ _ Dear ____________ _ Your child has been involved in the following incident: ----------------------- This letter is to infonn you that the following disciplinary action has been taken concerning your child. Beginning ___________ , your child will be assigned to the following program for ____ day(s):      Boys/Girls Club Suspensions for students in grades seven through twelve will be served at the North Little Rock Boys/Girls Club located at 13th and Main Streets directly across the street from the Alternative School. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m. Transportation to the Boys/Girls Club Suspension program is the family's responsibility. Elementary Alternative School Suspensions for students in grades Kindergarten through six will be served at: School:_ ___________ Location: ____________ _ Time: __________ . Transportation to the Alternative School suspension class is provided. See attached bus schedule. Saturday School Suspensions for students in grades four through twelve will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will dismiss at 12:00 noon. This assignment is effective only on the date shown above. Failure to attend Saturday School will result in further disciplinary action. See attached Saturday School infonnation sheet. Student Assignment Class Suspensions/SAC classes for students in grades seven through twelve are located on each secondary school campus. The class will begin and dismiss within the school's nonnal bell schedule. Home suspensions will be served in the students' homes. If a suspension exceeds four (4) days (not counting today), then it will be reviewed, if a parent or guardian so requests, by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. A copy of the policies of the Board of Education pertaining the suspensions and expulsions is available for examination at each school and at the Administrative Office .  Parent: Please retain this copy for your records. If you have further questions, please contact the school at Principal Assistant Principal/Administrative Assistant Whitec opy-Parentc opy Yellow copy-Studenct opy Pink copy-Officec opy Goldenrodc opy-StudentA ffairsO ffice 1995-96 B-16 I 1 l ,. 1~93 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS DISTRICT LEVEL 1995-96 FRANCICAL J. JACKSON DIRECTORO F STUDENTA FFAIRS Ref: DIS032 flat .. , r./1 /o, Time: 15:26:38 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions r\u0026gt;Tn'l'n (\"'I' r.~r. Prom AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ===============a======= -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======--------aaaacaaaaa==E=ccmccaaasacc============= 09 S.A.C. 869 46.6\\ 460 24.7\\ 411 22.0\\ 126 6.8\\ 1866 429 252 231 76 988 10 HOME SUSP. 236 50.8\\ 106 22.8\\ 103 22.2\\ 20 4.3\\ 465 166 73 78 17 334 11 BOYS CLUB 133 61.6\\ 44 20.4\\ 31 14.4\\ 8 3.7\\ 216 95 36 28 8 167 12 E. I. C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 30~ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 7 87.5\\ 0 .0\\ 1 12.5\\ 0 .0\\ 8 7 0 1 0 8 ================-------====------====--=-------------------~---=-=== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==m============== 09 S.A.C. 1043 51.2\\ 445 21.8\\ 410 20.1\\ 140 6.9\\ 2038 450 232 224 89 995 10 HOME SUSP. 141 61.8\\ 42 18.4\\ 42 18.4\\ 3 1.3\\ 228 99 32 31 2 164 11 BOYS CLUB 371 66.1\\ 102 18.2\\ 75 13.4\\ 13 2.3\\ 561 214 67 53 13 347 12 E. I. C. 1540 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2598 554 231 209 42 1036 17 EXPULSION 2 40.0\\ 1 20.0\\ 0 .0\\ 2 40.0\\ 5 2 l 0 2 5 ================------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON ===========================a============ -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================~-----====---------=-=----------------------------------=- 09 S.A.C. 174 20.0 \\ 15- 3.3-\\ 1- .2-\\ 14 11.l \\ 172 21 20- 7- 13 7 10 HOME SUSP. 95- 40.3-\\ 64- 60.4-\\ 61- 59.2-\\ 17- 85.0-\\ 237- 67- 41- 47- 15- 170- 11 BOYS CLUB 238 178.9 \\ 58 131.8 \\ 44 141. 9 \\ 5 62.5 \\ 345 119 31 25 5 180 12 E.I.C. 1362 765.2 \\ 421 619.l \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2289 431 176 168 37 812 17 EXPULSION 5- 71. 4-\\ l 100.0 \\ 1- 100.0-\\ 2 200.0 \\ 3- 5- l 1- 2 3- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:49 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 510 243 80 57 89 57 0 0 5 5 53.9\\ 60.6\\ 7l.8\\ .o, 83.3\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 207 128 12 ll 21 19 0 0 0 0 21.9\\ 9.l\\ 16.9\\ .o, .o, l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 470 220 20 18 207 116 0 0 2 2 50.2\\ 60.6\\ 7l.l\\ .o, 66 .7\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 189 105 7 5 41 31 0 0 l l 20.2\\ 2l.2\\ 14 .l\\ .o, 33.3\\ COMPARISON -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 180 109 36 32 9 8 0 0 l l 19.0\\ 27 .3\\ 7.3\\ .o, 16.7\\ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 192 ll0 4 3 36 28 0 0 0 0 20.5\\ 12.l\\ 12.4\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 49 31 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 5.2\\ 3.0\\ 4.0\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 85 52 2 l 7 7 0 0 0 0 9.l\\ 6.l\\ 2.4\\ .o, .o, 946 511 132 104 124 89 0 0 6 6 936 487 33 27 291 182 0 0 3 3 ====================--------------=--=--=-----------===--=----------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =================--=---=-=-====--======-------------=-------------------= 09 S.A.C. 40- 7.8-\\ 18- 8.7-\\ 12 6.7 ' 36 73.5 ' 10- 23- 23- l 21 24- 10 HOME SUSP. 60- 75.0-\\ 5- 4l. 7-\\ 32- 88.9-\\ 2- 50.0-\\ 99- 39- 6- 29- 3- 77- ll BOYS CLUB 118 132.6 ' 20 95.2 ' 27 300.0 ' 2 40.0 ' 167 59 12 20 2 93 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 ' 0 . 0 ' 0 .o ' 0 .o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3- 60.0-\\ l 100.0 ' l- 100.0-\\ 0 .0 ' 3- 3- l l- 0 3- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/96 Time: 15:26:46 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====-======---------------------------=------------------------========= 09 S.A.C. 359 39.0% 253 27.5% 231 25.1% 77 8.4% 920 186 124 122 45 477 10 HOME SUSP. 106 43.3% 75 30.6% 49 20.0% 15 6.1% 245 68 49 30 12 159 11 BOYS CLUB 44 47.8% 23 25.0% 22 23.9% 3 3.3% 92 38 17 20 3 78 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================---------------=-------------------------------==-----==== 09 S.A.C. 573 52.0% 256 23.2% 218 19.8% 55 5.0% 1102 230 127 114 37 508 10 HOME SUSP. 5 41. 7% 4 33.3% 3 25.0% 0 .0% 12 5 4 3 0 12 11 BOYS CLUB 164 60.7% 61 22.6% 39 14.4% 6 2.2% 270 98 36 25 6 165 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 2 0 0 0 2 2 aa:asaa:cca=c=aaca:caDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaac COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #STU #STU #STU ========================--===------------------------------------=-= 09 S.A.C. 214 59.6 \\ 3 1.2 \\ 13- 5.6-\\ 22- 28.6-\\ 182 44 3 8- 8- 31 10 HOME SUSP. 101- 95.3-\\ 71- 94.7-% 46- 93.9-% 15- 100.0-% 233- 63- 45- 27- 12- 147- 11 BOYS CLUB 120 272.7 % 38 165.2 % 17 77 .3 \\ 3 100.0 \\ 178 60 19 5 3 87 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2- 100.0-% 0 .o \\ 0 . 0 \\ 2 200.0 \\ 0 2- 0 0 2 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:42 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ====-==========--=---=-----======--------=------------=-----------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================----------=--------=-==--====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. so 56.8\\ 19 21. 6\\ 18 20.5\\ l l.l\\ 88 41 13 16 l 71 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 309_ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 9 9 5 - 9 6 ========================-------------------------------=-------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================-=----------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 115 63.2\\ 31 17.0\\ 35 19.2\\ 1 .5\\ 182 75 23 25 1 124 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1539 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2597 553 231 209 42 1035 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============-=-=-------=------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ===================s============================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==================a===s 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 65 130.0 \\ 12 63.2 \\ 17 94.4 \\ 0 .o \\ 94 34 10 9 0 53 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1361 764.6 \\ 421 619.1 \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2288 430 176 168 37 811 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 . 0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 'ate: 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 21 chocl: 012 Analysis o~ Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 --------------------=-======================================-----------========= i 9 9 4 - 9 5 --------------=--================================================================ -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----BF------ # REF -PCT/TOT w STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -=============================================================-----============= 5.\n,, - 163 58. bi. 51 18. 3i. 54 19. 4% 10 3. 6i: 278 87 41 36 7 171 . \\_' HOMi:: Si.}SF 21 70. 0 .,,. 1 3. 3'1/. 7 23. 3i: 1 - ,.j_ .~..\",,'. 30 19 1 7 1 28 BOYS CLUB 41 -91. 1.,,. 2 'L 47. 2 4.4'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 45 21 2 \"2 0 25 E I. ,-_ -. 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n- EXPi_,iL.5 I ON 4 100_ 0'1/. 0 . O't. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 4 4 0 0 0 4 ======~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 .: --==:..:=---================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====~=-====~~=======-==-======================================================= S. ~,.. - 192 59. 6'1/. 40 12_ 4'1/. 76 23. 6'1/. 14 4. 3i. 322 98 30 46 1 i 185 HCH'1:= s:_1s~ s: 81. 8% i 9. 1i': 1 9_ n: 0 0% 11 - 1 1 0 9 B ~\n-:UJE iOi 82. 8% 5 4. 1 '1/. 15 12. 3% 1 Bi. 122 5i 5 10 1 67 E. J.. C 0 O,.\n0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 E::\u0026lt;PU\n_SIQt--1 50. 0% 1 50. 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0% 2 1 i 0 0 2 ------------------------------------------=--=---------------------------------- COMPARISON : -==-=========================================================================== ------Bn------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----=~======~=====--=--======================================================== f-. ,.. ~- 29 17. 8 I, 11- 21. 6-% 22 40. 7 I. 4 40. 0 i. 44 11 1 i- 10 4 14 HOM.:: SUSP. 12- 57. 1-i\n0 0 i\n6- 95_ 7-'1/. 1- 100. 0-' 19- 12- 0 6- 1- 19- BOV=: Cl.-LiB 60 146. 3 i: 2 150. 0 I, 13 650. 0 I. 1 100. 0 .,,. 77 ..... ,.:,_~, 3 8 1 42 - 0 0 I, 0 - ~ ~ - 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 i: 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 EX?ULSiON ~- 75. 0-i: l 100. 0 I, 0 0 i: 0 0 i\n2- 3- 1 0 0 2- .ef: DIS0325 AnEol1Jsis of Disc ip l ina'T'IJ Actions 6/13/96 by School 15:56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY chool 013 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ---==========================================-==--==========--------------====== l 9 9 4 - 9 5 =---------=-======================--======--==--=-----=-==-----------------====== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NB'F----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------=-===============================================------========----- S. A C 347 51. 9% 156 23. 4% 126 18. 9% 39 5. 8'Y. 668 i58 88 73 24 343 HDl'ic SUSF. 58 e~ .., I. 4'i. 1i iO. 9% 29 28. 7,\n3 3. O'Y. 10i 37 iO 25 3 75 BOYS CLUB 48 60. 8' 19 24. 1 ' 7 8. 9' 5 6. 3' 79 36 17 6 5 64 E. ' .-. 0 0% 0 0' 1 0' 0 Oi'\n0 0 0 0 0 0 EiP:JL..5lON 1 50. 0% 0 0% i 50. Qi'\n0 0% 2 l 0 1 0 2 ====~=========================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ---=================--=-=====================================--------============ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --~====================-==========================================-=-============ S. H , 278 45. 3'i. 149 24.3% 116 18. 9 71 11. 6'1/. 614 12~ 75 65 42 305 HDMi:: SvSF 1 3~. 3'i. i 33. 3 1 33. 3 0 . O 3\nL 1 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 68 6i. 3% 21 18. 9 17 15. 3'1/. 5 4. 5' 111 5.-, C. 17 15 5 89 E I.C 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100. O't. 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 1 1 0 0 0 1 - ---===:====-=--------============================================================ COMPARISON ~~==================-==========================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+1-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ____\n ======-=-------------=================================================--=- 5 A C. 69- 19. 9-i'\n7- 4. 5-'1/. 10- 7. 9-'1/. 32 82. 1 '1/. 54- 35- 13- 8- 18 38- HOM:: SI_ISP 57- 98. r:_\n~ ,. 10- 90. 9-' 28- 96. 6-'1/. 3- 100. 0-'Y. 98- 36- 9- 24- 3- 72- BOr~ C:...\\.'F 2c, 41 7 I. ~, 10. 5 ., ,:.. ,. 10 142. 9 'Y. 0 0 r. 32 le 0 9 0 25 - ' ... 0 (, I. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 /. 0 0 '1/. 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 % 1- 100. o- 0 0 'Y. 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School ,ime: 15: 56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY _ch oo l 020 NLRHS-WEST ANNEX M-0W'\\fr b=-==================================\ni,~========================================= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -=-----------============================:ac=:===================================== -----Br-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----# REF PCT/TOT w STU -===========================================================--==--==========:=== 5. A C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDr1i:: SUSP. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l BOVS CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O'l. 0 0 0 -o 0 0 E. I. C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 - EiPU-SIOr-i 0 O' 0 O 0 O 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~====~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =-===========-================================================--------============ -----BM------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 5. A r 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 100. 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 0 0 1 0 1 HOM:i: 3USC:1 11 50. o\n,: 7 31. 8'1/. 4 18. 2i: 0 . Ot. 22 11 5 3 0 19 BOYS C1-.UB 38 60. 3'Y. 20 31. 7'1/. 4 6. 3'Y. 1 1. 61. 63 25 14 4 1 44 E - { .L. ~ 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . Ot. 0 . Ot. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXP!JL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 --=-=====~~--------===========================================================-- COMPARISON ~~==~=~========================================================================~ -----EM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=---==~==============-=--=========================================================== s F-.\n., 0 .0 I. 0 .0 % 1 100. 0 - 0 .0 '1/. 1 C, 0 1 0 1 HLil'iE SU3P 11 1100. 0 ,: 7 700.0 'Y. 4 400.0 'Y. 0 .0  22 11 5 3 0 19 BC!YS ,: ... iJE 38 3800. 0 I. 20 2000. 0 ,: 4 400. 0 I. 1 100.0 t. 63 25 14 4 1 44 -- - '-. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 - 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:x\n:uLSION 0 .0 I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS0325 :\u0026gt;ate: 6/ !3/96 ,ime: 15: 56: 30\nc hool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGERDAD MIDDLE SCHOOL =--------------========================================------------------=----=~ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ---------------=============================================--================== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NIF ----# RE'F PCT/TOT # STU ===========================================================---------============ :9 S. A C. 131 30. Oi:. 128 29. 4'Y. 122 28. Oo/\n55 12. 6'1/. 436 73 57 53 32 215 ~0 HOi'i:i:: SUSF. 72 39. 81: bi 33. 7'Y. 34 18. 8'1/.. 14 7. n\n181 4i 38 19 11 109 11 BOVS CLUB 18 54. 5 4 12. 1 'Y. 8 24. 2'Y. 3 9. 1 'Y. 33 16 4 7 3 30 . ~- E. I. c. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 - O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ..:.7 ~X?ULSIO~-. i 100. Qi'\n0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. i i 0 0 0 i ======~==============:=========================================================== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=======================================================-==--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ~====~=========================================================================== _-r 5 f-. --. 2'?5 50. 4'1/. 158 27. 0'1/. 99 16.9% 33 5.61, 585 . ,J .V\"C..., 67 48 ,,,, \"-\"- 242 :i.0 HOME. SUSP. 1 100. Qi\n0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . O 1 1 0 0 0 1 BOVS CLUB 71 54. 6% 39 30. 0% 16 12.3 4 3. 1% 130 42 22 11 4 79 , ,.., ..:..:.. E . I C 0 . Or. 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 :7 EXPULSI  f\\, 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 1 100.0i. 1 0 0 0 1 1 =~~==~========================================================================== COMPARISON\n~~=~--~~============~=========================================================== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REf PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~=====~========================================================================= - ~- A C. 164 125. 2 /a 30 23. 4 /a 23- 18. 9- 22- 40. 0- 149 32 10 5- 10- 27 . '\nHOr-i= SUSP 71- 98. 6-'1/. 61- 100. 0- 34- 100. 0-'1/. 14- 100. 0- 180- 40- 38- 19- 11- 108- BC::,:\nCL...UB 53 294. 4 ,\n. 35 875. 0 '1/. 8 100. 0 '1/. 1 33. 3 /a 97 - 26 18 4 1 49 -- - :i: - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 % 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 . EiPUL.SION 1- 100. 0-i': 0 0 ' 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 'Y. 0 1- 0 0 1 0 .e-f DIS0325 6/13/96 ime 15:56:31 ~hool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ======================--=-===================================================== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~=====:==========-===-------===================================================== -----Br-1------ 4' REr PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =====~================----===========--===------============-====--============ S. A. ~. \\..,. 96 51. 6'1/. 47 25. 3'1/. 41 22. 0'1/. 2 1. 1' Y. 186 55 3i 29 2 117 .. HOM:C: SiJSP. 8 42. io/. 4 21. 1o/. 6 3i. 6% i 5. 3% 19 8 3 6 1 18 BOYS CLUB 8 27. 6'1/. 14 48. 3 7 24. 1 0 0'1/. 29 5 8 6 0 19 2 E. I. -- 0 0o/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 O'l: 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIOr-.i 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 07: 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====================~=====================================------------======== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~========================================--======-===--------------====== -----Bt.\n------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --===~====================--==================================================== S. A .-. 135 63. 1 ., ,. 36 16. 8% 39 18. 2% 4 1. 9% 214 71 28 27 3 129 HOMi: susr=. l 50. Oi\n1 50. 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 2 i 1 0 0 2 BO'{~ C1-UE 47 79. 7i: 5 8. 5'1/. 7 11. 9' 0 . 0o/. 59 28 4 5 0 37 E. I C 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPUi_S ION \\ . .\u0026gt; . 0o/. 0 . 0% 0 . 01 1 100.07. 1 0 0 0 1 1 ::.. :===.:=========================================================================== COMPARISON ===========================================================================~== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE~ PCT(+/-) # REr PCTI+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # STU #\"STU # STU # STU ~~===~=~========================================================================= '\"\" ~- r- 39 40. 6 '1/. 11- 23. 4-% 2- 4. 9-o/. 2 100. 0  28 16 3- 2- 1 12 - HOM:: SUSF 1- 87. 5-'1/. 3- 75. 0-'1/. b- 100. 0- 1- 100. 0- 17- 7- 2- b- 1- 16- BOY.=. C:...JJ\n3q 487. 5 ,\n. 9- 64. 3-'1/. 0 0 o/. 0 0 t. 30 23 4- 1- 0 18 - - - ~. C C, /. 0 0 /. 0 0 o/. 0 0  0 - -- 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 1 0 0 0 1 1 Ref: L\u0026gt;IS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 33 School. 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======:========================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT * REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU 4i STU * STU * STU ====================---==========--========------==-=======----================= Q9 S. A. C. 132 44. 3' 78 26. 2'Y. 68 22. B'Y. 20 6. 7 .,,. 298 bi 37 42 11 151 10 HOM:i:. SUBP. 26 59. i'Y. 9 20. 5 9 20. 5' 0 O'Y. 44 20 8 6 0 34 11 BOYS CLUB 18 60. O'Y. 5 16. 7 7 23. 3'Y. 0 O'Y. 30 17 5 7 0 29 i2 E. I. C. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - E\n,(Pi.JLSIOl\\i i 100. O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. i 1 0 0 0 1 i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -===========================================--====-=========----================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====--===--=--==--------===============----==============-==-================ ,:,~ 5. A - i43 47. 4% 62 20. 5 79 26. 2'Y. 18 6. 0% 302 63 36 38 12 149 10 HOME susi:_ ~- C: 66. 7 .,,. 0 0 .,, . 1 33. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOY::i CLUB 46 60. 5 12 15. B'Y. 16 21. 1' 2 2. 6'Y. 76 29 8 9 2 48 12 E. I. G 0 O 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============================================================================~=-= COMPARISON ---=-:=-====------==-============================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------================================================---- )S -- A -:. 1i 8. 3 ,.\n:\n, 16- 20. 5-'1/. 11 16. 2 '1/. 2- 10. 0-'Y. 4 c~.. . 1- 4- 1 2- ~o HDME SUSP. 24- 92. 3-~~ 9- 100. 0-'Y. 8- 88. 9-'Y. 0 0 'Y. 41- 18- 8- 5- 0 31- - l BOYS c:...uB 28 155. 6 'Y. .I. . 140. 0 'Y. 9 128. 6 '1/. 2 200. 0 '1/. 46 12 3 2 2 19 l2 - I ,,. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- !. ' E1.F-..it..SI ON 1- iOO. 0-'Y. 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- .ef: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School 15: 56:33 From AUGUST Through MAY 030 BARING CROSS CENTER ----------==================================================---=----------====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======================================================================-========= ----- B t\"i------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================---=----============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . 0' 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP. 1 50. Oi'~ 1 50. O 0 . o,: 0 . 0/~ 2 1 1 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 . O 0 . O 0 . O' 0 - . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . o,~ 0 . 01. 0 . Oi~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --================--------======================================-=-==--========= l 9 9 5 - 9 c, -----=~---------------------====----===------------=--==----------------======== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----===-~-=====-================================================================== 5. A .-- 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSF 0 . Ot. i 33. 3'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 2 66. 7 3 0 1 0 1 2 BDYS CLUB 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . O 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---============================================================================== COMPARISON =~===:========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-1 # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------======================================================== S. A. C. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 1- 100. 0-i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I, 2 200.0 I, 1 1- 0 0 1 0 . , BOYS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I, 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 2 ~ I - 0 .0 i\n0 .0 i~ 0 .0 la 0 .0 i\n0 0 0 0 0 0 ~7 EXPULSION 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS0325 6/13/96 15:56:34 ::hool: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 - ---------=========================-=========-=----=====-==-----------------===== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBH----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================-------============ B. A. C. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SvSP. ..\ni 75. Oi: 0 . Oi: 1 25. Oi: 0 .Oi: 4 2 0 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 0 . Ot. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . O't. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 9 34. bi: 9 34. 6Y. 0 30. 8 0 . O't. 26 9 6 6 0 21 E\u0026gt;::PUL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . 01 0 . Qi\n0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====~========================================================================= l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -------------------------------========------==================-=---============== -----EM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------==========----===--=============-================== S. ,=... ... 0 0'1/.. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMt: S:JSP 10 l-:.j-.. ..:,. 3o/. i 8. 3'1/. i 8. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 12 iO i 1 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 01: 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C Se 57. 1 % 13 13. 3'Y. 25 25. 5t. 4 4. 1'Y. 98 38 7 18 4 67 EXPULSION 0 01. 0 Or. 0 O'Y. 0 Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------==:-==========================================================------ COMPARISON -------------------=======================================================------ -----Bt1------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P:T1+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-----==------------=========================================================== s . M. r 0 .0 /. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SiJSP. 7 233. 3 i\n1 100. 0 Y. 0 .0 Y. 0 .0 ., lo 8 8 1 0 0 9 BC:VS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I C 47 .0 i: 4 .0 i\n17 .0 i~ 4 .0 'Y. 72 5 0 17 4 46 Ex.PU ...S.. IOl'l 0 .0 - 0 .0 ., 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 34 3chool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------------=---=-====================-------------------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -------------=-----==-=-====================================--=========-======== -----E t4------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ======================= =================================================== -:\n,c S. f1. '~. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 HOME' SUSP. 9 75. 0% 2 16. 7.,, . 1 8. 3.,, . 0 0% 12 b 2 1 0 9 1 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 . Oo/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ., 4,:\n_ E. I. C. 3 37. Si. 4 50. 0% 0 12. 5' 0 0% 8 3 4 1 0 B ~ / EXPU!...SION 0 o , 0 . O'Y. 0 Oi. 0 Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~======================================================================~== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=============================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ ,:,c: S. A ~ 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 6 66. 71. ~. C. 22. 2% 1 11. 1 '}~ 0 . 01. 9 3 1 1 0 5 11 i3OYS CLUE 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'}~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i2 E. I C 23 47.9% 7 i4.6% 18 37. St. 0 . 0%. 48 . .., 17 3 7 0 27 Ei(PUL.SION 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 . : 0 0 0 0 0 ====~======================================================================COMPARISON --====~======--=-==-============================================================ -----Bl'-1------ -----B'F------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU * STU # STU ~===~======~==================================================================== 09 S. A C 0 0 I. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 3- 33. 3-1. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 I. 3- 3- 1- 0 0 4- 11 BDY::, Ci...UB 0 0 i: 0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.2 r:::. :i: - 20 0 i. 3 0 '1/. 17 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 40 7 1 17 0 19 4. EXPiJt..SION 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 .ef: DIS032S ate: 6ii3/96 15: 56:37 chool: 033 BOONE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==============================================================--=---=--======== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~================================================-===========--====-----======== -----BM------ w REF\" PCT/TOT # STLI -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ===============================================================--=-============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 3 75. 0'1/. 0 . O 1 25. O' 0 . 0/~ 4 3 0 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . 0' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 12 66. 7 2 11. 1 0 22. 2' 0 . 0% 18 9 1 4 0 14 EXPULSION 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ i 9 9 5 - 9 6 --====~==========-===========================================-==-=============== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== 5. A. C. 0 . O' 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM= s, JC\n~ 1i 47.8'1/. 2 8. 7 10 43. 5 0 . O 23 6 2 4 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C 25i 52.8 105 22. 1 ,105 22. 1 14 2.9 475 72 40 27 9 148 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~==~=======-=================================================================== COMPARISON -:=========~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU .\n_-----==-====-------------===============================================-------- S. A ~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I. 0 0 I 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 i-iOM:: SUSP. 8 266. 7 i: 2 200. 0 I 9 900. 0 .,,. 0 0  19 3 2 3 0 8 BOY:: :L..UE 0 0 'l. 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. 0 (i 0 0 0 0 .:. r - -. 239 0 % 103 0 ' 101 0 'l. 14 0 I 457 20 52 101 14 134 E\u0026gt;..PULSION 0 0 ,. 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 i1me: 15: 56: 37 chool 035 Analysis of Discipline~y Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =====================================================================-==-====== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======~========================================================================= -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------===============================---=------------=-==-------------=======- S. A. C. 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0% 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOri:i:: SuSP. 3 37. Si'.: 0 O 5 62. 5~~ 0 Oi'.: 8 3 0 3 0 6 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 o,~ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 5 62. 5 0 0% 0 37. 5% 0 0 8 5 0 1 0 6 EiPULSIOi\\i C, 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~============~================================================================= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=======:======================================================================= . .,. - I-. ,- 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 . c, HOME SUSP . c:: 28. 6\n~ 3 42. 9% c:: 28. 6 0 . 0 7 2 3 1 0 6 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C. 51 55. 4,\n19 20. 7 22 23.91. 0 . Ot. 92 33 11 13 0 57 EXPUi...SION 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi\n0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-~===::.:=-========:======================================================s======-==--- COMPARISON ~~===~=~=:====================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #- STU # STU # STU ~~====~========================================================================= ~-- A C 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOl\"t:c SUSF- i- 33. 3-i'~ 3 300. 0 ~\n3- 60. 0-'1/. 0 .0 i. 1- 1- 3 2- 0 0 BCvs CLUB 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0  0 .0  0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I i.. 4b .0 /. 19 0 I. 19 .0 ,. 0 .0 % 84 q 19 19 0 51 EXPULSION 0 .0 I. 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 (I 0 0 0 0 ~ Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions\n:,ate: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15.56:38 From AUGUST Through MAY School 037 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============================================================---===-===-----===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE'F PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT w REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==---------====================-=======----------====-==---------============ :,9 S. A. C. 0 0.,,. 0 01. 0 0% 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\\.J HOME SUSP. 3 25. 0'1/. 5 41. 71. 4 33. 3/: 0 0.,, . 12 3 2 4 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 .,,. 0 O' 0 Oo/. 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n_2 E. I. C. 8 44. 4'1/. 7 38. 9% 0 16. 7% 0 0% 18 6 7 2 0 15 :: 7 EXPU!...SION 0 0 .,, . 0 o,\n0 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ # RE\"F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ * REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBM----* REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ :)c\n, s ,:._ C 0 0% 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOl'E SUSF. i5 65.2% 5 2i. n\n3 13. 0o/. 0 . 0o/. 23 i2 3 3 0 18 l .i. B  vs CL.UB 0 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. 7~ - ,r._ 120 63. 2% 36 18.9 31 16. 3'Y. 3 1. 6'Y. 190 59 27 21 2 109 17 EXPUt...SIOt~ 0 . 01. 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~==========================================================================~=== COMPARISON =~===~=======:==============================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =~==========================================================================~=== )9 ::,_ 1-c ,- - 0 .0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 .0 % 0 .0 'Y. 0 C, 0 0 0 0 1.0 HOME SiJSP. 12 400. 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1- 25. 0-1. 0 .0 ' 11 9 1 1- 0 9 ~ ... BC:VS C,_Ur\n0 .0 i\n0 0 ., 0 0 % 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.:. ~ I ~ ... 112 0 i\n29 0 i\n28 .0 i: 3 .0 'l. 172 14 4 28 3 94 :i.--\nE\u0026gt;C:\n:,ULSiON 0 .0 I. 0 .0 .,,. 0 .0  0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 bv School Time: 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY School 038 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----Bi-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =~============================================================================== v-r S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.G HOME SUSP 2 66. 7% 0 . 0% 1 33. 3% 0 . 0'1/. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BO'fS CLUB 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 ,1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... _:. E. I. C . 47 73.4% 4 6.3'Y. 0 18.8% 0 1. 6'Y. 64 29 4 6 1 40 17 E)(PUi....SIDN 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REV PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------==-----------=======--===-======================================== --):\n, E /:,, :... 0 0% 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v 1-iCJM: SUSF- :-3.-. ,:\n8 .-. c:.. 1% i 2. 6'i'~ b 15. 4' 0 O' 39 i5 i 4 0 20 l J BOVS CL..iJB 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 c . ... C 145 62. 5,\n. 33 14. 2~: 48 20. 7i'~ 6 2. 6 232 60 20 18 5 103 17 HPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================-=-=~=- COMPARISON ====~=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P-:\nT ( +/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------==============================================------=- .)9 s A r. 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :..:: HOM:: SUSP 30 1500. 0 I. 1 100. 0 'Y. 5 500. 0  0 0  36 13 1 3 0 17 l ! BOY:= CLiJB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ,. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\n: i:. I ~ 98 0 I, 29 0 I. 36 0  5 0 'Y. 168 2 7 36 5 63 :7 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., I, - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!S0325 Analysis of Disciplinar~ Actions 6il3/96 by School 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY 040 MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----=================================---=-=--=-----------------------------===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======~=====================================================-==-===--========== -----B ,\n------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF P\"CT/T OT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================----============ S. A C. 0 . 0% 0 . 01o 0 . 01o 0 . Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME: =\u0026gt;'-'::\u0026gt;~. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi: 0 .Oi: 0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . D1o 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 3 21. 4% 7 50.01o 0 28.61o 0 . Oi'~ 14 3 6 3 0 12 EXPU~SIOt 0 . o~,: 0 . 0% 0 . Oi'~ 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. 9 9 5 - 9 6 ====~=:=======~================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :::. F, ' 0 01. 0 01o 0 01o 0 01o 0 0 0 0 0 0 HCiM:C Si,_iSF 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 01o 0 01. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 77 42. 31. 37 20. 31o 50 27. 51o 18 9. 91o 182 33 17 14 7 71 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :~==~~========================================================================== COMPARISON =======-======================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====~~~======================================================================== S. A C 0 0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP 0 0 i: 0 0 '1/. 0 0 - 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOV3 Ct....t.JB 0 0 i~ 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I C 74 0 i~ 30 0 '1/. 46 0 '1/. 18 0 '1/. 168 25 4 46 18 59 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 '\n-- ..: ~ef: D!S032S t\nate: bi 13/96 Time: 15: 56: 41 '3chool: 041 Anal~sis of Disciplinar~ Actions b~ School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====================================================-=======------============== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~====================================================-=====-----=-============== -----i3t\" ------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCTiTOT # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ================-===-------======--=-----===-====--====---=-----------========== )9 S. A. C. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'i'\n0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF. 1 100. 0'1/. 0 . 01 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 i 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . 0:1. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.2 E. ! . '-.... 26 65. Qi. 8 20. 0i. 0 10. Qi. 0 - 5. 0i. 40 16 7 4 2 29 EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i~ 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~========-====-============================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ------------------------------------===--=-=-==--------====--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBr----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------------------------======-=======--=================-============= --,,:j, S. A C 0 O'i'\n0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOM:: SUSF- 1 33. 3'1/. 2 66. 7'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0i. 3 1 2 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 ,.. .c.. I. C 121 50. 6'1/. 54 22. 6'Y. 51 21. 3% 13 5. 4i. 239 38 23 23 6 90 i7 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------------------======================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU -==================================----=------------------=--------------=---==~ :9 C.. .,_{ -. ,-. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 iO HOME SUSP. 0 0 '1/. ,, 200. 0 ., ~ I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 2 0 2 0 0 2 ~ ! BOVS CL.iJB 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:..::: E I r. 95 0 '1/. 4o 0 '1/. 47 0 I. 11 0 '1/. 199 4 6 47 11 61 -\nEXPUL.SION 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ef: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15:56:42 From AUGUST Through MAY 3=hooi 042 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==================================================================---=----====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ============================================================---=-======--======= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # -STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT ,it STU ==================================================================-------======= }'t S. A. C. 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1.G HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 4 44. 4% 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 9 4 3 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 .Di. 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .!..:.'. E I. t-, . 24 82. 8% 3 10. 3% 0 6. 9% 0 . 0% 29 16 2 2 0 20 . ' EXPiJLSION 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 0 . 01. O 0 0 0 0 0 =======================~=================~c~s================================c= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -============================================================-================== -----BM------ -----BF------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=====~========================================================================= :19 S. A C. 0 . o,: 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 HOl'E SUSP. 17 85. 0% 2 10. m~ 1 5. 0% 0 . 0i. 20 . , ii r.:.:.. . 1 0 14 J ~ BOYS CLUB 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0% 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 230 75. 2i. 54 17.61. 20 6. 5\n,\n2 . 7i. 306 48 24 10 2 84 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~===~========================================================================== COMPARISON ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==~==========================================================================m== .:,9 s I-, ,. - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i\n0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME: SUSP. 12 240. 0 '1/. 2- 50. 0 -,., . 1 100. 0 i. 0 0 i. 11 7 1- 1 0 7 :. 1 BOYS Ct..UB 0 0 :. (I 0 la 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~:. E I ~ 206 0 '1/. 51 0 la 18 0 la 2 0 la 277 ~ 9 17 18 2 64 17 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 ,. 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :Ref: DIS032S 'Date: 6i13/96 1me. 15: 56: 43 School: 043 PARK Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======--------=----=-------=====--============================================= -----8 [j-----.. REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEM----w REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =-============================================================================== -,:.~ S. A. C. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O.\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.J HOMc s0s.:. 1 100. Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 0 .,, . 1 1 0 0 0 1 i 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 2 ,,,, c.c:.. 2% 1 11. 1% 0 66. 7.,,. 0 Oi. 9 2 1 3 0 6 ,-  I EXPULSION 0 0.,,. 0 Oi. 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~=====================================================================~=1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----===--------------------===-----=====-=-=------==========--=-----============ -----BM------ # Rl::T PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU ------------------------------------====-------=-=-===-========================== a ...... HOt-i:C SU2P 11 BOYS CLUB 12:E.I.C l 7 EXPULSION 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 0 0 0'1/. 68.0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 0'1/. 0'1/. 0% 8.8 0'1/. 0 0 1 1 0 0 33 15 0 0 0'1/. 100.0% 22.4'1/. 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0% 0'1/. O't. 7'1/. Oi. 0 0 1 1 0 0 147 Sc 0 0 ================================================================================ COMPARISON ~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF' PCTi+/-) # REF PCTi+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------========================================-=--- = - I-. - 0 0 I. 0 0 I. .o 0 / 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.C: r-iOMr: SJ3F 1- 100. 0-% 0 0 I. 1 100. 0 / 0 0 i. 0 1- 0 1 0 0 BOY:: :U.iB t) 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. !::. .. -- 98 0 I. 12 0 I. 27 0 I. 1 0 i. 138 ' 4~ 12 27 1 50 17 EXPvLSIOt-i 0 0 i: 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions !:)ate: 6/13/96 b\\j School Time: 15:56:43 From AUGUST Through MAY :3~hool 044 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL :~=============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU :--=================================-====-===--=-------==--=-----------========== -s. A. C. 0 0 ., 1. 0 0., 1. 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o HOME SUSP. 1 50. 0 ., I. 1 50. 0'1/. 0 Oi: 0 0'1/. 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUE 0 0'1/. 0 .-0~ 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 O 0 0 ~2 E. I. ,.. \\.,. 15 83. 3'Y. 3 16. 7'Y. 0 0% 0 - O'Y. 18 iO 3 0 0 13 ~7 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 Ot. 0 Ot. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============================================================-==-=============== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~=====================================================-----------========= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 10 H  t-E susi:- ~l BOY~ CLUB ~2.c.:i.C 17 EXPULS:\n:  N 0 0 l 1 0 0 99 30 0 0 . O'Y. 100. 0'1/. . 0'1/. 68.8% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 i4 0 0 . 0% . 0% 18. 1% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0% . 0'1/. 13. 2'1/. . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0'1/. . Ot. . 0'1/. . O'Y. 0 0 1 1 0 0 144 56 0 0 ~~=============~===========================================================--=~ COMPARISON ==-~=~~====~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)  STU # STU # STU # STU =-=====================~========================================================= )C? -- ,\n, :: _ 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 r-lOMc 2us~ 0 0 'l. 1- 100. 0 -1.. , 0 .0 .1,. 0 .0 .1,. 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- :. l BOYS \\:LUB 0 0 i~ 0 .0 ., 1. 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - ~ . C. 84 0 i: 23 .0 ' 19 .0 I 0 .0 'Y. 126 6 8 19 0 43 - E\u0026gt;'.PULSION 0 .0 i~ 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 :\n_~ f: DI 8032S Date: 6i13/96 Time: 15: 56 44 3~hool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================----===--======= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~~==========---=======------=------==============--=---========--===-=========== -----Bh------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT .+ STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =============-~==================--==============----=========================== _,...\nS. f,, C. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.,,:, HOME SUSP. 4 50. O'i. 3 37. 5 .,, . 1 12. 5% 0 Qi\n8 4 2 1 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 01. 0 u 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 4 25. 0'1/. 9 56. 3 0 18. Bi. 0 Oi. 16 4 5 2 0 11 , 7 EX.PUL_SION 0 0 .,, . 0 0'1/. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~===~=~=====================================================================c=~= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----------------=--------------==--==============-=============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------===---------=--=-=-============================================== :,~ 5. A ,. 0 0'1/. 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:.c .. HOl'l= SU::iP. 4 80. 0'1/. 0 Oi. i 20. 0'1/. 0 . 01. 5 3 0 1 0 4 l l BOY\nCLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -, r\n\"'- E. I. (. 15 78. 9'1/. 3 15.8% 1 5. 3~~ 0 . 0'1/. 19 4 3 1 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~================================================-------------------===-===- COMPARISON -=:-:========-==-======================================================================-= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~-----------=------------==================================================--= ...,.,. ::\n~- I'\"\\ - 0 0 i:. 0 0 I. 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ : _ ! HOME SUSF'. 0 0 ,. 3- 100. 0 -,.,. 0 0 lo 0 0 4 3- 1- 2- 0 0 3- : l B,--,. ..., =_. C.L .U P 0 0 i:. (\\ 0 i: 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .::.: , 11 0 ,. 6- 0 - 2- 0 ., ~- - ~. ,. 0 0 I 3 3 1- 2- 0 3- EX:PU:...SIOI', 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 ., - 0 0 i. 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 'i:ef: DIS032S ]ate: 6/ 13/96 7ime: 15: 56: 44 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------=====================================-=----=--====-=----------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ----===--=-------------======-================----==---=====-----------------=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----Nlff ----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~==============================================================---------=-====== j~ ~. A. - 0 O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - Hr\"ii: SiJ3F. 9 69. 2i. 1 7. 71. 2 15. 4'1/. 1 7. n~ 13 - 6 l 2 1 10 '- l, BOYS CLUB 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 -o O 0 0 . , E . .- 7 77. Bi. 2 22.2 0 . O 0 . O 9 ~ ... ~. 6 2 0 0 8 . , EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 .,,. 0 . o,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=====:========================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----* REF PCT/TOT # STU ~~====~~======================================================================== :1~ S. A - 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . o\n,.: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .\n.~ J HOMES :JSF . 6 46. 2,~ 1 7. 7% 6 46.2% 0 . 0'1/. 13 5 1 5 0 11 -. .' .. B0'y E CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . O 0 . 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . -~, E . I. C 111 59. 7' 29 15. 6i. 43 23. 1' 3 1. 6 186 32 11 16 2 61 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============================================================================== COMPARISON ===============================================================================c -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :,9 ::\u0026gt;. A C. 0 0 ,. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v HOME SvSP. 3- 33. 3 ., - 0 0 i: 4 200.0 ,. 1- 100.0- 0 1- 0 3 1- 1 11 BOYS Ci_UB 0 0 i\n0 .0 i: 0 .0  0 .0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .:.: - 104 .0 ' 27 0 % 43 .0 ., ~ - --,. 3 .0 i. 177 ,. 15 14 43 3 53 17 EXc:,ULSION 0 .0 i. 0 0 /a 0 .0  0 .0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15: 56:45 From AUGUST Through MAY School: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =================================================-==--========================== -----Br'.------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================================-===============-=----====-------==-=========== :9 S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . o~~ 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOtiE SUSF 1 50. Oi: 1 50.0i. 0 0 .,, . 0 .Oi: 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01 0 .-0 0 0.,, . 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 o 0 0 i2 E. I. C. 4 44. 4t. 3 33. 3.,, . 0 22.21. 0 . Oi. 9 4 3 2 0 9 .:. / EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------=---------=======-================--========--------=========== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----------------------------------===----=------------=====-------============= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------------====-====-====-=---=========-===============- :l9 S. A (, 0 o,: 0 0% 0 o~: 0 Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 t-iOME SUSF. 3 42. 9% 4 57. 1 '1/.. 0 01 0 O'. 7 1 3 0 0 4 ..I.. .I. BOYS CL.UB 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 01 0 0 0 \"O 0 0 i2 i::. I. C 8i 66. 4'1/. 25 20. 5% 16 13. 1'1/. 0 01 1~2 46 18 9 0 73 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-===::==============:\n:=========================================================a: COMPARISON ~~===~=====================================================================-=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===--======================================================================--=== .)9 :::,. I... -~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 t. 0 0 ,. - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 : c._, HOMr: SiJSP. 2 200. 0\n,: 3 300. 0 .. ,. 0 0 I 0 0 '. 5 0 ,., C. 0 0 2 1. ~- BOVE CLUB 0 0 t. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 I 0 C, 0 0 0 0 '- .-:. E ! C 77 0 I. 22 0 '1/. 14 0 '1/. 0 0 '. 113 19 7 14 0 64 \"7 EXPULSION 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 t. 0 0 - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 45 Analysis of Disciplinary Action~ by School From AUGUST Through MAY 049 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----B ti------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== B. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM::: SdSP. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi\n0 .Oi: 0 . o~-\n0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. .0 . 0% 0 . 0i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. -. ,.~. .. 9 39. 1% 6 26. 1 '1/. 0 26. 1 /, 0 - 8. 7t. 23 .:! 4 5 2 14 EXPULSION 0 . Qi\n0 . 0'1/. 0 .Oi: 0 . 0i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============-===============================================-================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -=============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----=========-=========-========================================================== S. A ..-. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOi'E S:JSF. 8 40. 0'1/. 8 40. 0'1/. 3 15. o,: 1 5. 0'1/. 20 6 4 3 1 14 BDYS C ... UB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. l. r. '.., 79 54. 5'1/. 35 24. 1 '1/. 24 16. 61, 7 4. 8'1/. 145 32 13 10 4 59 EXPULSION 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----===~=-------=============================================================== COMPARISON ----------------------=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----==~==-------------========================================================= ~- I-, C. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0\n_-,.,\nHC!r1E S\\..JSP. 8 800. 0 i~ a 800. 0 i: 3 300. 0 .,, . 1 100. 0 i: 20 6 a 3 1 14 BD\",.5 CL.VE 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i: 0 0 I, 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .,_ i:: ., - . - 70 0 i: 2Q 0 i~ 18 0 I, 5 0 I, 122 a 5 18 5 45 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I, 0 0 t. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 , .. me: 15: 56: 46 S:::::hool 050 Analysis of DisciplinaTy Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY ANNEX ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF ?CT/iOT # REF PCi/iOT * STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----w REF\" ?CTiTOT ~ STU i\n-~~\n~\n===========o======_ 0%=====0======_ 01 =====0======_ 01 =====0======_ oi=====o 0 0 0 0 O 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 2 22.2% 2 22.2% 0 .0% 9 4 2 2 0 8 ll BOYS CLUB O .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .OX O .0% 0 .OX O .OX 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPU~SION O .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =~====~=======-==============================================--------============ -----BM------ # REr PCi/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCi/TOT # STU ~~==~============================================================================ 5 P, --- 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 o: 0 o: 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"~ i-iOM:: 5.,_j5r=, C 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 o : 0 o : 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :t 2 E. ~- C 0 0'1/. 0 ox 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. EXPU:._SIOi\\i 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~~============================================================================= COMPARISON -= -:.\n:=====================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==~=====~==~================================================================== -, S.\n.., C. 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 X 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM~ susr._ 5- 100. 0 ., -.,'II. 2- 100. 0-1. 2- 100. 0-% 0 0 lo 9- 4- 2- 2- 0 8- l3 ClYi= c~uB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., 0 0 .. I, 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 ,. - - '- 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 i~ 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 DPULSIGN 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 .. 0 0 .. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. Action 10: Home Suspension 1,200 ..--------------~ 1,000 800 94-95 95-96 869 1,043 460 445 NBM 411 410 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 126 94-95~ 140 95-96L BM BF NBM 236 106 103 141 42 42 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NBF 20 3 400 ,-----------------, 2,000 ,-----------------, 300 200 100 94-95 95-96 BM 133 371 BF 44 102 NBM 31 75 NBF 8 13 1,500 -- 1,000 BM 94-95 ii 178 95-96 =1 1,540 ------- BF NBM NBF 68 58 5 - --- ---- - 489 498 71 8 6 4 2 0 BM 94-95 7 95-96 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion - - BF NBM NBF 0 1 0 1 0 2 R II 600 500 400 300 200 100 -94-95 95-96 510 470 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension ---- BF NBF -207 180 49 189 192 85 40 20 0 94-95~ 95-96C BM 80 20 BF NBM 12 36 7 4 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NSF 4 2 250 ~------------~ 200 _,--,_ __ 150 BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 I\n- 89 21 9 5 95-96 207 41 36 7 0.8 ,___ ____________ - - - 0.6 ---------- - - - -- 0.4 --------- - - - - 0.2- 0--------------------' 94-95 95-96 0 0 BF 0 ----- 0 NBM 0 0 NBF 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion 6~----------~ 5 4 3 2 0 94-951\\1 95-96nc- BM -5 2 --- - -- ___ __, BF NBM NSF 0 - 1 0 1 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension  600 ~------------~ 500 120 ..-----------------, 400 300 200 100 359 573 253 256 NBM 231 218 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 77 -- 55 200..---------------, 150 - 100 94-95 i-L 95-96 BM 44 - 164 - - --- BF NBM NSF -23 22 3 61 39 6 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lliii-.1=::i__ BM 94-95 ~ 106 95-96 5 BF NBM 75 49 4 3 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 - - - -- - - - - NSF 15 0 0L-----------------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 J.\n- 0 ---- 0 - 0 -0 95-96 0 0 0 0 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 BM 94-95 2 95-96 0   NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion -- -- BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 0 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension 140.----------------~ 0.8 120 100 ~6 - 00 0.4 - - - -- -- - - 0.2 0'-----------------' 94-95 95-96 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM 0 0 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 0 0 o~------------~ 94-95 95-96 BM BF 0 0 --+---- 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 40 20 - 0 L....1111111111,1-..L-.E,,i\n,ZIIIL-.....L--14o1-....-'---------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95ml 50 19 18 1 - 95-96r l 115 31 35 1 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 2,000 .----------------~ 1,500 1,000 - 94-95il 95-s6n BM 178 1,539 BF - 68 489 NBM NBF 58 5 -- -- 498 71 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 17 Expulsion o~----------~ 94-95 95-96 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK-PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS f'I( Jf~ 1111 .1l r I I r N)(:I, Pl If~,I ( SCIl UOI S I W~\u0026lt;:111\"'1/ \\f~/\\Y/' I l()f\\!f\nri \\( I /\\ I \u0026lt; I f) I f H t\nAction 09: Student Assignment Class (SAC) 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 ....__..........,.___ 91-920 92-93D - 93-94  --- 94-95  BM 700 920 977 869 95-96LJ 1,043 BF 328 - - - 486 - 529 -~ 460 445 NBM NBF 372 97 _,_ - - - -- - - - -- 492 158 c- - - -- 449 156 - - 4-11 - - 126 410 140 . - ... . ......,,_,,..._!lllllll!IJll ____ \"'l!lllllllllll!llll~l!lllll!l!!II.....-.----- Action 10: Home Suspensions 200 50 0 91-92fi) 92-93D 93-94  94-95  95-96D BM 65 134 231 236 141 BF NBM 24 23 69 58 60 76 106 103 42 42  NBF 2 14 22 -- - --- 20 -- 3 300 200 100 BM 91-920 224 92-930 2- 76 93-94  119 94-95 133 - 95-96n 371 - l( H~1 1111111l1,: or. I\\ FII FHI \u0026lt;:S CH()OLS u1(-\nc)1I1 lf \\J1\\nY/\\( j 1101\\lS r) YI /' I~ I rn I ,ff)~' Action 11: Boys Club BF NBM 70 66 -- -- - - - - - - - - 97 -- -8--7- 39 - - 39 44 31  NBF 11 -- - 10 -- - - 9 8 -- - - - -- - -- -- - - 102 75 13 1,l() I~ 1111 111 1l h'r lCI\\ I )I )[11.I C ~Cl lOUI S I W'1 ,WI 11\\1/\\l~/\\Y(' 11)(I ~~, r) YI /\\n i l\\f NI \")S Action 12: Elementary Assignment Class (E.I.C.) 2,000 ~--------------------~ 1,500 ----- ---- 1,000 500 BM BF NBM NSF 91-92 - 0 - - - --- 0 - - 0 - 0 92-93D 0 0 0 0 ---- -- --- -- - - - - - 93-94 168 - - 54 -- 45 - - 8 94-95  178 68 58 5 95-960 -- -- - - 1,540 489 498 71 I H) f\\ 11l I 111 1I f{ ( JC!\\ I 1[ IHI IC r~c1! 001S I qc.C\n11\" 1 I H\\/I\\ I? Y /\\ C I IOf \\JS r) YI /\\f~ l l~f [,,JU~\nAction 17: Expulsions a~-----------------------. 6 4 2 -- BM BF NBM NSF 91-92  4 1 0 0 92-93D -- - - - - ~- f- - - - - - - 6 3 1 0 93-9411 -- - - - - -- -- 6 4 3 0 94-95 ~--- - --- - - - 7 -- 0 - - -- -1 - - -0 95-96D 2 1 0 2\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_416","title":"Discipline, management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"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 discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/416"],"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\n1 Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 96 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL Senior High Junior High \\ Elementary * O7.V ryKt-n, SCHOOL J CENTRAL /fair '/hall '/mcclella -'-MEIEa . PARKVIEW '/CLOVR JR 43UNBAR JFORST HT /hendersn y'MABEL JR /MANN M/S i/PULHTJ SOUTHWST ' BADGETT ^BALE BASELINE 'J BOOKER /BRADY /CARVER CHICOT f CLOVR EL Zdodd yFAIR PRK /FORST PK /FRANKLIN FULBRIGH ff'ednesday, July 28,1999 BM BE WM WF 145-} 118- 85 122 -|0 72 37 61 26 36 20 L} 52 , I 11 A 2 31- 129'3 113-' 151- 112'^ 98^' 60 91 159^' 7 20 11 25 17 9 38 2 3 15 10 45 26 3- 13 532- /()\u0026lt;* 91 17 13 48 32 52-^ 8(j7 1915 36 66 38 32 83 0 5 5 5 2 0 13 0 2 12 13 16 8 25 29 18 22  1 0 4 6 1 0 6 0 1 1 3 4 7 RECEIVED AUG 8 1989 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OM OF Total 10 9 ! 5h 6 12 -y 13* 5 0 0 0- 0 0 a\u0026gt; 1 tr 27Q 215 154 15'/ 192 S! 4\n58 Senior High- 5 11^ 2 6 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 254 1 0 1 0 2 a 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 2^6 234 200 130 147 282  I lorHigh Junior Higl 1689 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 21 37 20 9 62 2 6 29 29 68 42 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary ''BARLAND / GEYERSP 11 21 , ) 26 6 5 1 2 0 0 35 31 2 3 0 0 'J GIBBS 8 4 5 1 0 0 18 yjEFFRSN / M L KING yMABEL EL 23 19 37 J MCDERMOT y^EADCLIF /mitchell 21 31 17 21 3 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 2 8 0 0 0 9 3 2 0 0 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 v/OTTER CR 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 VPUL HT E 36 10 55 RIGHTSEL 12 '^OCKFELR j(0MINE 12 12 -TERRY / WAKEFIEL 21 10 37 WASHNGTN x/WATSON '^WESTHIL 20 60 12 14 40 78 18 7 8 6 4 4 0 1 0 6 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 8 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 V WILLIAMS '^'WILSON 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 0 10 WOODRUFF Io 1 El\u0026lt;l^entarv Total lentai 13 849 3469 8 2 2 0 0 /7^ Wednesday, July 28,1999 Page 2 of 2 C-i (5 JI J ij I I School Mame__________ Central_________ J.A. Fair Han McCteMan_______ Metropolitan Parkview ALC____________ Ctoverdate Dunbar_________ Forest Heiphts _ Henderson______ Mabelvale______ Mann_________ Pula^ Heights Southwest Total*__________ Badgett ^le____________ Baseline________ Booker__________ Brady______ Carver_________ Chicot Enrolled 1591 805 828 904 S5S %BtKk 64.00 BM 201 72 67 80 52 Clovewlale Podd Fair Park Forest Partr Franklin Fuibrijhi Garland 608 732 759 792 491 847 781 ___612 10,104 210 347 327 604 394 028 452 453 294 270 435 ___431 516 255 87 80 76 78 74 S3 57 84 79 70 76 52 63 52 76 85 65 78 47 83 49 82 LMMo Rock School District DiselpMnafy Managamont Report 1MS-M School YearTotal SancUons Short Term ^utpanslon w M wF Annual Long Tenn Suspension Expulsion Total 238 152 197 22 42 107 269 221 261 249 210 95 __1 347 2,777 7 ' 31 12 43 21 11 80 83 86 43 72 15 15 31 146 68 72 136 86 50 55 172 1,143 42 36 27 22 ___3 14 23 40 56 32 64 47 52 23 45 526 16 14 11 r 1 4 24 17 7 7 18 __2 6 18 162 1 6 S 5 3 14 4 10 1 14 1 5 TOTAL 354 375 233 296 40 76 165 481 363 382 456 362 199 229 583 4606 6 39 21 59 25 ____11 113 0M 20 14 4 18 4 2 22 26 32 23 10 6 9 17 244 W 11 ___2 2 6 1 VAI V*F TOTAL 8M BF VAI 0 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 5 22 14 71 40 38 2 IS 18 23 11 6 1 2 4 9 10 2 1 4 I 1 2 6 40 40 105 62 46 1 2 12 4 1 1 13 2 ~8 60 3 2 3\" 5 1 1 1 1 27 1 4 1 44 18 8 27 S 2 ___28 40 35 43 35 23 8 12 21 3S5 0 d 2 __ 0 d 1 2 ____0 0 1 d ____i 0 d 3 9 2 10 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 39 7 1 1 WIF 1 TOTAL 4 9 3 11 2 2 3 1 4 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 1 402 402 244 336 47 82 196 524 399 439 494 387 207 241 611 5,011 ____8 39 23 59 2$ 12 115 0 8 41 40 107 __M 48 XB* 84 67M 64% 80% 84% 74% 64% 87% 81% 90% 85% 83% 74% 88% 88% 85% 86% 100% 78% 81% 86% 100% 63% _q% 88% 83% 80% 80% 82% 92% IC.: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT HEARING OFFICE 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-0536 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT I q .\u0026lt;- l.(i COMMENTS Niin*v oi llne'u'l* T3 3Wd --------------- Myyvrif^------ . J \u0026lt;n H__ ^tr\u0026gt;ry,V^ rn^ -/ iJL fy _CLCiC\\uSi\u0026gt;L Fx Phor Nu/rtm 1 ri I gQ OdO 9NId^3H irGCiniS 6gLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 1 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD 1 2 2 062 040 105 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 5 Assault 2 010 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 PROSTAFF 2 090 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAI LOSEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D RAPRINGS FIREUORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONSI Ueapon Gang Hen ROBBERY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 080 100 133 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 130 140 150 071 072 091 121 123 130 3 !, 2 1 7 1 11 2 7 33 15 1 8 1 3 4 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 95 4 1 4 1 1 24 1 35 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 8 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 35 2 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 1 12 7 1 45 22 2 6 2 2 8 2 5 4 1 2 1 1 7 5 1 1 9 1 52 27 2 1 1 8 3 1 1 2 1 51 10 3 5 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 146 23 7 30 13 7 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 168 1 1 34 k 3 1 12 2 1 1 3 36 2 1 10 1 60 30 2 1 1 20 1 1 2 1 1 1 2021 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 2 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT HinAlter Ref Ruis Smoking Orug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Al Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 Extort Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 030 062 100 131 132 010 020 030 040 060 070 090 105 110 122 123 150 071 072 091 110 000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS WEAPONS1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 080 090 010 020 040 090 100 105 110 123 150 091 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SLBTOTAL 1 1 8 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 3 25 22 1 3 5 71 2 6 4 1 1 3 8 2 3 30 201 1 8 6 2 26 1 4 2 1 1 3 12 93 2 3 33 28 1 5 5 97 3 10 6 2 1 3 9 5 3 42 294 7 1 4 11 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 15 2 1 1 4 42 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 2 4 37 30 1 5 5 1 1 11 1 2 3 1 1 1 15 1 2 4 48 31 1 7 8 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 18 n 22 1 9 3 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 110 1 22 1 1 1 1 132 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 10 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 12 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 50 2 8 3 12 7 1 1 2 1 1 It 13 7 k 2 58 60 29 11 40 4 4 3 3 1 1 337 65 402SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 10 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Fighting Other of CLASS K 2 2 4 010 040 000 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan Assault Fighting 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 040 060 062 070 110 010 040 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 6 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 10 Dishon. Assault Dis Cond UEAPONS1 1 2 2 3 010 010 110 091 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 3 2 1 7 Ref Ruis INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 105 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 Assault Theft INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 2 2 010 030 105 110 3 3 3 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 FORGERY Assault INSUBORD 1 2 2 140 010 105 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 HinAlter FAILOBEY Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Other of 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 k 030 060 110 010 030 040 090 105 000 2 1 1 7 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 8 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 8 3 2 3 2 1SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 19 1 20 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 11 3 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT IM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 20 3 23 Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 08 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 43 5 48 10 1 11 48 11 59LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 12 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH. BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Tardies Assault Battery Fighting G anti ling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Drugs 2 Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 1 Z 2 2 Z z z z 2 Z Z Z 3 3 3 030 060 062 133 010 020 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 122 123 040 071 072 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL MinAlter Ref Ruis Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Irxd Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 AL-DRUGS Ass Staf Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z 2 2 3 3 030 062 100 133 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Tardies 1 1 1 1 030 060 062 133 2 5 1 23 4 6 1 34 2 2 1 82 3 1 1 2 12 4 1 1 2 1 36 4 2 2 72 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 23 1 5 4 13 2 1 26 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 31 k 6 1 1 KZ 2 Z Z 1 105 3 1 1 3 17 4 1 1 6 1 49 6 2 3 98 1 1 1 1 7 1 8 3 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 4 31 t, t, 1 1 43 2 Z Z 8 1 5 1 14 3 17 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 2 112 1 1 17 1 1 1 2 S !, 'i) It 7 1 1 48 3 2 3 1 1 2 129 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 18 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 6 1 1 8 2 25 1 1 1 1 4 2 6 1 1 2 3 11 3 2 3 14 1 1 1 1 1 3 17 5 1 1 6 1 49 12 2 3 2 3 112 2 2 2 1 6 1 1 9 2 26 3 3 2, 3 1 1 4 23 b 1 1 6 2 58 12 Z 5 ' Z 3 138 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 13 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS FIREUORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONSI Extort Gang Hem 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 122 123 130 140 150 071 072 091 110 123 6 1 13 3 3 28 4 1 2 2 1 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 67 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 3 6 1 1 1 20 _69 1 6 2 18 3 6 34 5 1 2 1 3 1 87 290 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 24 56 7 17 1 4 1 15 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 10 1 1 1 11 2 2 1 1 73 28 4 32 3 3 1 2 8 2 18 3 6 1 35 7 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 99 323 3 2 1 1 15 2 1 1 1 33 76 5 10 3 22 3 7 1 50 9 1 3 1 1 4 ' 1 1 2 1 1 132 399 1If? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 14 SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED-- TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Snxiking Foul Lan Drugs 1 Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Corx) Paging D RAPRINGS FIREUORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 090 100 110 132 020 030 040 050 070 090 100 105 110 123 130 140 150 072 120 1 7 1 Zi, 1 2 6 3 14 2 13 1 61 4 5 1 10 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 161 1 4 5 1 10 11 16 3 1 52 2 7 1 28 1 2 11 4 24 2 4 24 1 77 7 5 1 1 10 1 213 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 11 1 1 5 1 9 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 9 2 20 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 4 4 4 4 2 7 1 28 1 1 11 3 4 24 2 4 24 2 77 7 5 1 1 10 2 (\u0026gt; 224 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 2 20 2 8 1 30 1 4 1* 3 4 25 2 25 2 86 7 1 1 10 .2 6 2!^ J HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Smoking Foul Lan Drugs 1 Battery Theft Fighting Gaiit)ling Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 060 062 070 100 110 132 020 030 040 050 070 090 100 105 110 1 1 8 10 2 4 1 3 1 8 14 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 3 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 4 7 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 9 15 ]. 2 1 1 1 k 7 1 5 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 7 1 4 7 1 7 5SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 15 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS UEAPONSI In Riot Other of 2 2 2 3 3 t, 122 123 150 091 120 000 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 42 1 17 1 1 59 2 2 8 2 10 5 2 7 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 69 1 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 1 81 HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 090 100 110 030 040 070 090 105 110 123 150 072 090 3 1 2 3 b 4 5 2 3 3 1 1 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 1 35 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL J?? 2l#'\u0026gt; 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 17 86 2 5 2 2 5 8 7 1 6 2 3 I, 2 2 1 52 325 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 5 1 1 2 5 2 2 5 8 3 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 17 36 3 1 20 2 2 2 2 14 Kl 50 14 2 16 2 2 9 7 1 6 2 k It 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 6 10 9 1 7 2 6 2 5 4 3 3 2 1 56 1 20 2 2 76 350 52 402LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 3 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERN EXPELLED TOTAL Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Dis Cond 2 2 040 110 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loiter Hischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Smoke 2 Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 100 110 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 121 123 130 150 072 090 1 14 4 1 1 3 9 1 1 5 1 11 2 3 8 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 69 4 1 3 1 6 4 2 2 1 26 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Tardies Battery Theft Fighting Hischief PROSTAFF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 080 090 110 133 020 030 040 080 090 5 1 13 3 3 1 4 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 5 4 4 1 1 3 15 1 1 9 1 13 4 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 6 1 1 2 5 8 1 95 6 2 14 4 3 1 4 1 2 6 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 17 7 2 24 3 1 I, 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 5 4 4 1 3 3 15 1 1 9 1 13 6 1 3 1 6 1 2 1 2 21 6 10 k 1 3 3 15 1 2 11 1 14 5 1 8 2 1 101 6 2 14 4 3 1 4 2 2 6 1 8 2 4 2 24 1 1 1 1' 5 2 12 2 3 125 6 2 15 5 3 1 4 2 2 6 1 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 4 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS UEAPONSI Ueapon 2 2 2 2 3 3 105 110 123 150 091 121 5 2 4 1 3 1 2 8 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 59 11 70 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 3 6 1 2 1 1 1 12 1 8 10 4 1 1 1 1 80 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Fighting Hischief PROSTAFF Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 050 060 062 110 010 040 080 090 110 123 150 072 2 2 It 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 It 2 4 1 1 It 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 21 5 26 1 5 1 1 3 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 t, 2 2 2 3 1 1 27 2 2 2 1 1 8 I, 2 !, 1 1 k 4 It 2 5 2 2 35 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 152 I3C / 43 195 27 11 38 4 2 6 1 1 2 3 204 40 244LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 5 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 003 HANN MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 AL-DRUGS Sale Ale 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 010 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL HinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan FORGERY Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 062 090 110 140 010 030 040 080 090 105 110 123 150 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 080 090 110 010 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 1 3 15 4 9 1 34 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 17 1 2 1 2 2 1 b 1 2 IB 4 1 5 2 1 10 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 2 1 3 1 14 3 1 4 20 4 11 1 1 10 2 1 1 It 10 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 20 4 11 1 1 10 2 1 1 I, 2 2 44 20 20 1 2 1 2 1 46 2 20 2 1 1 30 2 5 1 15 1 1 2v 1 bb 3 1 8 2 1 2 1 3 5 1 3 1 31 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 9 1 1 2 32 1 5 5 1 1 3 1 8 2 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 14 2 14 31 2 14 8 1 9 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 6 1 3 1 2 1,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 2 7 4 1 5 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 9 1 1 2 32 12 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 3 1 4 2 3 2 10 1 3 2 39 12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC  PAGE 6 SCHOOL: 003 HANN MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Paging D RAPRINGS FIREUORK AL-DRUGS F1REARH1 UEAPONSI CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 3 3 123 130 140 150 081 091 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 6 SUBTOTAL 44 26 70 18 1 2 1 20 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 95 50 145 52 2 54 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 2 6 8 76 1 20 1 1 2 7 1 1 96 J 153 54 207 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 7 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED- TOTAL Foul Lan CLASS 05 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter Assault Fighting Gambling False Al PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Ueap 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 010 040 050 060 090 105 110 123 150 060 072 080 090 2 2 1 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Fighting False Al INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS Extort 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 060 105 110 150 110 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Harass LeftSchl Gambl i ng INSUBORD AL-DRUGS Pos Ueap 1 1 2 2 2 3 040 050 050 105 150 090 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 2 7 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 18 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 10 1 1 1 3 2 2 10 15 37 3 3 4 1 5 1 1 2 44 3 47LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 8 FROM DATE: DI SCIPL I HE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT HinAlter Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Fighting Hischief AL-DRUGS Ass Staf WEAPONSI CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 070 080 090 100 110 131 010 040 080 150 071 091 1 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 11 2 4 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 24 LeftSchl Ref Ruis FAILDET Assault Theft fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 080 010 030 040 090 105 110 123 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 11 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 15 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 15 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 18 HinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Coom Paging D AL-DRUGS FIREARH1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 050 062 100 110 010 030 040 090 105 110 120 123 150 081 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 1 3 5 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 9 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 4 1 1 1 1 20 11 31 5 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 33 2 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 1 6 10 1 6 2 1 1 3 1 40LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 9 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 42 15 OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT 57 UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 14 7 21 2 2 CP 2 61 21 82 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 22 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 012 HC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 PROSTAFF 2 090 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 1 1 OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Gambling Hischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Arson V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONS1 In Riot Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 070 080 090 100 110 010 020 040 050 080 090 105 110 122 123 130 150 060 072 090 091 120 123 1 10 13 6 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 7 3 1 1 2 15 20 9 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Assault Battery Fighting Gantiling 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 070 080 090 010 020 040 050 6 1 6 10 39 5 1 5 1 9 1 1 11 4 1 4 12 1 1 11 50 9 2 5 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 116 16 6 1 1 1 1 2 6 4 46 162 3 3 1 1 1 1 8 2 10 1 1 1 1 9 4 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 6 2 15 20 9 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 12 1 1 11 51 15 2 5 1 13 1 1 1 1 3 2 181 1 2 1 2 1 4 11 2 16 22 9 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 12 1 1 12 53 16 2 5 1 17' 1 1 1 1 3 2 192 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 21 7 1 4 1 2 2 9 4 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 21 7 1 4 1 3 4 9 4 4 1 1 1 25 7 1 4 2 3 9 4SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 23 discipline by reason code 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Hischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONSI In Riot Ueapon Gang Hem 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 080 090 105 110 122 123 130 150 071 072 091 120 121 123 1 4 8 2 1 2 3 5 10 1 2 1 2 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET SnoKing Foul Lan Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 060 062 070 080 100 110 020 030 040 050 080 090 105 110 123 150 071 072 120 123 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 11 57 20 77 9 5 14 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 87 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 16 1 5 8 12 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 103 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 24 197 2 1 1 4 72 1 7 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 28 269 1 1 1 1 5 5 -22. 7 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 34 2 1 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 ' 2 2 1 1 8 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 39 18 6 24 2 1 3 0 11 304 32 336 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 28 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan FORGERY Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI 1 11 1 12 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 140 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 122 123 150 072 090 091 9 4 6 6 21 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Smoke 2 Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 22 22 22 3 3 UEAPONSI 3 030 060 062 010 020 030 040 090 105 110 121 122 123 150 071 072 091 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs 1 11 1 1 030 050 060 062 070 21 25 3 21 24 14 2 2 12 1 96 2 3 10 1 1 8 1 24 14 1 1 1 2 2 1 72 3 14 12 21 5 1 12 53 4 2 6 10 1 12 13 1 2 51 2 6 5 15 6 11 12 1 2,7 3 2 1 45 19 3 3 21 149 65 16 1 1 18 2 36 27 12 14 2 1 123 5 20 17 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 11 5 2 19 3 31 1 2 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 3 7 1 2 1 4 5 1 1 12 1 2 1 1 11 5 2 23 3 31 1 5 33 1 7 1 1 4 2 1 3 21 1 9 3 5 1 1 10 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 15 6 7 1 1 71 37 3 21 47 20 3 3 2 1 2 159 6 5 16 3 61 19 2 36 27 12 1 4 2 12 134 5 20 17 1 1 4 1 5 1 13 1 2 1 1 11 5 2 23 3 3 1 1 15 6 81 172 41 3 31 52 20 3 3 2121 172 6 6 18 3 62 20 2 47 32 1 21 6 2 12 157 5 3 23 18 1 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/96 EXPELLED 06/27/96 PAGE TOTAL 29 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILDET Smoking Foul Lan FORGERY Assault Battery Fighting Hischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Smoke 2 Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 100 110 140 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 121 122 123 150 060 071 072 1 1 5 1 37 18 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 2 9 1 1 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 101 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 269 9 2 12 7 44 148 1 1 1 1 14 1 2 49 25 1 2 2 4 145 417 1 2 3 4 2 16 40 1 9 1 1 13 1 2 13 24 29 64 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 14 26 1 5 1 1 3 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 \u0026lt;) 14 1 2 50 27 1 2 4 1 1 It 165 1 3 1 13 1 2 30 12 38 2 2 3 3 458 66 1 1 1 1 2 10 17 1 3 63 28 1 2 2 1 1 4 195 524SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 16 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Battery Theft Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREUORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 020 030 040 070 080 090 105 110 123 140 150 072 120 123 6 1 1 6 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp IMSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 090 100 010 020 030 040 050 070 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 4 3 16 1 3 9 42 3 1 2 1 99 2 4 14 1 1 2 13 2 2 16 4 10 5 1 4 2 1 1 5 10 1 22 1 4 1 1 1 7 5 3 1 7 2 1 8 1 4 3 17 1 3 14 52 3 1 2 1 1 121 3 4 18 1 1 2 2 1 20 2 2 21 4 13 5 2 k 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 6 1 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 15 2 1 2 2 17 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 2 1 8 1 5 3 17 1 3 14 53 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 130 2 2 3 7 1 1 1 1 18 9 2 1 8 1 5 3 19 1 6 14 60 7 2 3 1 3 1 2 148 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 18 1 1 3 3 1 20 2 2 22 5 13 7 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 20 1 1 3 4 1 20 2 2 22 5 15 7 2 5  1SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 17 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT V As Sf In Riot CLASS 08 3 3 072 120 1 1 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 81 25 106 4 1 5 8 2 10 1 1 1 12 1 12 4 1 118 6 4 1 124 HinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap Extort Gang Hem 1 11 11 1 12 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 33 030 050 060 062 090 110 133 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 122 123 130 150 071 072 090 110 123 31 1 71 1 2 2 12 2 11 14 15 14 3 21 15 4 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 95 1 1 1 1 7 10 k 12 81 1 2 2 13 2 18 14 25 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 24 2 2 3 3 AL-DRUGS 2 150 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter Smoking 1 1 Drug/A 1 1 Dis Cond Paging D 2 2 030 100 131 110 123 1 1 1 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 281 16 3 211 5 3 2 1 4 2 5 11 119 12 4 16 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 15 2 2 19 1 1 1 1 4 15 2 2 2 1 1 2 20 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 12 81 122 16 2 18 2 4 25 1 17 1 2 1 15 1 10 3 1 4 141 1 5 2 1 1 4 2 2 18 4 1 3 13 1 3 22 16 2 18 25 26 1 21 7 2117 1 12 3 14 159 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 353 J2 3^ 7 3') 32 7 39 4 4 4 396 43 439 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT HinAlter Harass LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Snok i ng Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Coon Forgery RAPRINGS FIREUORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 23 3 3 33 030 040 050 060 062 080 100 110 133 010 020 030 040 090 100 110 120 122 130 140 150 071 072 090 091 123 17 1 2 8 24 1 1 9 911 18 17 4 1 26 23 26 41 1 1 13 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Harass LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan FORGERY Assault Theft 1 11 11 11 1 2 2 Fighting 2 Gambling Hischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery 2 Z 1 2 Z 2 030 040 050 060 062 100 110 140 010 030 040 050 080 090 100 no 122 1 1 5 3 3 2 1 2 1 41 10 4 5 22 2 3 2 14 1 1 3 1 1 95 66 6 1 40 11 2 1 1 17 12 2 10 1 2 1 1 5 4 3 13 6 19 3 21 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 161 18 1 2 50 12 4 1 11 11 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 18 3 21 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 2 1 12 2 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 3 11 1 1 26 23 26 41 11 13 1 15 3 13 6 1 9 3 2 113 2 21 1 168 18 1 2 50 12 5 1 1 1 1 1 15 5 33 2 1 21 1 2 1 1 22 2 1 12 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 31 26 29 43 1 2\u0026lt; 15 2 163 15 6193 211 U 12 21 1 190 20 1 1 2 62 3 2 1 61 1 11 1 2 20 1 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSHRC PAGE 25 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT RAPRINGS Pos Ueap UEAPONSI Assembly Gang Hem 2 3 3 3 3 130 090 091 122 123 3 3 1 1 2 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Harass LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Gang Hem ROBBERY 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 080 100 110 010 020 030 040 050 090 100 110 122 123 130 150 071 072 123 130 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 67 34 1 101 22 2 24 1 4 9 2 1 4 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 6 113 27 3 2 2 1 6 140 1 4 1 23 1 3 7 2 1 3 2 6 1 21 1 7 1 1 1 87 249 1 8 1 1 1 6 1 6 1 8 1 1 36 136 1 1 4 1 31 1 4 8 2 9 3 12 29 1 1 8 1 1 1 123 385 3 3 5 5 1 1 4 1 31 1 3 5 4 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 24 64 1 1 2 7 5 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 4 2 26 71 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 11 4 2 9 3 13 3 31 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 10 23 3 7 1 1 1 1 13 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 2 2 137 2 27 1 1 7 1 36 1 5 k 13 5 2 11 It \\lt 3 36 1 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 164 5 5 3 3 418 76 494SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT Of SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF little rock school district FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 30 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT HinAlter Harass LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 060 062 110 030 040 090 105 110 123 090 11 1 11 22 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 22 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Dishon. HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUSORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 Weapon Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 010 030 060 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 121 000 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 060 062 100 110 131 6 12 4 2 11 2 2 1 1 53 1 19 3 18 5 1 1 1 10 1 4 3 9 1 2 1 80 9 13 25 4 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 20 8 8 2 5 2 6 1 1 33 8 4 1 9 13 4 2 12 2 4 3 1 73 1 27 3 26 5 3 1 1 15 1 4 5 15 2 3 1 113 17 13 29 4 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 22 3 2 9 1 15 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 6 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 25 1 5 8 1 9 3 1 13 28 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 13 4 2 12 2 6 3 2 76 1 27 3 26 5 3 1 3 1 15 1 4 5 17 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 123 17 13 30 4 3 1 7 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 25 1 5 8 1 9 3 1 28 3 3 29 2 1 9 16 5 3 15 3 3 9 4 2 101 1 28 8 34 5 3i 1 1 3 1 24 4 4 5 18 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 151 20 13 30 4 6 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 31 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Tardies Battery Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueap Ueapon Other of 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 133 020 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 123 150 072 090 121 000 1 1 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 4 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 12 2 1 1 77 210 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 3 23 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 6 33 86 110 296 1 1 1 10 47 3 19 1 1 1 13 66 1 1 1 5 10 3 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 11 13 23 J) 1 1 1 2 1 3 27 2 1 2 1 2 1 121 320 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 67 1 3 2 7 1 3 1 4 28 2 2 2 2 2 1 135 387SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 18 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS -LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 110 010 030 040 100 105 110 123 150 090 2 2 10 1 9 4 1 1 3 2 4 1 1 1 7 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 30 1 12 17 1 10 4 1 1 1 42 1 3 1 2 10 3 3 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 13 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 17 2 10 k 1 1 1 44 1 6 1 2 13 4 1 4 1 1 1 23 2 11 1 57 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Hischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS V As Sf UEAPONSI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 105 110 122 123 130 150 072 091 3 5 3 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 060 062 010 020 030 040 080 1 2 2 14 1 4 15 11 1 1 1 1 65 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 6 2 1 1 21 2 7 1 4 5 4 1 2 2 2 17 1 1 1 21 13 1 2 1 1 1 86 5 1 1 2 3 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 5 I, 1 2 3 2 17 1 1 1 22 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 90 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 9 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 6 k 1 2 3 k 19 1 1 7 22 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 95 5 1 1 2 2 1 5 11 1SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT Of SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSHRC (ib/n/\u0026lt;)b PAGE 19 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREUORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 09 2 22 2 2 22 3 3 3 090 100 105 110 123 140 150 071 072 090 19 5 3 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1,1, 2 2 8 1 21 Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 2 2 040 090 105 110 3 SUBTOTAL 2 16 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 )5H 55 27 6 3 2 1 1 1 65 3 12 17 200 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 23 6 I 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 29 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 3 6 12 28 63 21 12 1 71 1 2 1 1 212 7 1 1 11 1 11 29 4 1 29 7 42 2 121 82 3 12 17 241 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 26 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 04 2 040 SUBTOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Saioking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond FIREUORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 040 062 090 100 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 140 150 071 1 5 1 21 1 3 6 1 3 6 5 5 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf Extort In Riot Ueapon Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 112 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 3 3 3 3 040 060 062 090 100 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 110 123 071 110 120 121 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis 1 1 1 040 060 062 1 1 11 2 2 1 1 15 2 10 1511 1 35 1 6 2 1 1 2 81 12 3 1 2 40 1 1 4 1 1 2 10 16 2 11 171 11 45 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 9 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 21 162 12 171 14 50 5 2 1 1 9 1 3 6 5 2 21 16 2 14 1 8 12 4 59 J 1 1 1 1 3 9 2 1 8 1 8 9 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 1 1 16 2 12 1 16 4 2 2 56 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 2 1 2 2 13 4 17 2 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 3 1 4 1 1 2 3 22 13 2 17 4 2 31 1 1 2 67 1 8 1 1 6 3 21 1 1 9 3 8' 23 22 14 3 23 72 3 1 11 2 88 1 14 1 1 4 SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 27 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Battery Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS Ass Staf V As Sf Extort 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 090 100 110 020 040 090 100 105 110 130 071 072 110 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 4 4 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 4 1 1 6 2 2 10 6 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 32 107 5 31 37 138 1 1 23 4 27 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 2 1 10 3 4 10 7 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 47 1 1 2 1' 3 4 10 7 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 48 22 2 24 3 1 4 2 1 3 165 31 196SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE , BH BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 32 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE\n6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Foul Lan 1 1 060 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Ind Exp Har Conn 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 062 040 100 120 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 2 4 1 2 1 11 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 1 13 2 3 4 1 2 1 13 2 3 4 1 2 1 13 Ref Ruts Fighting 1 2 062 040 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 1 5 6 1 5 6 1 5 6 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting 1 1 1 2 060 062 110 040 1 3 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 1 3 1 3 8 1 3 1 3 8 1 3 1 3 8 Ref Ruis Fighting Hischief INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 062 040 080 105 110 3 1 2 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 6 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 10 1 4 1 3 1 10 1 4 1 3 1 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 31 8 39 39 39LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 33 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Bus Regs CLASS K 1 1 060 070 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Foul Lan 1 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 010 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Harass Ref Ruts Foul Lan Fighting Pos Ueap 1 1 1 2 3 040 062 110 040 090 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Fighting 1 2 062 040 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 FAILOBEY Foul Lan Fighting Mischief Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 060 110 040 080 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 21 3 24 1 1 24 1 25SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/96 EXPELLED 06/27/96 PAGE TOTAL 34 Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 06 2 040 SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 7 1 1 7 1 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 35 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting 2 040 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 2 030 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis fighting INSUBORO 1 2 2 062 040 105 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 4 6 6 6SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 36 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF  UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ind Exp INSUBORD CLASS 02 2 2 100 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 V As Sf 3 072 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY 1 060 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 FAILOBEY INSUBORD Paging D 1 2 2 060 105 123 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 7 2 4 1 7 2 4 1 7 2 4 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 11 11 1 1 12 12SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 37 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault CLASS K 1 2 062 010 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 01 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Foul Lan Theft 1 2 110 030 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 1 2 3 062 110 110 071 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault Pos Ueap 1 2 3 062 010 090 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Ref Ruis Paging D V As Sf 1 2 3 062 123 072 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 HinAlter Harass Theft 1 1 2 030 040 030 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 5 17 4 4 1 1 1 1 18 5 23SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 38 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis INSUBORD CLASS K 1 062 2 2 , 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Assault INSUBORD CLASS 01 1 Z Z 062 010 105 '1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 z 1 4 Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault PROSTAFF Dis Cond 1 1 2 Z 2 062 090 010 090 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL Z 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 2 7 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 010 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 3 2 6 1 1 2 1 4 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 1 1 2 4 3 9 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault Fighting 1 1 2 2 062 070 010 040 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 1 2 7 It 1 1 Z 8 4 1 1 2 8 4 1 1 2 8 Foul Lan PROSTAFF Dis Cond Paging D 1 2 2 2 110 090 110 123 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Fighting PROSTAFF 1 2 Z 2 062 010 040 090 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 15 37 2 1 3 1 1 38 3 41LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 39 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF FAILOBEY 1 060 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter FAILOBEY Theft PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 030 090 100 105 110 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9 PROSTAFF Dis Cond 2 2 090 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond Har Comm FIREUORK 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 060 062 110 040 110 120 140 1 1 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 13 3 6 1 2 3 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 1 1 17 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 1 2 18 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault PROSTAFF Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 110 010 090 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 3 5 1 2 3 1 5 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 18 32 4 4 8 32 8 40SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 40 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Harass INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 2 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 FAILOBEY Assault Theft PROSTAFF Paging D 1 2 2 2 2 060 010 030 090 123 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 Ref Ruts Assault Fighting INSUBORD 1 2 2 2 062 010 040 105 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 9 2 2 1 3 6 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 11 1 1 1 3 7 1 12 Assault Battery Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Pos Ueap 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 040 105 110 090 1 1 3 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 8 1 3 1 6 2 1 4 3 3 1 14 2 1 4 3 3 1 14 2 1 4 3 3 1 14 HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Fighting Hischief Ind Exp INSUBORD Paging D FIREUORK Ass Staf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 010 040 080 100 105 123 140 071 2 2 1 6 5 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 5 3 4 1 4 1 2 2 1 7 1 5 3 4 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 18 3 21 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 7 2 2 1 11 2 5 3 1 1 1 29 HinAlter Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 110 010 020 030 040 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 41 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED t TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 UEAPONSI 2 2 2 2 2 3 090 100 105 110 123 091 1 1 2 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 19 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 23 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 23 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 25 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conan Paging 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 010 040 105 110 120 123 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 ! CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 8 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 2 1 5 3 1 1 2 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 2 1 Z 17 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 2 1 2 18 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 71 23 94 9 2 11 2 2 96 11 107SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 i PAGE 42 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT HinAlter CLASS K 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 HinAlter Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 030 040 100 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 4 4 1 12 1 1 1 4 4 1 12 1 1 1 4 4 1 12 1 1 1 4 1 12 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD WEAPONSI 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 060 062 040 105 091 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS FIREWORK Pos Weap 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 010 030 040 090 105 110 130 140 090 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 17 5 22 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 23 1 3 7 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 26 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 38 6 44 2 2 4 1 1 45 4 49LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 43 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL I SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS K 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter Foul Lan FIREUORK 1 1 2 030 110 140 2 2 2 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 HinAlter Fighting 1 2 030 040 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 040 105 110 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 HinAlter Battery PROSTAFF INSUBORD 1 2 2 2 030 020 090 105 2 2 2 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 4 13 5 1 6 1 1 14 6 20LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 44 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE FROM DATE: 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERN EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 2 062 105 110 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fitting Hischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 010 030 040 080 100 110 071 1 1 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Ast Staf 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 062 110 010 040 105 110 071 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORD Ass Staf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 010 030 040 100 105 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL Hir*lter 1 Ref Ruis I 1 Theft Fitting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 062 030 040 090 105 110 123 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 4 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 13 1 2 1 7 1 1 3 4 3 1 1 1 3 2 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 11 1 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 15 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 !, 1 1 15 t, 2 1 1 1 2 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 1 !\u0026gt; 1 1 2 i\u0026gt; Z 1 17 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 13LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 45 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 3 030 062 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 123 072 11 7 2 1 1 12 7 2 1 1 1 12 7 2 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 1 29 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 31 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 31 1 2 13 7 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 33 HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUeORD Dis Cond Paging 0 Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 010 020 040 090 100 105 110 123 071 072 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 11 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 80 1 1 2 1 5 14 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 94 14 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 18 5 19 1 1 2 96 19 115SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 46 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond UEAPONSI 2 3 110 091 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD UEAPONSI 1 1 2 Z 3 060 062 040 105 091 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Fighting Dis Cond Paging D 2 2 2 040 110 123 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 ! 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 040 090 105 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 1 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 4 18 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 19 3 22SCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 47 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT BH TOT BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 HinAlter Bus Regs 1 1 030 070 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 3 3 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 6 6SCHOOL: 032 DODO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UEAPONSI 3 091 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 48 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM HF UHT [TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Assault Dis Cond RAPRINGS 1 2 2 2 060 010 110 130 1 3 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 5 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 7 1 3 2 1 7 1 3 2 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 2 7 1 1 7 1 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 49 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 033 MEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis INSUBORD Pos Ueap CLASS 02 1 2 3 062 105 090 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 105 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Z 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FORGERY Assault Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 140 010 040 090 105 110 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 It 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 9 2 1 1 11 1 2 1 Z 1 1 11 1 1 2 Z 1 1 1 4 1 1 Z 13 HinAlter FAILOBEY Assault Fighting Hischief 1 1 Z 2 2 030 060 010 040 080 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 010 105 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 It 2 1 8 1 t, Z 1 8 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 27 4 31 2 2 6 9 2 2 6 9 1 It 2 1 8 2 2 2 6 3 4 4 3 14 31 9 40SCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF little rock school district FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 50 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault INSUBORD Ass Staf Pos Ueap CLASS K 2 2 3 3 010 105 071 090 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Theft INSUBORD 2 2 030 105 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 2 010 105 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 It 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 INSUBORD Dis Cond Arson Pos Ueap 2 2 3 3 105 110 060 090 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 8 1 4 2 1 8 Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf 2 2 2 2 3 010 040 105 110 071 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 4 1 11 1 2 3 1 11 1 2 3 4 1 11 1 2 3 4 1 11 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 27 2 29 1 1 1 1 2 31 1 32LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 51 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 035 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ELEMENTARY SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis UEAPONSI CLASS K 1 3 062 091 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Fighting Paging D 1 1 1 2 2 2 040 062 090 010 040 123 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 ReF Ruis Pos Ueap 1 3 062 090 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Fighting PROSTAFF Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 2 060 062 010 040 090 110 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 6 6 1 4 1 4 6 1 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 10 Ref Ruis Fighting 1 2 062 040 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 2 14 11 11 14 11 25 I I ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 52 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL -LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY 1 060 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Harass 1 040 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 040 105 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 Foul Lan Hischief 1 2 110 080 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 8 3 2 5 8 5 13 I ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 53 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM- EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 060 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 5 FAILOBEY Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 2 2 060 100 110 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 3 1 2 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 3 2 1 5 8 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault UEAPONSI 2 3 010 091 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 4 5 1 1 1 5 8 1 1 1 5 8 1 1 1 5 8 HinAlter 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault PROSTAFF Dis Cond RAPRINGS V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 010 090 110 130 072 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 7 17 10 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 4 2 6 1 7 2 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 13 27 5 6 11 1 1 28 11 39SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM. BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 54 01 SCIPL I HE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Fighting Dis Cond 1 2 2 060 040 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 3 3 7 1 3 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 1 1 1 3 4 8 Fighting Dis Cond UEAPONSI 2 2 3 040 110 091 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 Fighting Dis Cond 2 2 040 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 5 4 9 5 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 4 9 1 1 2 6 5 11 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 060 062 040 110 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 6 9 1 2 1 4 1 1 4 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 7 13 1 1 1 1 4 8 14 Harass Ref Ruis Assault Battery Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 062 010 020 040 105 110 123 3 2 1 5 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 11 2 3 1 3 1 5 13 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 14 2 1 6 1 4 1 1 4 1 7 1 20 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Coran 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 040 100 110 120 1 3 8 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 3 12 2 29 2 1 3 1 3 8 2 3 13 2 32 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 68 9 77 3 3 5 5 1 3 8 2 3 13 2 32 2 3 5 1 5 8 2 3 16 2 37 14 1 15 1 1 1 1 78 16 94LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 55 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BN BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 1 060 062 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 I Ref Ruis False Al 1 2 062 060 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis RAPRINGS 1 2 062 130 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ass Staf 3 071 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting 1 1 1 1 2 050 060 062 110 040 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 4 12 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 12 3 15LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 56 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF FAILOBEY 1 060 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL Fighting 2 040 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting 2 040 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Fighting Ind Exp 1 2 2 060 040 100 2 2 2 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 4 3 1 4 2 5 1 8 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 5 2 7 7 7 14SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 57 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Battery Ind Exp CLASS K 2 2 2 010 020 100 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 7 Assault Battery Ass Staf CLASS 01 2 2 3 010 020 071 2 2 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 5 Assault Battery Ind Exp Dis Corid UEAPONSI 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 100 110 091 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 7 1 3 5 1 2 1 1 10 Assault Battery RAPRINGS Arson Ass Staf 2 2 2 3 3 010 020 130 060 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 Assault Battery Fighting 2 2 2 010 020 040 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Ind Exp Ass Staf 1 2 2 2 3 062 010 020 100 071 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 8 Battery 2 020 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 19 5 24 6 5 11 7 1 8 2 1 3 32 14 46LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 58 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 043 WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 59 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF WEAPONS1 3 091 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 Assault WEAPONS1 2 3 010 091 1 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Battery Fighting INSUBORD 2 2 2 020 040 105 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 , 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 1 1 2 10 10LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 60 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ass Staf CLASS K 3 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond FIREUORK 2 2 2 2 010 105 110 140 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 4 11 1 1 3 4 1 4 12 1 1 INSUBORD 2 105 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 13 1 1 Assault Ass Staf 2 3 010 071 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 2 14 2 1 3 1 1 15 3 4 4 1 4 13 1 1 2 1 3 18LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 61 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERN' EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 2 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 6 1 1 It b 1 1 4 6 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 010 030 040 090 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 2 5 1 4 1 14 1 1 1 2 6 1 4 1 15 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 6 1 1 15 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 6 1 U 18 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 030 060 062 040 110 2 2 2 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis Assault Fighting AL-DRUGS 1 2 2 2 062 010 040 150 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis Assault Fighting Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 010 040 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 6 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 8 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 35 1 1 2 1 3 4 9 3 3 2 8 1 1 3 1 6 44 5 2 2 2 2 2 7 3 3 2 8 2 2 3 3 2 2 10 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 44 7 51LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 62 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Harass Assault Theft UEAPONSI 1 2 2 3 040 010 030 091 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 5 6 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 7 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis PROSTAFF INSUBORD 1 1 2 2 060 062 090 105 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 6 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF UEAPONSi 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 040 080 090 091 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 010 040 105 110 4 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 9 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 12 HinAlter Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Fighting PROSTAFF 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 INSUBORD . 2 Dis Cond Har Conn Paging D UEAPONSI Ueapon CLASS 06 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 060 062 010 040 090 105 110 120 123 091 121 1 1 2 3 2 2 SUBTOTAL 11 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 18 1 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 22SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 32 13 45 5 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 63 6 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL I BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM WF ' UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 3 3 48 6 54SCHOOL\n048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE\nUHT TOT BM SUSMRC PAGE (A DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE\n6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Theft Fighting CLASS K 2 2 2 010 030 040 1 2 1 2 1 2 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 Theft Dis Cond 2 2 030 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Ref Ruis Theft Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 030 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 4 3 7 1 1 5 3 8 1 1 1 1 5 3 8 1 1 1 5 3 9 Ref Ruis Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 062 040 090 100 110 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 MinAlter FAILOBEY Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 030 040 105 110 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 4 5 1 3 1 3 5 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 FAILOBEY Assault Battery fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 010 020 040 090 105 110 150 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 5 1 3 9 1 21 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 3 9 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 9 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 9 1 24 FAILOBEY Theft PROSTAFF Dis Cond Paging D UEAPONSI 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 030 090 110 123 091 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1SCHOOL\n048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 4 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 40 11 51 10 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 65 5 11 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 4 5 9 51 11 62SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT Of SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 MinAlter 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 66 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 67 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SCHOOL: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Mischief CLASS 01 2 080 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Paging D CLASS 05 2 123 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Paging D Pos Weap CLASS 06 2 3 123 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 4 1 5SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BH SUSHRC 06/27/96 PAGE 68 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Harass FAILOBEY Fighting Dis Cond CLASS K 1 1 2 2 040 060 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conn 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 110 010 020 090 100 110 120 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 040 100 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 2 4 1 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 9 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conn 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 010 030 040 105 110 120 1 2 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL HinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 062 030 040 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL HinAlter Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 030 062 110 1 6 1 1 1 3 2 10 2 1 11 2 1 1 4 8 1 3 1 21 2 1 1 4 8 1 3 1 21 2 1 1 4 8 1 3 1 21 4 1 1 10 1 16 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 11 1 20 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 11 1 20 1 2 1 4 5 1 1 2 13 2 24 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/27/96 PAGE 69 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/21/95 TO DATE: 6/03/96 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Fighting Mischief Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 1 2 . 2 010 040 080 110 3 7 SUBTOTAL ) 1 1 16 3 7 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 16 1 1 4 7 1 1 17 HinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 7 2 1 14 1 1 3 2 1 8 2 2 2 10 4 2 22 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 84 23 107 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 4 2 23 108 5 2 2 2 11 I, 23 113discipline manacement QbAltTEREV RETORT School. Franklin Incentive Beginning Period Q} Principa'.. Ending Period. \\\\ 1 PART 1. Please indicate number of suspensions by race and category. A. Out of School Suspensions - Category I Violations Black Total Black While Toial While Spanish Toial Span Asia/Pte Total Atta/ Pac Ind/r\u0026gt;k Tuul InJ' Esk Other Toul Other f  3Z 5 T.eiU coitintn Xttiee- si - 'rt 9 B9i wi/iagi, on 1 oniio incj 1 F I i M I F M I F M F M F M  I F TiHlIl I T i 1 4 I B. Long-Term Suspension - Category 11 Violations Cndei jSZ I 3: A 4 Black i.J. Toul Black While Toial While Spanish Total Span Aaia/Pac Total Alia/ Pac Ud/Fsk Total Ind/ Eak Other M I I Toial Other Toitit 3' 7 M ,5^ 1. F M F F M F M I F F 1_ 1 Tnuli P'f column I C. Expulsions - Category 111 Violations Gra Jet. Black Tvxal Black While Toul While Spaniah Toul Span Atit/I'ac Total Asia/ Pac Ind/Eik Total Ind/ Fbk Oiher K\u0026lt; Toul Other Tolala M F M F M F M F M F F  I 2. 3 3 l I I iL H I 1  Ttxali .olumn NOTE: Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (1) week following the end of each Gradi Period, SEE REVERSE FOR PARTS II, III ANO IV.lARr II. Please complete. NOTH: These tipiires are to be included in Part I. 1996 01 Desei NOTE: Sindents on Sent Homes are not included in Part I. ni.,1 1 mIaI hlBil '\\bitc M iHtI ^itilc Jij'rtIMsh M i. Tiital Spnn Ajin'l'^ M I Total Asia/ I'.K-hbirsk M Total hili/ Ik Oih\u0026lt;r M F TeiU Otivr T.-i,.\n. I iTctiwivnb H-wn\u0026lt;hri If.'biKti Sr*c-t Id. bon .i___ t 1 --4/ I-I PART HI. Iwonal I.ata - . indicate race, sex and ecomnrcnd.ng the various suspensions. - Please indicate experience of staff memb.CIS  T^tachinj Fp\u0026lt; IK rue Blaat F Tidal BlaA F Total Willie SpnrtHh M I T\u0026gt;ia1 Span Asii/Iii, 0-3 -J. F Total Asia/ {ac InJ'H'k M I Ttnal IimM f sk Other I Tout Other TiMjI* 410 ll-iS 16-20 2I-2S 26-30 30 O\\cr Tout. I\nGfwks K PART IV, rr.ck TZ -iZHi 2 3 .5 6 Toialt r-r volwtTtn ?K P.nroll,ncnt Data - idease indicate and Race. Twal Black White Kt 2: J. 3 0 1- Total W hilc Spanish F Tual Span I a yi'iir scliools enrollment by Grade I.evel, .Sex' Aiifi/Pic M F Total Aiia/ l'ae iiij/rk M I-Total libl.' i:-.k Other M F 6 Total Othvr I o Total, ICr i 0 ('aiis. a rAyLa4rD(?M(., 15) 0 3S ii ils*- 1 ho i4 xit .331 \u0026amp; LA fc. D 313 W E D : 1 1 F'M R I G H T S F L I ? 41-3 55 p. e 3, SCHOOL rniigffw, LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT Rsghtsell Elementary School 911 West 19 street Phone 324-2430 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 DATE: AprU 3^ TO: 2|Af^ie ^o\\we 11 FROM: oriifi FAX 5 3 -iOO \\ 'i2.y- -o 53 b^BJECl: ... D ispi pi ine.... Z^^uarl'erly RepcrTs CZfi'd N i*Ve c KiJ ( 3rc! SPECIAIz INSlRUOnONS: Number of pages {including cover page):___ 5 \"Carh AwAP^NFf^s/MAss MeoiA Awareness\" A P P * - 9 e Gi 5 : 1 2 MED PM F: I G H T  E L L . S C H O C L 3240535 'r,e- l^eshs DISCIPI.INE MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT RICHTSELjj ELEHE.'TAEY Beginning Period. 10-19-95 n'rincipal o.isQ xsf/ /i .PsuoKS Enejing Period PART 1. Plwse indicate number of snspensions by race and category. A. Out ot School .Su.s^X!nsioii.? - Category ( Violations b'l k THI c:iA SfOius  Tr'al SfOT A*i 'Fsv tiid-Uk + 1, t q. Asii/ Fa: TcUt IaJ/ F.V  I M I F T.xit oe.\u0026lt;r t i.i ri 4- p R fAtbuJin nOO v: .'I iJ B Long-Term Suspersion  category II Viob'.ions Crfd4 Rlick TniftI Fv.k T.-dsl WbiiB Spfifii.h Toiftl Spsr Asit'Pec Total Asia/ Pat- bdiLsk Teal IntJ/ EA O'/.sf Kt Tixil I- ii I-------------- .J. 5\nI1OC'I TflflJ r M F F F F K 1 2 3 5 i. H r F' . 0 2 T 1 i I 1 ) i M T r M f M F rf F F 1 I 1 I\nr i + i T  I 1 Ttrab per columr I C. Expulsions  Category HI Violations . FH-.M K\u0026lt; eOld.TlP Toal -4- I t 4 I HI J, Tnal Tc:! Spn Total *!/ Fa^ IrJ'Esk ToUl Ind/ fJlt Oth.ff Toj! 0-1 r' ozi:: Teau * li Ji ] F T SpAA\u0026lt;^ Asti.-'F*': M F M F N( P M F i !  I I + I } T X I I T i T I NOTE\nQuarterly kej.x'^ri.s are due in ilic Htanng Ufllcc one (1) week following the end or each Gr*:djn^ Period. srp JU-VLR5L J OR TARTS 11, IH AND IVap R 0 0 5:12 F' M R I G H T S E L L . S C H O O L 3240535 F' . 0 3 PART II. Piea$e compJeie. 2r,d \" NOTE\nThese figures Arc tc be jnclude^^ i. F^ri I. 'NOTE: Students on Sent Homes are no( included in Pan I. QSvk h.-lai w^:ic Sf anvil T.'lsl Wb-.'\u0026lt;  rpen AstiT*: OiHjr T?ijl d \"j M SJ F PS^ I M !  *. ,11 T X [ H-Tnrbf'jW IviW?\" I I I + 4 Spe, CdXb\u0026lt;4' I 1 T 1 5 T t i X PART III. Personal Data * Please indicate race, sex and experience of staff members tccon-imcndir.g ihc various suspensions. Ta\nhi\"j Cxp\u0026lt;ri*.n\u0026lt;4 eifk Toial BiaX Whi!\u0026lt; TyV\u0026gt;: V'Mie 5pani!iJl T0'} S,'in AUi'PftC Toial Asis' Psj h J Id: Tout Ind/ f,fc OMf 0.1 i-to 11-11 '.6 20 ----------P-4- !l-5, if isxi TcUii 2S-5O M P 2 4 M F M F M F F F 2 6 I I I T 1 I 4 I I I I ! ! T i ,iI I i I u 1 part IV. Enrollment Data - Please indicate your school's eorollmenc by Grade Level. Sex ano Race. I Cntc :\u0026lt;k .M F Twa! nti.k W\u0026lt; M Total V.iii1c Spen-ih M TolaJ Span AaiaPic Total Asti- ! 1-A 14 17 3) 0 Q 0 Hi. T- Teial Ind' Ek 0\u0026lt;r M 1 F 0 10 20 30 0 0 0 11 09 20 0 0 0 3 20 13 33 0 I 1 1 T.-. Oblvr 1 TcuilJ F\nf 32 20 12 15 25 0 0 0 5 6 snii.ru\" 21 10 98 le 39 1 40 09 19 0 0 0 0 1 I J 1 9S 19? 1 2 2 I 9 I V l'15'.-MCMt C*AF' P-\u0026amp;3  r' WEP 0 5:13 PM PIGHTSELL. C\nM O O L. 4 0 5 3 5 P . 0 4 Srdl /'Jine WeeE\u0026gt; DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT School Rlt^StLL ELEitENTARY Degirining i'eriod. 01~\u0026amp;3-6 pil -SkoKOf/ s^. _ Ending Pcrio\u0026lt;i__ \u0026gt;3-13-96 IAlVf I. Please indicate number of suspensions by race and calegoiy. A Out of Stlsotd Suspensions - Category ( Violations ]j GraJs.? L. I l il Tt*a. eU'.k Taiil bUcL U'hiU Kt Fine! White 5pa\u0026lt;b\u0026gt;Ik T.tfat Sjtnn AYitt/PaC k( T.-lflI A:iz' Pc h\u0026lt; IvUl InJ/ Elk ht TvAal enhk-* T. .i s I! 1 ''I M F P F R t [ K 1 2 3 5- A 1 1 T i 1 I 1 T 1 T I 1 1 ] I I 3 1i a. Long-Term Suspension  Categotv il Violations 3 t- n I GraJi Bla-k I__ rz IiIl i------- li. it P'-' Il cotutn.*) TolaJ biA^k Tclai Velkite ipaniih j A.A(t/pS Nt T.m*J A31|/ Pat Toul hJ/ (Aher ht zzi T.x*l 'i tl I! M r M F i M **1 Sp-tn F\nj I F T M F r I j i i r~r'~i I I I I C. Expulsions - CalCBory III Violations r Cr\u0026lt;Jci BiKk hi Tor** Sltk U^iis Tr.rl While Spaniisshn TC.'UmII f AAllllax'/PFttcc sr*fl r J F I M F Tl! A-\n\u0026lt;f Pbc Efk Oi\u0026gt;ef Tw-Ub I If ___ J. 2 ii MiluiAn .1. J. 1T + I Ini'P.tlt t f M F M F F CXhJf } I t 1 i I T I 1 T 7 t I 111 NOIL\nQuaritfly P.ctn^rls arc due in ir.c Ikarmg Ofllcc one (l) week following the end of each Grruimg rcru\u0026gt;J. Sfr. FOR PARTS H. IH AND IV. O's\nWED 05:14 PM E: I G H T 3 E L. L . S C H O O L P . GnS JrJ -0? P.ART l!. Please complex. 'R\nO|K43e ' I 'NOTE' These figures are Ic be included in Part I. NOTE: Sludcnu on Sent Homes are noi mciudcd in Part I T B'nel ___I TviM Whilu Ki nzi Ti'IkI Spar A\u0026gt;i'PsC i Cih.f **' rot kr\u0026lt;rK\u0026gt;'\u0026gt;b H'Wn^icx! l.Vj'y-'njn FdsKvij\u0026lt;.\u0026lt; .-i. PART HI Pck 04 4-10 I 21-2* 26-50 1 tvjij P/\\RT IV. r'j IJ Psf  cv'bflin Aiiii Pac 7171 T.'Ut iitf.f i..i J_____I \u0026gt;1 H !l T^'T Personal Data  Please indicate race, sex and expentnee cf staff members rccor.imqndir.g the \\anou5 suspensions. Te- at E'lek ------ Td*4l ^^iie u. SfBmsh I TuUt Srn Asii/Pis IpU* AV,k. P*.' TcUl Rd/ E\u0026gt;k OJicf TuXi Gb'icr 7 Uli j! 4- -.J C-XeS- 't 4- I Fnrollioent Dam - Please indicaie your school's cnrol'nsent by G.-ade Lcsel. Sc\\ and Paco. Uli.k I To* 1-----1 B!*A iz.]_____ U-hirc I T.a* ZI V.'hAtf Spieii-F. Srtr Tc**l Ps. Ir4 \u0026amp;ik Tp'ii T.'tM  OJ\u0026gt;eT P.r 14 1! 31 2! 12 21 10 10(1 Ii 31 20 31 10 13 34 15 18 19 102 202 32 31 37 27 \u0026lt;10 20 208 E^rtrii\n* I  1 I M , ? i ifij-eA M X I 1 1 F ! M F M . .\u0026lt;5 } 2 i T I I K 3 4 t 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 c 1 M 9 0 0 a ) 21 39 0 I 0 0 0 0 c I 0 2 T I i T T M F { F i I 1 ) i 1 I irtJi'f..-k I M I F 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 T r I 0 0 0 1 0 t 1 0 0 2 0 3 0- ) 1 M I 2 i A X i C.iTAVVOtd.'JCWGMfT ettR I G H T S E U L . S C H C O L APR THU PM Wiit  -1 .Z (K*. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL- \u0026gt;/** ..  DISTRICT I I TWWlllMl)|, P . 0 1 Rightsell Elementary School 911 West 19 Street Phone 324-2430 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 DxMT:\n^pri I JUof q~ p TO\nFAX # 3'1! -OiOO FROM: -,_'\\pQrcf^ 3SrooB-\n\u0026gt; FAX# 32':^ t C d h I NS- SUBJECT: T}k\u0026lt;T.\nplme Charierty t^gpofb L yVeeks SPECLzUL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of pages (Including cover page): \"CARI^EH AVf^ARENESS/MASS MEDIA AWARENESS\" JP . O 2 THU PM 240535 DISCIPUNF, MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY REI-ORT School, lEMTARi Biginning Penod.. 10-19-95 Principai, Sho *QzJ \u0026gt;1). 'j54ooZ\u0026lt;S Ending Period. 12-19-95 PzLRT 1. Please indicaie number of suspensions by race and category. A. Ont of School Su.'ipen'.iioi'..s - Cnicgory t Violalions OrAduit Ola.k T.'tfli C\nj\nX V,'h\ne Tcial Spflnn.l T,.lil Span AsiI'Fic Teul Asi#' Fic InC. Lsk T i I i Tval hJ.' Fsk TxUl O-hcf l( .1 4 1 ii j\n,_L. L_.  ..'I 7tKd.\u0026lt; o ftdiiitin 11 Credo B, Long-Term Suspension - Categoiy 11 Violanon.s Fink t-r*l B^ack To..*t SVhiia T(.i.l S.an Aitl'PiiC Twul Pic tfld/Eik TcUZ {ziJ/ F.sk Olhtr Tnul CKftjr '1 Tnisb per column C. Expulsions - CiJiegory III Violations GrodiJi Blick T?til Slack V.'hlW Tniil ATitifl Aba-'Fi-: Xi 'rn Tctal Fa- Tuab p:r f X i .. -L ______ il I Toul ln\u0026lt;|/ Other Tout fh/icr 'I II i t T NOTE. Period. i 1 M R I G H T ELL . 5 C H i: L /V 'f'?- l^eeKs F F ri\u0026lt;\nhi'Sell el M F M F M P F 1 i I T i ! k I 1 1 i F F T X. I t i 1 M F I + I t F 1 M i Sr*niii F T i M F H + I i I 4 I I F F M I I F I T I I I M I F t 1 1 I I 1 I i 1 Te\ni.j Quaneriy Keporis aie due in liic Hearing Office one (1) week following the end of e.icli G.-adin,sTHU Q 3 PM R I G H T 3 E L L . C H Cl Q L 5 P . 0 3 J'c koo PART 11. Plea^iE complcic. r'lOTE: The.sc Ggures ate io be iiicludsd in Pan I. 'NOTE: Students on Sent Homes are not included in Part I. rr ei\u0026lt;k F I W.WU I TjhJ .Spnih I AV., Pa\u0026lt; *1 UL 3fi.. Xf Tki Ai'S' Fk Sn-J-eak O\nkc\u0026lt; f M T i K F I p Ls f M I TM4i t T..:-\n, I { fta(nvala rtomcbcAirJ + I I I t I I 1 I t I  I + ( :l J 11 !j PART m. Per.5onal Data - Please indicate race, sc.x and exfierience of staff members reconirtienditig the various suspensions. r T TdicP.inf Tta'.ii C-3 4.10 IM) iA-20 21-1^\n.so 3O.C\\ef TyuJi T .L  Slick To5*1 Sranish To'jI S,-n Ajii Pit\nI Tpul ASt4.' Pc\nind'Sik Tiu: Inez ClL O'Jtsr Tt.u: j O'?c\nI T I T T II ii Ji M F 2 4 4 M P M F F I P M F 1 I T 1 J I I I i + 1  T I 1 I PART IV. Enrollment Data - Please indicate your .school's enrollment by Grade Levei. Sex and Race, ! Cn4e T R!ai.k J Ki Tcnal Qlt'.k W-hi?. ''7 M F T?'l 5?ni*h M I ?rn A:atPi! M F K 1 U L? 31 0 0 0 tcUl Pac fnd.Esk 10 20 30 0 0 0  I II 3 4 5 i------ if' L Tj:aU ^lilurtd LI 20 12 2.1 10 93 05 20 0 0 T I + 1 T I X 13 33 0 1 1 13 25 0 0 0 I !6 39 1 0 I Os99 :. TAVLcunx-MCMT \u0026lt;i lo 0 0 197 1 I T F Toii Ind* Erk M I J_ ! 1 0 i 2 0. I T*t\nI ~ iXiwt I I 1 I \u0026gt; 30 3 .,_u_ 1 1 2 20 35 ij 25 40 i i 2 4 I 20 1THU PM R T GH T S E U U. SCHOOL P . 04 3rd a/ I ne V^ee Hs DISCIPLINE management QUARTERLY REPORT ScnriQi RIG'ilTESLL ELE.'X-'iTARY Beginning Penod,. 01-03^96 Prir.ci pai Sh Ending Penod______ \u0026lt;3 w PAMT 1. please indicate nu.Tber cf suspensions by race and caiegorv. .\\. Out ol Sdinol Su^pcns^cn? - Cafrgcry i Violations T ( Cradjj O!vk T.sl 'ATiijo M I F I Total SVhilB Spini\u0026gt;A -----1----- M I P T.-.ul S?nn Vsii.* Pic Tcul zUi*/ Fc Tc-.ii InJ'' ik CXhtr Tixal il A. i I + I 1 T (111 I T I I T 4- I J. '1 7\" I T'ljij F M F M I F T M F K 1 I 2 I t ? I i 9 I ---- ! I ! I -5 T i I I t T I T 1 I 1 I 1 3 1 I I i 1 I I T B. Long-Term SvspcnSion - Category II Violations J GraJei I Bla:k iLlHT eU:k Trial Uh:Jc Td.Yl V\"nil5 I Tc^al ).t Sr AO As'i'Psc Teui j bi Eik I !l r*'' ~l 4- Asiiz PC Tcu! hd/ Citi. T\u0026lt;MI Oihv I ll 4. 4- il ii II 1 IF Toiaii P\u0026lt;' I T 1 T 1 i I T I T ! L r I I I I 1 I L i  F i I 1 T Olhiif I F ! F M i F M r I I T I 1 T t I t T t I j  1 i I 1 I C- nxpulslons - Calegory FH Viokuien?- T ! t Toral Black\nTrftI SpaciUi I Td'mI t I Ajii-'Pe\nil ! ir il I! I! Tt'ih il 4----- f ! r-T 1 -i i Aiia/ Pec bd.'Eik i Tclil !:^1/ F-k Other Ta.a! Ojier Ts-Uii HJ ! in ei*'.k m e VF\u0026gt;i\n T I M I F: ' '.*\u0026gt;(16 i M F i T M M e F i I I 1 7 -  I T 1 4 ( 1 T I I i  1 1 i I ]___J I NO'I L\nPvf K'd. QiidflCfly Kcporis are due In the Hciiritig Ofhee one (1) week folJowing ihc end of fCeh Gf.iding 1 i'.SP rOR Pz^^\u0026lt;T.S n. iK Zm\\0 iVTHU PM 5 C H IJ O L PAriT il. Please coinpSfie. Ji rd 'R^k'Vsei! ^Q^oi R I G H T S E l_ L . *NC it: These figures are to be induced in Fart I NO 1 e\nStudents on Sent Homes are net indudeo in Part I. T T Mli.ic I T.'H n!iec \"] AWle LI___ T.hJ Pi\nitiann\u0026gt;s 1 I, inO'PA i ?.:! i hj- :hhjr  t w\u0026lt;l.\u0026gt;ni Ss.\n.! aM.yc Tauit PART in. Personal Dau - Please indicate lace, sex tnd experience of staff n^smbcrs rcccm.nier.ding the various snsj insions. S'lck* Ctrenenu eiKk Srjn 4 .Asi' Pj\n111. i i M ! .= i Tsui hi/ r EA o.J 4-10\nl.i5 1S-2C r X I t ift 30 Iti-Cher X I 4. I i I j Of\u0026gt;tt 1 TqlSI fj rli'aV+\u0026lt;rf P F ? P i M i F j eA i T.-.,.. i I i I I I J 1 T M I { I I t { I I I I I I ( I I i r I I I I I I I i I i i X 1 1 i I I i I J T\u0026lt;.a.' j F I \"1 Viliiie r I t i I T I T M 1 p i I\n! t\"! i  i i T t I 7 i T 4 I T i I I I 1 T i i I I T ! \u0026gt; I T I i 1 I 1 i I I Tvuu PART IV. Enrollment Data - Please indicate your schoor* enroilmcnt by Grade Level. Sex and Race. T,.., I T.,U.l \u0026lt;Wr P.f I Grade \u0026amp;b:k T\u0026lt;m*j Alack White T M ( r Tctil ^V'hila Sri !\u0026gt;3d.a M I F Td:ai i lAi/ f Other \u0026lt;W ! !4 1/! 31 11 3 i 21 21 10 culwp'.n 100 20 10 13 15 l 102 31 21. 39 L9 202 1. 3 0 .. h2d i 31 40 20 208 Aia,pi T-iiil ( I K 2 A 5 I P i  n 34 n r M f I E^k I F 'fij'.- 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 !. 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 2 I 1 { I X I 1 0 c 0 1 0 I 1 T c 1 0 0 2 0 }. 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 I 37 i| tm.* I..' lAVi.:.* i\n.^MCWT Cl.9 I\" 11:16 AM Garland ,0 1 6T 1 6295  t  licmivE----------- Knou =!-Xi0Sffi.L8., A9,?5.... y oL wABji.____ _ iv M.ftEcwi\u0026lt; i9,,.i_2'\ns______ Please ind'caic nunibei of suspensions by rate anei category. I of Schooi Su5(X\nnsions  Caitgoty I Violaiions bl. i..., ...j ------- k----- Xu4 I --- I -r- TsMkl 30wih T.i'al 4in Y.oi ZslM' T.iUI hvJ' t 'Ihs-t Total Oih.f r: ....4- - 4... B r T Mi* .oJv-'-'' : *\u0026lt; I i\nXI t-t' --------- II 7 i --.k. Sus[\u0026gt;ension - Category 11 Violations (3-19 days) TacU tock X I. ! Tdi! Sf*** kJ (\u0026gt;k M' F.k T 4| f.ab JLLx-. j ...a i .1...i Expulsions Cawgory IJ! VioUlions n/A Ue) TM-t jp^ Tt\u0026gt;u\u0026lt;  Tout am/  DAL TsOi Kit iX\u0026gt;\u0026lt; T.oal t\u0026gt;\u0026gt;. f , T .Jl ________ UXs sL. L f 0 P . 04 I 1 a r : I I 'A^He M F M W F  m7 0 T 0 1 I t 5 6 I ) I 1 1 1 4 C *J.| I i w I ( t X1 I I I i I 0 0 M Tciil 7 r^ui F 0 0 0 r n Q M f ] M F 0 I n It - t I -.a ---^v F - i M f M i MTtk r M M F J r I i I NOI L Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (II week follo'Aing the end of c.ivh \u0026lt;' PcnchL \nvt RP\\ liRSG FOR PAHl^ II. Ifl AND IV. A ii 1.1, .1. iM.Ai'iAGEMf.?,! 1 QlJARri.Kl.V RElXJUl .SftuK'l Garland Beginning Period Aiieiisr. 21.1995 1 rin\u0026lt;ipj| I Lionel Ward Ending Period October 17,1995 PART I. Please indicate number of suspensions by race and category. A. Out of .School .Suspensions - Category I Violations R:..i Total Black Wiiit Tmal White Spanish Total Span Aiia/Pac Total Asia/ Pac IndZEak Total Ind/ Esk Other Total Other Tol. 3. 1 J. 1 J. Mci ol 06, iS. P'f cliiKin 2 M F M F M F u M F M F M F z .UUli tiillfiij JMflilHWf B. Long-Term Suspension - Category II Violations Black Total Black While Total While Spanish Total Span AaiaZPac Total AaiaZ Pac (nd/Esk Total IndZ Esk Other Toial Other Tola\nF M F M F M F M F F Totals P'r column C. Expulsions - Category III Violations Co Jet Black h( Total Black While Total While Spanish Total Span Aaia/Pac Toul Atta/ Pac Ind/Etk Total IndZ Hak Oiher Total Other Toish F M F M F M F M F F I T I TidaSa P^ column NOPE: Period. Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Office one (1) week following the end of each (Ir.idir. SI E RIA'ERSF. FOR PARTS II, HI AND IV.PART II. Please complete. NOTE\nThese (igiircs are to be included in Part 1. NOTT. Students on Sent Homes are not included in Part I. 'I.inerfcMuy Remnvab 'xnrhoM^ islnunon AActiuna lui bun nuck M 1 1'otal Black 1 While M F Tsq.il While Spanish M F Total Span M F Total Asia/ Pac IntPEsk KI F Total InJ/ F-k (hher Kt F Total Oil'.cr 1 T.*t.' . 1 .i I ',1 II i( !| 'I PART III. Personal Data - Please indicate J- . . experience of staff members- recommending the various suspensions. .aching 0-3 . 4 10 11-15 16-20 2I-2S 26-30 JO-Over Tolali J* I Black M -X- 1 F X 2 PART IV. Black KI F  6 14 15 16 16 11.12. 15 lA 19 16 4 3 127 iRUHSCMCMr.ClB Tt.ial Black I M F Total White Spanish M r Toial Span AaiaZFu M F Total Asia/ Pac Ind/Rjk Kt F Total hid/ tsk , Other M F Total Other Totah 1 2 3 Enrollment Data - Please indicate and Race. your school's enrollment by Grade Level. Se ex 1. 3 11 1 T(Ma! Black 13 21 22 22 22 22 2^ 35 7 108 While KI F Tol.l While Spanish K1 4 0 A 1 1 2 F 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 13 6 Total Span i 0 6 1 3 3 2 Asia/Pac M F Total Asia/ Pae IiiJ/Eik M F Total Ind/ Fsk Other Kt F T..lai OUkt T.'Ul* Per C.rvle 18 29 38 30 35 29 32 38 1 _1_ 255Cradvi X. 1 2 3 4 5 6 S c h Ot, I _ Rockefeller Prineipa 1 Anne Mangan PART I. Please indicati Beginning Period 10/19/95 Ending Period 12/19/95 te number of suspensions by A. Out of School Suspensions - Category 1 Violations race and category. Biaclr M 2 1 1 F Total Black White M F Total While Spanish M F Tui.l Asia/Pac 2 Span I -ijil \"Tr y 1 1 1 1 Total Asia/ Pne ^,'h B J / U996 ^^iaiion !i,:f Id/E*k Total Other F ir.  niiori '3 Ind/  I----- 2 M I F Total Other Totals 2 2 T TihJ (Hf Ctdiinin 4 4 1 1 5 B. Long-Term'Suspension - Category II Violations = 1--------i Grade Blidk h1 Total Black White Total Spanish J\u0026lt; 1 2 3 While n----- . iJiLl Total Span Aaic/pac Total Asia/ Pac Ind/Esk Total Ind/ F.sk Other T..tal Other Toiait F M M F M F F 4 5 6 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 TrXatl ?! column 5 1 6 1 1 2 _4 d 7 C. Expulsions - Category III Violations Grades Black Total Black While Toul Whit. Spaniah Total Span Asia/Pac Total Asia/ Pac Ind/Esk Total Ind/ Fsk Other Total Other TiXalt M F M F F M F M F F Totali column NOTE: Quarterly Reports are due in the Hearing Offr Period. ice one (1) week follivt ing the end of each (Ir.iding SEE REXTRSE FOR PARTS 11, III AND IV.I'Aur 11. Ilc.isc toinplctc. NO] 12\nThese llgiircs are 10 be included in Part I. NO I P: Slndenus on Sent Homes arc not included in lart I, nu.i. M I 1 ilal Black 'Shile M r Total While S|n\u0026lt;)ixh M r ToIhI Span ** Vw HiHtK M F Tnl.l Asia/ Pne Ind/Esk X( F Total Ind/ Esk F Tot.U Other |jnir|rKy Henwsv bU Il'Knc K lufxi lnnuiin *-5*ACtlui  Srrtl IjIu. atiwn r\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ub part hi. Personal Data - Please indicate recommending the various race, suspensions. sex and experience of staff members- Teach in J rape nc nee 0 3 4-10 II 15 IA-20 21 25 26-30 30 Over Totals rdc t 1 2 r 1 i 5 Hata per uw Black M F PART IV. Black F Tula! Black M F Total White Spanish M I- Total Span Aiii/Poc M F Tul.l Asia/ Pac Ind/F.\u0026lt;k F Total Ind/ Esk Other M F Toul Other Toul\nI nnrollmcnt Data - Please indicate and Race. Total Black Vr'hite M r Total White Spanish M f: Total Span your school's enrollment by Grade Level, Sex Asia/Pac M F JJ. 22 14 15 12 11 106 Total Asia/ Pac Ind/Esk 22 li 18 11 ID. iZ. F -22 37 32 26 22 20. Ui 24 10^ 210 UMtDGCMGkir CM 6, 2 4 9 1 1 3 9 15 16 7 18 Total Ind/ Esk Other M F Total Other T.'tala Per Gr.sJe 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 T 5 8 2 16 9 7 i 1 1 1 _1 2 1 2 1 1 7 58 54 40 11 45 43 88 4 3 7 1 1 2 3 3 6 39 40 I 33 I 313 3FR I 11:17 AM Garland 50 1 .7 1 6295 P . 05 I'AlU U PU-.isv coiuplvtc. NOIL\nThese figures arc lobe irKludcd ni Part I. 'NOir.\nSiudciKs on SciU Homes arc oo\u0026lt; tnckidcd in P*vt t. .J --n--',-.-x- ,------- i',,i ISiO WmH White Spaoiak T.'I4 AKaPae TitUI rue T.xfH tnJ/ k\u0026gt;h (W? Al T\"'* n I XS, .' fZ7\" 7-' i------ L. T I t M f Sjifift \" A'U/ M F F F 5 1 X Pz\\kr HI Personal Oaia - Pieate iixlicaie race, sc* and uperience cf Haff memben IeeO'T.mending (he variou* MHptnsions H T T ng g\n\u0026lt; ti^.l C4a T(X( Whf\u0026lt; ht 0-5 J in n 15 11AA--2200 2 11 )() o\u0026gt; Tn.1. Twui $f\u0026gt;n ' TiA*! Nc Ind-F'k T(l M' t,k At TiMV (hher JI II ___ a. Aai*Pi.' n\u0026lt;t\u0026lt;tr T.Ul F M F F W F M F r .6-jn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 M -Ll^ 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PART IV. rntollincnl Oau - Please indicaie your schools enrollment by Grade l.evei. Sex and Race. HkI Trt*l 4l f\"' ' TocU WhiU irA 'riw ** rictMl TMl Am.^ Pk U4/Fitt TniI E^k l Tai Pc* GrJx XL ^Ji. 28 -a____28.. 16 12 28 18 [16 , 34 a. 15 12 27 32 56 C31 J7. 18 5 12 rn 3 3 -0____ total 125 110 235 12 5 1? _0 \"d 0 0, 0 .Ji- 38 8 253 T AatAdPwT M f M r u 1 1 3 4 ^2 T 8 1 1 F M F M F F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0T0 1 0 4 1 1 2T  0 0 0 0 0 2 17 4 1 3 0 Z 0 4.J-Z. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 AFR-26-96 FR I 11:14 AM GAPLAND S, hw.- Garland .Iccgntivs .. , nml ........ i Monel ____ I. '\u0026lt;1.... March.lB, IWj.. PART I Pleaig indicme number of suspcn.sions r- ,iKi cai^goty. 5Ktl671625 5 P . 02 A. Out cl Schon! Suspensions  Caiegoiy ! Viplitions A* I While \\A1U  *\"T ~ -Sl'in A*i4'P i LuI-fiK fsiT\" T.i*i Is Fkk T II. PiMkC T,,. A' I U------ I... .L. } .,1. r\" I t  i H J r T.-HtI I 1 I I - T I ! M f M M t I B/5^flX-Term Suspension - Category I! Violations (3-10 days,) C '4i B4*k Ki Whiw Tc\u0026lt; Aw.'Pte T\u0026lt;M1 Aait' Ftu lf*d' F.K Ki F M F M M F F F 3 4 . 1 0 ..L._- - It 0 _______a,.-_ 0 0 T uU 14 J. 15 e*MM 21 XL 0 0____ .Q,. .=-Q 6 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0  1 C. iiXpuhions - Category HI Violations M Tutel wbM T.a*I Spi Ttui AM.' Fk TjwI F\\*i Kf \u0026lt;Hh.f i 1 ol M P f bAi'Ftk M F M F F I ... E I NOTE: Quarterly Reports are due in the Heafiiig Office one (I) week lollo'Aing iho end of e.uii GruJuip PfoO** SKE REVliRSE FOR PARTS H. IH AND |V.APR-26-96 PR I AM 5016716295 P . 03 IAKF II. PIC.I'^C COfllpklC. NOU:' These hgufcs are to be irKludcd in Part J **NO7r.- SiudcfUs on Sent Homei are not included in Part I.  T SS^kitt! T.Mll T T- M *h.*\u0026lt;  M rz r T\u0026gt;.ia S|iA() At.* P\u0026lt;V M. He M F [ Pa. Kt T.MH trU oih*f C*k Kt F I 7..,u iKh.-r Tm,. ii I) 5- H V- h Free I I ( ..L u. PART lU. Personal Oata - Plrair indicate race, sex and experience of Half menstsers leeon,mending (he varioxi* suspensiooi. I I I T 'T'- { Btiik ra:\nBilik Tutil \u0026amp;)sK TyUl Ab4'Pu TtMl AlUZ irtd'F'k 4-1. ,.l .1 Ji 0 .a 0 II IS i#-)o 1_.A, At TtHal (wv 14 Ji 0 Other KI (hh T.-uh ij-------L 311' IS 3'1 3U O-cf Tioli Cl '\",*4. n\u0026lt; V ) n 6 T M F -..1.... ii. X 0 0 Sr*ni4i M F M F 0 1 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 PART IV. Lnrollincni Dati - Please indicale your schools enrollment by Grade I.evei, Se\\ and Race. Pre-K K Cr4\u0026lt; I T Tm*! T WM* r TntW w.w H F Ttfal M F TMl hK U^Etk M F lol/ e-k OiHf h1 12 17 29 0 3 2 5 0 .0 0 0 7 F ' i td J OriJc I ._0_____15_. 0 29 Vst__ 2nd 3.3 0 . 4 0 4  0 0 0 .7 3rd Sth 6 th CBI TOIAL 16 li 21 i9qn4_j6____ 1 20 5 'UX^^ 16 3 36 8 1 0 Ci Q 0 A 1 G 1 1 i 1 0 1 1 1 3 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 128 111 239 1 0 1 11 6 11 (} 0 ..-0-.-.. 28 0 0 0 o' 0 0 39 27 t... 39 8 2'jl rAn\u0026lt;MrA.X-^\u0026lt;iif da**\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_392","title":"Dismissal for settlement plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Dismissal for settlement plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/392"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)","newspaper clippings"],"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\nA'/e. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McMRMACK. CLERK ' OEP CLERK :S,McMRMA ' t PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEC I 4 1995 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Office of Deseflregatiofi INTERVENOR Montofiiiy ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and without objection. the time for filing a response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal is hereby extended to and including January 5, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 1995. JUDGE WfS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET RWppt i COMPLIANCE WITH RUL IN 2 S 8 8 1 I RECEfVED 1 5 1995 Office of Desegregation ^ASTefOo oisVfICT g'^y^r, '^^kansas Moiuiuimy CH ---------  - _ JAMES W. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (^URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 2 I99S '^COKMACK. CIERK 'EP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an extension of time within which to file their response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal state: 1. Additional time is needed in which to respond to the motion recently filed by the LRSD. Said motion is not being made for purposes of delay. Counsel for the Little Rock School District does not oppose said extension. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua Interevenors respectfully pray the Court for an order extending the time in which they may respond to the LRSD motion to and including January 5, 1996. 2. 3.Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Br Little/ tway (501) :ohk, AR 72206 By: CBRTIF .TE OF SERVICE 8 I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on December, 1995. ,his day of Jo: Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RZCEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 DEC 1 1995 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Woiinonnfl UI ucQ a J DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL Introduction The settlement agreement in this case requires that the case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The settlement agreement was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and by this court, but the required order of dismissal was overlooked and has not been entered. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD are entitled to an order of dismissal. Statement of the Case The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD, I* which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the II Litigation\") is to be dismissed withprejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board of education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans.\" Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. This litigation ended with the approval of the settlement agreement except that this court has retained jurisdiction. in accordance with the agreement. to resolve issues related to implementation of the desegregation plans and enforcement of the settlement agreement. An order of dismissal, however, has not yet been entered. Argument The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement agreement on December 12, 1990. LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The court of appeals directed the district court, on remand. \"to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" Id. at 1394. On January 18, 1991, this court 2ordered that II [t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" According to the terms of the settlement agreement set forth above, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement. The order required by the settlement agreement will not affect this court's authority, as described in the settlement agreement, to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the desegregation plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. The question of whether a certain component of the settlement agreement should be implemented has arisen once before. In LRSD V. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir. 1992) , the court of appeals confronted the issue of whether the district court was required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the settlement agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages. II Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit said: \"What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to 'approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \"[A]s written by them,\" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as the law of the case.\" Id. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). 3One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that even though the court of appeals had approved the settlement agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item M in its opinion. Id. at 164. The court of appeals made it clear that the parties were entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement agreement: \"The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly. when the matter came before this court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. therefore. We do not. agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its approval of the entire agreement, including Item M.\" Id. at 165. The releases of liability for each of the districts and the dismissal with prejudice of this litigation are important components of the settlement agreement and are at least as significant as the extended millages. The approval by the court of appeals and this court of the entire settlement agreement entitles the three school districts to an order dismissing this case with prejudice. Conclusion This court should enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice effective January 18, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By* Christopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief In Support of Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 6 a/'rLuMe-\u0026lt;i- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8\u0026amp;6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECE!^ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC I 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desearegaiiofi INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ' For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court approved the parties' settlement agreement in an order filed on January 18, 1991. The January 18, 1991 order dismissed the State of Arkansas as a party to this case pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD,\" which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board Litigation. of education named in the This dismissal is final for all purposesexcept that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following 3 . \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\"\n\"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. 4. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement on January 18, 1991. A review of the docket shows that the required order has not been entered. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, the district court should enter an order of dismissal with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD effective January 18, 1991. 5. The requested order of dismissal would not affect this court's jurisdiction \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans\" or to conduct \"proceedings to enforce the terms of [the] settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief. the Little Rock School District moves in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement for an order 2dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By: Christopher Helle, Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 .ristopher Heller 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR - 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By. PLAINTIFOEH. CLERK (f PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APR 1 2 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ^Office of Desegregation dsori.'! INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the March 11, 1996 Order which denies the Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss this case with prejudice and refuses to reconsider its previous order concerning a contract between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Management Services. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By(' Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of April, 1996\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 John C. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Joseph S. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher 2 Filed U 3, OlSTtsiCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n3 W McCjORMACK, C U-xJAWa OEP CCLLIERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483 ]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for infoirmation and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing vs. Ctev I 3 obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2-remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481] and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483] have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506]. In its motion Joshua argues that (1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program. research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its a desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3-The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, settlement. public This policy 'settlement' prohibits this type of purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an \"escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or ServiceMaster agreement. modify the It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a -4-contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. Order, at 5-6 [doc.#2586]. On December 22, 1995, Joshua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]. Joshua states they have not completed their presentation in support of their initial motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract, and they argue the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it has set forth in its motion. The Court has considered the matter and remains convinced that its interpretation of the contract was correct and that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. See Order, at 6. Joshua cites Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988), in support of its motion. The Court finds Joshua's reliance on Union Nat. Bank to be misplaced, however. as that case involved a termination clause between the parties to the contract, see id. 860 F.2d at 849, while the case at Bar involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling -5-party. Union Nat. Bank is thus distinguishable and provides no support for Joshua's motion for reconsideration. In any case, even if Joshua is correct that such a unilateral escape from contractual obligations would be permissible under Arkansas law, the parties in this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 5 14,12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. Accordingly, the Court denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995, Order. With respect to that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing, the Court finds that this aspect of the motion should be and hereby is denied as moot. The Court notes that the December Sth hearing was not completed because Joshua specifically requested that the matter be continued so that it could file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Order. Tr. at 92, 97. Indeed, Joshua stated that such an appeal would \"resolve a lot of matters. II Tr. at 90. It was only after Joshua concluded that the Order was not appealable that Joshua now asks that the hearing be completed. However, because the Court's docket is full. the Court is unable to schedule the matter for a hearing in the immediate future. Accordingly, for administrative purposes. and because the Court in any case denies Joshua's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following -6-bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506] should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua may refile the motion to the extent they wish to pursue the matter after reviewing today's order. Should Joshua refile the motion, the Court will schedule the matter for a hearing. III. On September 14, 1995, the PCSSD filed a motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]. PCSSD seeks to clarify those parts of the plan and programs that are or were calculated to further desegregate the southeast sector schools within the PCSSD, i.e., the Talented and Gifted Program within the southeast sector. the Fine Arts Program at Landmark, the Specialty Program at Bates Elementary, and Harris Elementary. The Court has considered the motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua has not filed a response to the motion even though they would appear to be significantly affected by the matters contained therein. In any case, the status of this motion is questionable given the subsequent motions of PCSSD regarding potential school closings and new construction that would affect the schools in the southeast sector and elsewhere. Should PCSSD refile this motion, Joshua is expected to file a timely response stating their position on the matter. -7-IV. The LRSD moves for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to the LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement or the terms of the plans [doc.#2573]. The Court finds that the motion for an order of dismissal should be and hereby is denied. Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed. at least as a technical matter. The Court finds. however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Little Rock School List. V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made) . Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and -8-complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering this time. an order of dismissal at V. On October 25, 1995, Joshua filed a motion asking the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]. Joshua objects to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the LRSD and contends that the parties have a material disagreement. Joshua seeks an Order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the LRSD with respect to faculty and staff. The Court has considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. The obligations of the LRSD regarding faculty and staff are clearly set forth in both the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan and need not be repeated here. Moreover, the parties have agreed in their Stipulation that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans remain deficient in terms of compliance. Should the parties be unable to reach agreement regarding faculty and staff desegregation, Joshua may refile its motion. -9-VI. On October 26, 1995, PCSSD filed a motion for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]. In its motion, PCSSD asks for permission to begin construction on one permanent classroom at Jacksonville Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. On January 29, 1996, PCSSD filed a subsequent motion regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. This latter motion supplements and essentially supersedes the previous motion filed on October 26, 1995. In its supplemental motion, PCSSD seeks permission to begin construction on two permanent classrooms at Cato Elementary, two classrooms at Arnold Drive Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. The Court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that PCSSD's request is consistent with the district's long-range plans for replacement of portable buildings. The construction will not increase the capacity of the aforementioned schools, with the exception of Pine Forest Elementary.' Accordingly, the motions for an Order regarding portable buildings are hereby granted. 1 On Sqjtembcr 15, 1995, the Court approved a motion granting the PCSSD permission to add a kindergarten class to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary. The district has represented to the Court that one of the permanent classrooms would reflect the additional capacity resulting from the new kindergarten class. -10-VII. In sum, the Court denies as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481], denies as moot LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483], denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995 Order [doc.#2594], denies as moot that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506], denies without prejudice PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520], denies LRSD's motion for an Order of dismissal [doc.#2573], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544], and grants PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#'s 2546 \u0026amp; 2612]. IT IS SO ORDERED this // ^^day of March 1996. 'A DGE PHIS DOCUMt.NT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -11- 1 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. DEFENDANTS J ! i LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 The Joshua intervenors oppose the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal and i i i urge that it be denied. The Little Rock defendants ignore, among other things: the details of the treatment of the issues of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring by the Court of Appeals, when that Court addressed the proposed settlements in 1990\nthe overall legal context in which the Court of Appeals considered the settlements\nthe differing terms of the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement\" (September 28.1989) with regard to the State and the local districts\nand the history of this case since the Court of Appeals decision. I. A. The Legal Context: The Doctrine of Continuing Jurisdiction and the Violations To Be Remedied The legal context relevant in considering the LRSD motion begins with the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II). The Court there began 1by reiterating the holding of Brown. However, the focus of Brown II was \"the manner in which relief [should]... be accorded\" in segregated systems, jd., at 298. The Court recognized that \"the transition to a system of public education freed of racial i discrimination\" might \"require solution of varied local school problems\" (id., at 299) arising in many areas of school administration, id., at 300. The Court held that local district 1 courts could best oversee the required remedial efforts (id., at 299), and directed that those courts retain jurisdiction of cases during the transition period. I The Supreme Court returned to the proper role of a district court in the remedial I 1 phase of a school desegregation case in Raney v. Board of Education of the Gould Sch. I i Dist., 391 U.S. 443 (1968), there confronting a case which had been dismissed. The Court I rejected this approach, identifying the need for a Court to focus in the remedial period on whether \"a constitutionally permissible plan\" \"is operated in a constitutionally permissible fashion....\" ii, at 449. A district court should retain jurisdiction \"until it is clear that disestablishment has been achieved....\" The next relevant part of the legal context is the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case in 1985, addressing, in part, this court's order (then Judge Henry Woods) requiring consolidation of the three local districts. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 778 F. 2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert, denied. 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). The Court of Appeals \"[held] that the district court's findings on liability [were] not clearly erroneous and that intra- and interdistrict relief [were] appropriate. [The court found], however that the violations [could] be remedied by less intrusive measures than consolidation.\" See 778 F.2d at 408. The Court then set forth in detail \"principles\" to 2govern the required intra- and interdistrict remedies (at 434-36), and \"remanded [the case] to the district court for further action consistent with [its] opinion\" (at 436). B. The Court of Appeals Decision of 1990 Concerning the Settlement On remand, the parties ultimately developed five agreements in an effort to repond to the Court of Appeals' 1985 decision. In its opinion of December 1990, the Court of Appeals described Judge Woods' treatment of these agreements as follows: 'The District Court rejected both the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, as submitted. It purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals rejected this general approach (ii)\nhowever, it is vital, with regard to the current motion, to focus with care on the Court's treatment of the question of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring. The Court of Appeals first discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See, for example, id., at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, it emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id, at 1383,1388. The Court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members...\", or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree vzhich is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id, at 1383. The context for the Court's 1990 decision, then, had multiple facets. It included legal principles regarding the fundamental importance of continuing jurisdiction until violations 3are cured\nthe need to provide, in this case, remedies for intra- and interdistrict violations of the constitution\nthe parties' agreements\nand the principles regarding review of settlements in class actions, striking a balance between the fact of agreement and important legal standards. The Court's application of these principles produced, we submit, the following holding relevant to the matters raised by the current LRSD motion. The district court must retain jurisdiction of the case with regard to the three local school districts for a considerable time to monitor compliance with the settlement agreements (see, for example. ii, at 1383, 1388)\nand the parties have agreed to this continuing jurisdiction and monitoring, if necessary to secure approval of the agreements. I^, at 1386,1390. The following excerpts from the Court of Appeals decision demonstrate that this interpretation is a valid one. 921 F.2dat1376 We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. 921 F. 2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily reguire some judicial supervision -monitoring, at least - for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 4The district Court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to - and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools - and it will be the job of the district Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties'compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at1390 ....We accept these undertakings [of the districts], again with the reminder that that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. The approach which we urge is also consistent with the Court of Appeals' summary of its rulings appearing at 921 F.2d 1394. The Court wrote in paragraph (8.): The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. The Court added, in addressing the issue of a transition to the standards of the 5settlements, that if the parties could not resolve the matter by agreement, \"the district Court [was] authorized to take such action as may be just\" (at 1394, para, 9). To be sure, the Court also wrote: \"On remand, the District Court is directed to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" li, at para. 6. However, as the excerpts of the opinion quoted above demonstrate, the Court of Appeals interpreted the \"settlement agreement\" to reflect the parties' agreement to continuing jurisdiction over the local districts and monitoring of the agreements. After all, each release relating to the three districts contained this sentence: 'This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans.\" E.g., \"Settlement Agreement,\" Attachment B., at 2. The quoted language from the release also puts to rest the LRSD's reliance on the dismissal of the State in this court's order of January 18,1991. See Motion, at para. 1. The quoted sentence is absent from the release regarding the State. See \"Settlement Agreement\", at Attachment A, p. 2. C. The Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Modification of the Settlement The opinion of the Court of Appeals in 1991 addressing the standards to be employed by this court in considering proposed modifications to the settlements also warrants brief reference. In describing the manner in which this court should proceed on remand, the Court plainly paraphrased the standard set forth in Brown II, to which we have alluded above. See Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir. 1991). The Court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this 6matter priority on its docket.\" at 258/ D. The History of the Case Since the 1990 Decision The Court of Appeals' reference to this court's docket provides an apt starting point for our final argument. We recently had occasion in the Joshua intervenors' application for a fee award to cite the official case docket - totalling 128 pages for the period from December 11,1989 to September 15,1995 - as evidence of the mammouth effort which has been undertaken by Joshua representatives, during the monitoring period following the Court of Appeals decision at the end of 1990. Roughly 10 days after the filing of our fee petition, and almost 5 years after the proposed dismissal date, LRSD filed the current motion - seeking an order under which the case would be treated as if dismissed for some purposes 5 years ago. We have to wonder if the timing of the motion relates to the Joshua fee petition in some way\nand we can only wonder because the defendants do not inform the parties or the court, by use of examples or otherwise, what would be accomplished by the motion, and what, if any, difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to the requested form of belated wand waving. Conciusion The motion should be denied. Neither the formulation which appears in the motion. at pages 2-3, nor the one in the memorandum, at page 1, is consistent with the language employed by the Court of Appeals in 1990 in reviewing the proposed settlement. The LRSD's argument based upon the opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning the milages does not justify the relief sought here. The 1990 opinion of the Court of Appeals did not address the matter of millages in a manner analogous to the matter of continuing Jurisdiction. 7moving papers are otherwise inadequate at this late date, given the insufficient explanation offered for the proposal. I Respectfully submitted, I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50U 374-3758 By\n^n W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 18th day of December, 1995. /ohr?W. Walker 7 L 8 Arkansas Democnit ^(Jiazctte 22, 19QS-? Lawyer in case tells s judge not to toss desegregation suit mt XXA-^ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Ownocrat-Gazette Education Writer r 3 attorney for tlie? District, ask^^\" Wnght Nov. 30 to end toe high-prbr. tile school case but to continue TXT ^sicsauou lawsuii, accnrrting (o at- Hicw Ibe thrM Pulaski CounlY\" toey Joto Walken irto black families m toe case. a u ' All three distncts are entitled-fo\n'\" :miceol ___ .. A federal judge should deny toe toiUe Rock School Districts request to dismiss its 13-year-old school desegregation lawsuit accordi^ to at- uidcx lamuies In a motion submitted to US ''Jabber WnghL Walker said toe districts request for dismissal includes little explanation or justificatioa He ----- said toe district failed to inform toe--------------------------------dismissal ot\". court by toe use of examples what hrjfZ overdue,\nwould be accomplished if the dis- dismissal from toe case as toe  language included in toe' 1989 financial settlement of ther case, Heller said at toe time he sub-^ der is at least four years overdue he said. T' lissal is granted. Heller called his request to tii\u0026amp;. judge both a housekeeping mea-' sure and a symbolic gesture to remind people that toe settlement agreement was supposed to end to^ Walker questioned toe motives of toe district He noted that toe motion for dismissal was filed 10 days after he filed a request for i* -i V -rr~vii/tuuuw~ S8O5.00O in legal fees from the three although toe districts had-'to,' ^^001 districts in- ---------------------- volved in the desegregation ! llQim J _: f 11 ,,,, , ------oJ case. We have to wonder if the timing of toe motion relates to toe Joshua meet specific desegregation obliga^ The Little Rock School Distri^ ^ , -------------xyiouiui -_________ accused Walker in rece\u0026lt;^- some way, said bying to impose new Walker, who represents toe Joshua P^'^bons on toe district  spedf-. ically in regard to the assignment^r  nla/*lr J_V  . intervenors, the class of black chU- dren and their parents in the de- , . ----------- segregation case, and we can only bergarten throu^ three, wonder because toe defendants do ~~~~~~------------ not inform toe parties or toe court by use ot examples or otherwise what would be accomplished by toe rnotiom and what if any difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to toe requested form of belated wand-waving, '* Walker quotes toe Sth U.S. Circuit Com of Appeals at St Louis rei^atedly on Wrights ongoing role in the case as a monitor to ensure that toe distact implements and complies with its desegregation plan. black teachers to jobs in grades' killQCPPSrtPn Mimii/rk 'A^iPublic school patrons should insist parties negotiate issues in good faith I 8Y KRISTEN BABER Special to the A/kansas Democrat-Gazette am the concerned parent of two children in the Little Rock Public Schools. Our school board and the other parties to the desegregation case enter^ into an agreement on a desegregation plan that was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. To some extent we are inextricably bound by that agreement, except where, if changed circumstances justify it, the parties may compromise on modifications to the agreement I have been attending meetings between the parties to the desegregation case. These meetings are held in an attempt to agree on necessary modifications to the dese^egation plan, with minimal court involvement. I began to attend the meetings so I could understand the issues because I believe in public schools. I want to support them and I believe it is vital for our school district to get out from under court supervision. I believe in public schools because, more than any other public institution, they form the core of our communities. Our children receive benefits from attending school with a diverse population and everyone benefits from providing a good education to all. Court supervision is detrimental to the district in two ways: Too much money that should be spent on children is being spent on lasers, court costs and the office of desegregation monitorins and being in court means continued instability. Ail school patrons should attend these meetings and encourage the parties to negotiate in good faith and to get us out of court . The following comments are made to parties in the case.  Linda Pondexter, president of the Little Rock School Board: The meetings between parties have the potential for successful changes in the plan, but the meetings need a neutral chairperson. At the last meeting, Chris Heller, a lawyer representing the school district and John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, appeared poised to agree on some issues. However, you were so convinced that Heller and the administration had conspired against you with the suggestion for a changed format for the meetings, you were a hindrance rather than an aid to negotiations. I realized then that we need a neutral chairperson\none who is flexible enough to hear suggestions without feeling threatened.  John Walker I support you in many ways. I want the Little Rock Schools to be integrated\nI want my children to go to school with children of all colors and backgrounds and I want the same for black children. I am afraid that your efforts are going to result in the opposite effect Private schools are gaining more students as this case drags on. Integration alone will cause some Commentary white flight, but your resistance to strong discipline in the schools and your unwillingness to compromise will cause the public schools to lose people who can afford private schools even though, ideally, they would choose an integrated school. You say that it is racial discrimination when the police are called when black children scuffle just as we all scuffled when we were youngsters. We all know that there are more fights now. more violence and certainly more guns and knives found on school property. I dont want children who have nowhere to go to be suspended. but I also dont want children who are chronically antisocial or are violent to be in the classroom with mine. When our schools are not perceived to be safe and well-disciplined, families who can afford private school will leave. The result is that the school system will become one of poor, disadvantaged students. You say that I and other white parents come to the meeting to seek special favors for our children. I doubt if Ill ever convince you otherwise. The only special favor I want for my children is for you to re-examine the perspective from which you view the involvement of white parents and children. Looking at the issues as white versus black will only aggravate, not heal, our wounds. We all need you to help effect a compromise that will allow a stable, s^e, disciplined and integrated school system. --------- .position for those who do not When you are being an advocate for black chil- c L, !**?- dren, remember that you do not stand alone. It {grated schools? That goal will not be reached by is the largely white PTA members at my chil-  drens area school who take children on field trips, provide tutoring and pay for an art teacher. Many of those resources would disappear if Little Rock were to become a one-race school system. I agree with you that it is unfair that so few black children are in the gifted classes in elementap^ schools. All children deserve those opportunities, but the court cases drain on school finances makes it that much harder to provide such opportunities to all children, Mr. Walker, please realize that I am not your enemy and neither are the majority of the white parents that I know. If you want to fight, attack the dragons that lead to more white flight  Ann Brown, desegregation monitor You have stated that factors that will draw white children to the district are on-time bus schedules and good curriculum. I have told you that I believe white parents want cooperation between the school board and the superintendent good curriculum and to be out of court You responded, I could not disagree more. You told me that you do not believe parents care about being in court When I recount that to parents, they laugh. Parents do care about on-time bus schedules, but more importantly they want good curriculum tau^t in a safe and stable environment where their tax dollars are spent on the students and not on lawyers fees nor your salary. The public perception is that there are too many in control of this case who are gaining financially from the ongoing litigation, What your comments reveal to me is that being out from under court supervision is not your primary goal. Does the district court realize that?  Dr. Henry Williams and Dr. Russ Mayo: The district needs to act in good faith, also. At the last meeting Pondexter repeatedly asked whether the district could provide a list of what parts of the desegregation plan had been complied with and what was left to do. Your response was always. Our employees are conducting interviews with a view to the hearing. That is no answer at all. I was surprised to learn that neither the school district nor the desegregation monitor knows which parts of the plan have been complied with. Does the district court realize that? What are the monitors monitoring?  AH members of the Little Rock School Board: None of the parents I know wants to change superintendents again. If Heniy Williams is so bad, convince us with facts. But realize this: the parents want a satisfactory compromise in the desegregation case. We^will rally support for those a members of the schck)l board who help find way to get us out of court and we will rally op-  Joshua intervenors: Is your goal safe, inte- I ArkansaTDemo^ C^azctk ] . SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1995 this protracted court case and uncompromising positions that erode safety and discipline in the schools. Those factors are driving afHuent\npar- ents from the district sj\n*  Black and white parents: Our children-need us to speak up and say we dont want to sperid our tax dollars on lawyers fees and on th'e desegregation monitors salary, especially'when that monitor believes that parents arent concerned about the district remaining in court. What we do want is a school system where children of all colors and backgrounds can learn together. We parents need to remember that-iVis not just up to the court to solve the schools problems: it is also up to the school board we elect and the lawyers we have chosen to represent us. We want our schools to be about good education for all and we want our money spent toward that goal. Walker tells me that the state is constitutionally required to pay for public education and that there is no way the school system could go bankrupt\nbut he must know that if dire tactics are used, such as putting the district in receivership or consolidating the districts, affluent parents will leave in larger numbers than before. Walker also tells me that if I really want to help black youngsters I need to speak out fbr their rights in the community. This is mjc first step. Unless we agree on some modifications-and get out of court, this will be a one-race school \u0026lt; system and the children will be as segregated as ! when this suit was first filed. I Kristen Baber is a lawyer who Hoes in LiOle Rock.r-y TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 A I , L.I I I W| I  Cooyr^t O Little Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. j Arkansas Demcxn'at'i^(i^azettc I LR schools win a^eOof (iismissal\"tan suit Although vre can well under- Pulaski County districts and the stand the frustration the district state from the case. The state was BY CYNTHIA HOWELL settlement agreement among the will bring more into focus the fact underetanding ^at compliance ARKAiNSAs DEMocRAT-GAZETm three Pulaslti County districts and that a settlement apeement was monitoring would contmu . . The Little Rock School Distact the state that provided for the dis- reached to end the litigation, smd Wri^had denied the Little court has experienced over the dismi^d several ye^ ago, but The Uttle Rock School District the state mat provmeu lor uie u- 7,: Rod: totricts request for an or- years in carrying out our instate- the districts were not Ody the Litis entitled to be dismissed tom its missal. , ..  Hr nf di.^missai sadng that the tion, we conclude that the districts tie Rock distact raised the issue in .................... ''^T^eoking for the day'  haTbel r^akiSLt in motion should have been grant- 1995, but all three are expected to when all federal jurisdiction ends implementing its desegregation ed. - . der of dismissal, saying that the tion, we conclude that the districts  ------------------ -  1 motion should have been grant- looj, uuu on implementing us aesegregauuu cd, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge benefit tom the latest co^ order. plan. Ordering ffie dismissal could Roger Wollman of Sioux Falls, 15-year-old desegregation lawsuit --------------- ionU^ng^m appeak'rourt pan- matter and a symbolic reminder when dism^rould Roger\"Wollman'of\" Si^ Fails, \"But Woihnan also warned that 81 ruled Monday. that the 1989 settlement agree- and contro of the djstact retunm pl^Orde^me msmissai coma ger all three districts must continue to  A three-judge panel of the Sth ment ended litigation on desegre- usSpurpLe the judge As we held in our 1992 deci- implement desegregation plans 0.8. Circuit Court ofAppeals at St gation issues, leaving the courts to This is a small step m that direc- seivenou purp , j u8 terms of the settlement under Wright's supervision. Louis reversed a 1996 order by monitor and orfy thed^ tiom saim agreement became the law of the As the agreement specifically U-S.pistoct Judge Susan Webber tacts compliance with its desegre- moS the diSs desegrega- cSe, Wollman said. , SdMeXu^sl^^'or'^^^^ aSasSSs* gsaasassa the case despite language in a 1989 of what we do everyday, except it the desegregation lawsuit with the Court_______________________ The settlement agreement provided for the dismissal of all three See DESEGREGATION, Page SB Desegregation  Continued from Page 1B to comply with our instruction), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of Sie desegregation plans, he wrote. 7 He said the entry of a dismissal order will do nothing to relieve any of the three Pulaski County districts of their continuing desegregation obligations as listed in their plans. Any post-dismissal stance by the districts to the contrary, it i should be made clear, would subject them to appropriate sanctions and the granting of remedial relief to those adversely affected by the districts' refusal to honor their desegregation commitments. Wollman wrote the order on behalf of a panel that also included Chief Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold of Little Rock and Circuit Judge Gerdld Heaney of Duluth, Minn. Attorneys made oral arguments in the case Feb. 25 in Little Rock.\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_996","title":"Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners: by Robert W. Cole, editor, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Educational innovations","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners: by Robert W. Cole, editor, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development"],"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/996"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["books"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition 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_430","title":"Exit Report (student)","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"],"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 management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Exit Report (student)"],"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/430"],"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(^rr-e.ci-e J 10/19/1995 14:24 5013242231 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 /08/93 11:31:46 PAGE 1  Entry * Withdrawal Coda Entry/Withdrawal Description E AR CS DZ DO HS IE LR NO NP PO RE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS CHANGE TO ENTRY RECORD FROM DETENTION FACILITY IN ARKANSAS FROM DETENTION FACILITY OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM HOME SCHOOL INITIAL ENROLLMENT THIS YEAR FROM ANOTHER LRSD SCHOOL FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS RE-ENROLL APTER EXIT SAME SCHOOL W AO ex DC DF ED EM EP EX EY FL GR ID LT ML MM MO MR NA NE NZ OT PC PG PS SC SI TI UN VD XH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST CHANGE TO EXIT RECORD DECEASED assigned to a detention FACILITY EXEMPTED BY THE DISTRICT WITHDREW/EMPLOYMENT WZTHDREW/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS EXPELLED BY THE DISTRICT END OF YEAR WITHDREW/FAILING GRADES STUDENT GRADUATED DUPLICATE ID LONG TERM SUSPENSION WITHDREW/ENLISTED IN MILITARY M TO M TRANSFER moved TO ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHDREW/MARRIAGE WITHDREW DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE ON RECORD BUT NOT ENROLLED WITHDREW/LACK OF INTEREST OFFICIAL TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT PEER CONFLICT WITHDREW/PREGNANCY ENROLLED IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLED/POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHDREW/SERIOUS PERSONAL ILLNESS TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT/MOVED WITHDREW/UNIDENTIFIABLE REASON WITHDREW VOLUNTARILY/DISCIPLINE EXIT TO HOME SCHOOL Ji END O F REPORT10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 CORRECTED COPY Little Rock School District Exit Totals 1994-95 August 22, 1994-June 30, 1995 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS central jA fair'.............. hall MCCLELLAN PARKVIEW subtotal  JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MA8ELVALE\"2 \"\" MANN magnet\"' PULASKI HEIGHTS SOLITHWeST ~ SUBTOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BADGETT BALE RELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRACY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT ____________ CLOVERDALE____________ DODO____________________ FAJR PARK FOREST PARK I aiL, i Ji T J\n' 21 1 1 ! 2. r FRANKLIN FVLflRIQHT GARLAND GEYgR SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET jEFFSRSQN mabelvale MCOERMOTT meaooacliff MITCHeiX OTTER CRSgK PVIASKIH6IGWT5 RpHTSELt \" RQCKEFELLCT ROM! Ng STEPHENS  TERRY_________ ^*M(EFfELD WASHINGTON WATSON i^STERN HILLS ^iams'magnet i^ON WOORUFP SUB total .. ,......... TT 2! 1\n+ I 4- J- T I t I ^1- 10\nMU MM MO MR I NA NE Nl OT PC PG! PS 3C sr Tl I UN VP XHI TOT~| ..I JJZ___i 11 t29l 2 I 6l ... J..-. 7: 13\n2i 1: 1 '3' li 1 8 7 T I 73 66 I 3! 43\u0026lt; 7t| 37 TT^ 2** I SI If  st a isi I 4- I 1 I I t X + i X X T I i X 4___L 11 I 1  I i T X I t\" mi T 4I 11 I ORA ND TOTAL I 27 16 26i I' /WM ?___ t _1 I I 06 : ! 106' 24 i f f I ' I 'v.....f~- ?\n j-'T' I I I 106 1- 17 1 2 I 2i 379 54* Lil.. 1 103! 4 I 2 408' 88 I -n 1 J- 70 J 17\n\"si\" 17' I 9i 33' ? 8' 32 84. 18 dOl I I 1: 356 21'2  j I 276 l! 47 2 1188 , 1 ii e\nT X ad 74 sa 74' 1i 1 108\n3i 1,\n11 I __[ 5i iTTj' T . 20 3l T + 11 2 4* i X I i I I ! I T I L I t T t -X 11 I J 1 4. I X ! X T II I i II X 1 I X X I t X I I J. 1! 1 if 71 4' 81 41 I I T T t X 1* M 1 m-4 -U. z I 2l 2 2I I t X T I 144 SO 64 57 69 610 23 32 21 n\" 61 28 78 57 38 TT 25 20 30 23 44 50 43\n79 79: 10! 2^ 54 12 1$: 69! 60' 46 i -?5L 15\" 32f' IS** 1' 1240 1\n2229 I I X i + X 1 2 4 li I 1i 26. 2j It I I .21 J 1l 6 T + I I I \"if -'21- - f-. n 11 64* 901 94\" 55 961' $48 5 18* 35! 35i 2: 23i s: 31 i3i 7\n11! 591 13! 22, T Jasti 4\n___ *9i 11! Tl 4 . - -14 I T t 1 I X X T I X 'U 4i 7l I i2 , 24I 8j nl 32( T 36! 23f 17t 56$. t I\n1101 1521 58 4-Ji-, 'i I 34\n1! 1| I 1 T 4 T 1) i I ^f II .ji II i I- 11  199 140 n} p- ! It 210 11 42\n\"47 11 ( 119 139 176 I 133\n7\n1' 4l 11 7| 1360 St I 61 1 T I ' HI\nI ' I Ilf 4j TT JX T 11 sT 1! T nr I i! I 4f 11 10! L-Ll 1 I 1, X I I I 11 T + if 121 it 1J 6' 12 T~ I 3 2j 3? 1QI 3 2 1 '1 1 i 1201 2: t 21 1 I i 1| I I I 1 I rrr I 1 1 T H I 1\nilWl'iili' fl! 26$i 611 2! 21 I n li 1 f 1 T 1 TT 3 38 ~~46 38 ts 1?1 34 110 71  68 31 39 34 116 22 _5e 2S 72 103 ~i7 103 18 37 69 9 27 44 J. I I 1 88 81 72 60 56 41 I ! I 38 221 12i 2032 !___' 1181 1! 2l 4580 Rrp4r6 by AMLw10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01 OfRCE of SwdENT AssiqNMENT SO! Sh^XMAN UnU Rock, AR 72202 Tlpltox SO I-724-2272 Fax SO I-724-2231 FAX COVER SHEET DATE TO -0 C) fyy Fax NiMbat, 3\u0026gt;'7l'-C) / 0 o FROM. SPECIAL INSJRUCTIONS // NUMBER OF PACES, INCLUDING COVER Arkansas Democrat W(5azcttc  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1995 Extra 689 pupils straggle in at LR schools BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazetto Education Writer The Little Rock School District period last year, the district pulled 689 students out of a hat in gained 309 students. the last month, raising enrollment figures that initially showed dramatic losses. On Sept 1, the district recorded 24,233 pupils. On Oct. 2, the count was 24,922. Officials shrug, unable to explain the surge. The only thing I can think of is the districts official total that is, we feel that some parents dont will be filed with the state for persend their kids back to school un- manent records and for comput- til afl\ner Labor Day, said Snellen ing state education funds the dis- Vann, district spokesman. Were always up by the October count But not that much. In the same And some confusion remains over whether this years 24,233 September head count was taken before or after Labor Day. The forms used in the count are dated Sept. 5, the day after Labor Day. The October enrollment figure trict will receive. Compared with last years October enrollment, the district is down 309 students. Little Rock will not lose state funding this year because of the loss of students, but the numbers will count for next years state funding. In the coming budget process, the school district can expect to lose about $3,800 for every lost pupil  a total of nearly $1.2 million. But state officials have pointed out that the district is still among the richest in the state. It actually grows richer with the loss of students because the citys education tax levy remains the same regardless of enrollment figures, officials say. Schools that appear to have the largest enrollment declines since last October are Hall High School, which lost 103 students, or 10 percent of its population\nand Henderson Junior High, which lost 125, or nearly 14 percent. Both schools had a startling growth in violent incidents in 1993 and 1994. Little Rock continued its long- See SCHOOLS, Page 10A Schools  Continued from Page 1A time racial trend this year, growing steadily blacker. Last year, 64.9 percent of the districts students were black, compared with 66.5 percent now. The October figures showed 381 fewer white students and 112 fewer other students than a year ago. The number of black pupils rose by 184. Schools that had significant increases in the percentage of black population include McClellan Community High School, up by 43 to 80.4 percent black\nCloverdale Junior High, up by 6 to 86.5\nand Henderson, which lost 38 black students and 77 white students to increase to 78.6 percent black. Among elementary schools, Chicot Cloverdale, Fair Park, Fulbright, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, Wilson and Woodruff all increased their black populations more than 5 percent A report on students who left the district during the last school year shows that 2,^ moved to other districts, while 285 withdrew to private schools. The district had another 1,494 pupils on record but not enrolled A total of 4,580 students left for a variety of reasons during the course of the year, according to the report Little Rock Sehool EnroIJment J 64.9% 32.5% ^vhite Uack 1994 Total studoatK 25,231 if 2.6% other Figures taHen Oct 3,1394 31.3% white 66.5% black ^2^% other 1995 Total atudenti: 24,922 Figures taken Oo. 2,1995 Difference fran last yes' 200 o-J -200 Black +184 Down 309 students overall from 1994 White -aai other -112 -400 NOTE: ThosnamttloflnaKIgiirottbn school dbtilet sahmlts to the slots for ponnanent records and funding puposet. SOURCE LRSD Arkansas OemocratXiazette/UZ ROBERTSI Leave a system with so much? They wouldnt BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazette Stall Wrttefs One Saturday in the middle of her sixth-grade year, Melissa Rudder marched up to the principal at a Pulaski Heights Elementary School open house and asked to observe a class. She never went back to her private school. Penny and Patt Rudder moved their family into the Hillcrest neighborhood from a Houston See LRSD. Pane 8A I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright 6 UWe Rodt Newspapers, Inc. I LRSD  Continued from Page 1A suburb the week before school started eight years ago. They didnt know a soul here. high school. It took her three weeks to catch up academically, Penny Rudder said. The deciding factor was academics a few years later when Christian chose a high school. riculum at private school. Melissa, now 17, is a senior at Central considering a myriad of i districts 12-year-old school de- it is those schools that have lost mentary, where her daughter is buc uiuoL as in sixth grade, and at Pulaski Little Rocks enrollment contin- Heights Junior High, where her son is an eighth-grader. At my first parent conference last year, sitting before us the most students this year as So many segregation case. times the administrations hands are tied by a court order. She said teachers and parents worked hard to try to close the disparity between black and white pupils' standardized test scores at Forest Park Elementary. While scores for white students in the Little Rock district are among the highest in the state and stack up well nt^- ues to decline. Parents still speak of positive college choices. Many families like the Rudders are growing more passionately vocal in support of the Little Rock School District in the experiences at Hall High, J.A. ence Fair High and Parkview Magnet in semicircle were my son s six High, and at Mann Magnet Ju-  This nior High and Dunbar Junior teachers, East related. The Rudders worried about re- ------------------ ports of violence, and several of face of dropping enrollments  Christians classmates decided especially a dramatic loss of Hi^. donl**put\\our*dmi2it*er' hi toe to attend Catholic High. white children in the last three public schools, PennyRudder recalled. They took toe advice, fearing the public schools from ^Christian wL fine at I^laski would have had to give up Span- thT'^laskTHeightso?Hiiicrest students, teachers and parents. neighborhoods, like the Rud- ^e?pS= eo^=a\n^^\noi\ntoe'-has\".... m ever made  chose Central. Christian, now 20, increased. nnaiitv Thpv sav Heishts and she acknowledged trate on those who need it mosL ever mane. ic a snnhnmnre at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. 1 hey say tieignts, ana sne .. .Ea. nmhahiv lafcas Melissa encoimtered intoler- is a sophomore at Harvard uni frustration their children are far safer in that some may not be as safe. ant students and teachers who versi^. schools speax itn Little Rock schools than they are I know some things have failed to supervise at the school, The reason he was so well about a^^lack of omte at shoS  been handled very poorly by the SLi sx'\nisssx\"i's SiSUgjsa .k.'sskt\ns's,'?es.'^.'5n PTA i boUl Forest Part El. os.-E. sold, ret.^W to Ot. The few people we were able to meet said, Your son will be Une at Pulaski Heights, but is really strange, I thought at first. But we sat there and lis- We did check out private years. schools, and we found them to While many of L^e Rocks be academically much inferior elementary schools have active options, Rudder said. He parent ^oups would have had to give up Span-  neiKiiis duuiui ish and a year of math. was miserable. The Rudders call After companng course offer- But the most aggressive tened to a forum on our child, cheerleaders for the secondary what they each thought his schools have children at Pulaski strengths and weaknesses were. .......... Heights Junior High and Central It really bolsters the child as an pmeiii and abundant High School. They tend to be af- community support, the junior fluent white couples who five in U really ooioie.o me emm aa tioually, black studeuts gener- individual and as a student and ally score much lower than boosts communication among whites. ,-----1 \" We were just really concen- ! trating on those kids, East said. r Thats one of the reasons white is a sophomore at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. They say schools speak with frustration their children are far safer in   - - --=- Little Rock schools than they are UUiei JUIllUi uisbb ovuwio --------- - -- , , in their not have the same atmosphere people dont go to the schools, found at Pulaski because teachers really concen- I cant deny that probably takes away a little bit from my child, who could read when she got in there. Like others, the Rudders said See KIDS, Page 9AArkansas Democrat (gazette Kids We want to be a  Continued from Page 8A pOSitive VOiCO for the they feel confident the district can schools in the turn around its problems one U/a a/cn school at a time. Parents mention COmmumty. rVe aiSO two programs. Vdunteeis m Public SChoolS Schools and Partners in Education, community. We also that help. The volunteers program encourages parental participation in the schools. Schools with few active parents to the mark and help them put together ways to evmuate and report how they are doing. Its should get more financial support J _ from the district and more active business partners, Penny Rudder \\ said. The Partners in Education pro- set them. We want pMieinOCCOC with fHp t SKSpSSarmSK themtobesuccessfuL rtal-world learning experiences and mentors for children and the school has sought to suspend or expel fewer students, he said. There has been one incident involving a weapon. School officials took an ice pick from a violent student during the first period on the first day of school j Washington believes his school is safe although he acknowledges that there have been problems on buses and at bus stops this year. While Washington, parents and many other school district leaders ' and cheerleaders frequently blame the media for Little Rocks image problems, the Rudders have another idea. What all the schools need, they saii is more support from Little Rocks political and business leaders, o The city business leadership is Scott Christie behind the schools, Patt Rud- ff M\u0026amp;rtha and Scott Christie, a west ^7, , L-rttteRock couplMecengr^ to 'ai^anize another association called Parents In Public Schools. der said. I think maybe they\\e giv- I think we will go from 30 people to 100, and from 100 to several thousand, said Scott Christie, a father of four and a global sales sup- SSIS'/SSKtoS wtu.(-\"-I. ____________ I en up on the school system. Its very she predicts that parents of some of difficult to get community leaders to her sons friends will opt for private step up and say Yeah, TU serve on . schools next year.________________the school board. We have to help S Lite other families, the Christies them realize its worth their while. say they will visit all the junior The way they will do that, they i highs to select one for their son and said, is to keep talking to people  then will involve themselves at the until were blue in the face.  in Jackson, Miss., and chapters across the country use Jackins One person who plans to work hard to recruit families like the charter and bylaws as models. J^es Washh^n, p^ There are three things this or- cipal of Henderson JimiOT High, the ........ school that got the worst rap last year. Washington looks back on last year and shudders. You dont have lor me scnouis m me eeumiumu,. to tell him that was not a We also want to hold the schools to goo^ear for his schwl. the mark and heln them put togeth-  Every day when I get to work, I ganization wants to accomplish, Christie said. We want to be a positive voice for the schools in the community. the mark and help them put togeth- to evaluate and report how think about what I was doing a year ago, he said. And what was he doing? Probably busting up a fi^t Even his mother in Hot Springs er ways they are doing. Its not that we are out to get them, he said in an aside. We want them to be suc- cessftil. worried about his safety. A 10-year district veteran, Wash- T7ie third thing we would like distnet veteran^. w^- to'de is understand the federal ington started work Sept 21,1994, at courts involvement in our school Henderson, replacii^ a principal who was transferred because of her syStem and see if there is not a way to get more local participation in decision-making in our schools. highly publicized disputes with the staff. Parents reacted to the problems Early participants in the group ------------ . have mostly been white parents with by send^ their children els\" children in schools on the citys west where this year. The enrolment of side. The group wants to expand its 917 at Henderson, the distnci s membership to include more black largest junior high l^t ye^, participants and representatives of dropped by 125, mostly white schools all over the city. pupils.   This year, 17 new staff members, leave me _______-__,___ including two new assistant princi- Martha Christie, who has a masters pals, have injected new energy, md degree in education firom Columbia there is more collegiality, Washing- University in New York City. I ton said. have a child going to junior high L We do understand why people the Little Rock district, said Last year's distractions are gone,I Arkansas Democrat ^(OazcUc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright O Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. k DRAIN ON THE DISTRICT Urban fears pose problem for Little Rock schools Many parents found they couldnt love LRSD and so were happy to leave it BY CYNTHIA HOWELL, CHRIS REINOLDS AND SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Last June, the White family sold their west Little Rock house nt n los.s, packed their beloiieings and left town. I he faniily moved to Cabot, a bedroom community of about 8,3(X) people northeast of Jacksonville. Now they have five acre.s of land and a two-stoiy house with an American flag in (lie front yard. a There's no shopping mall, and they have a half-hour commute to Little Kock. But (he White.s they did the right thing. The schools were the No. 1 say reason we moved, L......... .. _ i said. \"We wanted a better. rpasor ^hite safer environment for (he kids. Scores of families, particularly whites, have fied the majorityblack Little Rock School District for suburban or private schooLs fru.strating the districts desegregation efforts, ramifies who moved out say they found better teaching, discipline, buildings and supplies in other districts. T he,v also found lower taxes and less crime (han in Little Rock. The Whites never viewed private schools a.s a good alternative. \"Were adamant about using the public schools, not just fieeing to Pulaski Academy or a parochial school, Jim White said. So, when White to a x-w. i OU, wneil vvniie became fed nn ThaVUka n. . Arkansas Democrat-GazeltaDAVID GOTTSCHALK \u0026lt;'*s\u0026lt;^ipHne problems - mwed I?\"!- Brandon (left), 11, and Colin, 6 r f Seer,tv,P.gA I Arkansas Democrat ?9\u0026gt;(Bazettr. Family put its house up for sale and got out of Dodge  Continued from Pans 1A _______ __________________ Page in Little Rocks public schools, he took his family to Cabot Brandon White, 11, was enrolled in Terry Elementary in west Little Rock after the family moved to Arkansas from California. Brandon and his younger brother, Colin, a kindergartner at the time, transferred to Fulbright Elementary the next year. At Fulbright. Brandon was moved nearly every day to sit next to a child who was misbehaving. Jim White said. The boy was used as a role model for a bad student But the concept backfired, and Brandon went home with a bad attitude and foul language. My kids are not there to be teaching other kids how to behave themselves, White said. In Cabot they expel kids. They dont sacrifice the majority for the rights of the minority. And, regardless of integration efforts. White felt a cultural gap remained between poor black inner-city children and west Little Rock middle-class white children. Brandons fourth-grade teacher at Fulbright didnt speak proper En^ish, White said The teacher didnt seem to check homework or show concern that homework was completed, and she could not control the students, he said White and other families criticized the Little Rock disWct and measuring THE DROP IN SEARCH OF SAFETY --------- ... many otn- * lu mierviews that would have paid had they reason not to go back to LitUe ers have taken the same ao- diey bailed out of the LitUe Ropk P'odjor private schools - an op- Rock.\" said Blck Lafferty, M Droach Tha diehenF . w. onihA/xic p tioD, uicy considered. In the last six years, many oth- 5 havA Pole.*.. 4.U_ . Parents said in interviews that same ap- ***'-'* UA uuB ijime nocs Si n ' has reported s'I\u0026gt;ols m the last few years rnain- eyollment losses each of those better and safer facill- yean, exc^tforagainof552stu- to , Paula Launius, for example, \"w.  lost 618 Stu- yed 15 months ago from the .U A.SP.PP'^ on student exits for school year shows that 4^ students left the LitUe Rock schools during the year 18 ner- cent of the enrollment Wlule Uie report does break dom the staUsUcs by race, ft does offer figures to 28 cate- h? po'ftding those assigned io detenUon faciliUes (28 pupils) and dropouts (68). for spending tOT much energy and 49 perreto^or 22M toto desegrogauon and n't heir eh.J.-.. VBO J ':~ luiioiosiu- AU luuuuis aeo trom thp wtoto neighborhood in South- districts west Little Rock to Cabot with her Mike, and their two ele-  steady 64 per- mentary school-age sons, Rick, 12. cem black to percent black. and Timmie, 6. They now lire to ...^^^i'n?'*t\"etis66per- walking distance of both Soth- St and Cabo?ju- ment fell by 309 students, and nior High schools. ofwh'itTwJL^^SlToSi^^^ abo\\f.r''^ a'' gam in black students to the W ^O-to six years, the schools tost 1S \"\"\"\"te' 'a. .... students, or 4 percent of enrollment But the loss of white pupils numbers 1218, or 4.7 percent Distoct officials say they cant reasons families iMve. But they are starting to track some trends, in keeping mto a promise they made IM ^y live in not Superintendent Henry Williams \"Dr. Williams is a politician ... a., sninon,. and is trying to get tilings accom- whether they moved pushed, White said. \"But theyre the schroK tor just strangling the teachers with a new job to MothTS'**  no money, no supplies. , Another i tle^R \"t ftioted but?ever shoUfui'fo? tie Rock  a young, energetic  P black woman  was excellent, class. Officials dont know why the Whites said. But she became About 6 percent, or 285 frustrated with district adminis- students, said they had switched trators and the school principal private schools. and took a job in the private sec- ask students tor e next year. The physical condition of the school also was deplorable, White said. So we decided to put our house up for sale and get the hell out of Dodge, White said. Out here, its hometown USA. school. Their son is in second grade\ntheir daughter is 4. It was a wonderftil school, Lieblong said, but it was not your standard school in Little Rock. agent with Liber^ Real Estate in Bryant He sard his company sells to many families who leave Little Rock for various reasons, includ- They dont even want to go Rick had to work a little harder at his new school, his mother said. But the family found the school more orderly, a result of more restrictions and more incentives for good behavior. And. unlike Little Rock, Cabot allows corporal punishment in schools, giving teachers an additional tool for maintaining order, she said. Parent involvement also is high in Cabot, which Launius said was different from what she saw ... ------ - The problems in the Little back to shop there, Lafferty said. Rock district stem from societal Theyre just sick of it They want problems, Lieblong said. Working a little bit of old Americana. parents, single parents and ne- In the early 1970s, the first few giectftil parents pour undisci- years of forced busing in Little plined children into Little Rock Rock, many families moved out of schools, he said. Pulaski County, but several ---------- --------- Tlie/re fighting a losing bat- Saline County school officials tie. I just think its broken, and said white flight had slowed in re- they dont know how to fix it I cent years.----------------------------------dont think they can fix it I dont 40-mtoute?ommut7,'\nhl^rf''hl'' me ao \"Bryant is not growing like Con- think they can make parents husband way and Cabot,\" said Danny care,\" he said. LitUe Rock and  wealth of volunteers leaves them Spadoni, principal of Bryant High Lieblong said he wanted to We wmiSd toT r '\"tribute. School. Eight or nine years ago, we support the Little Rock school areata bSe? *5 Rick, now a seventh-grader, had a lot coming from the metro- but his children come first Launius, a nurse. I wSi we had Sd'? htoT nnd wtoto Pit\"\" \"t\"-tt\"!so much now.\"  .7, ,,3^ people tell me that if I moved here five years ago. We love there^^e atentoges CHIUHIEN COME FIRST left I wouldnt be helpi^ the situ- It ................* -T,_____J r i.Li____ation, he said. But its the an- Launius, 39. has no regrets in Little Rock. If parents dont ifa Fka on . . sign up early in the year to do tasks at the Cabot schools, the Launius had nothing but praise for Little Rocks Mabelvale Elementary and its teachers. Thats where her son Rick attended kindergarten through fifth grade  except for second grade when he went to Washington Mae- net Elementary. But the fear of junior high, particularly of youth gangs and the need for metal detectors to scan chitoen for weapons, scared the family into leaving the ci^. Launius, a LitUe Rock native called the meUl detectors \"a wake-up call to her at a time when Rick and his friends were talking more and more about* gangs. Rick came home one day almost in tears asking, How am I going to make it with the gangs?  his mother said. scan We honestly did not move here to get away from blacks. It was for a safer community and better schools, Launius said. She described her new home as a relaxing, small, country town populated with friendly people_a town where she can send her children off to school with a minimum of worry. The familys new red-brick house has about 300 more square ^t of space and cost about 530,000 more than their Little Rock home. The monthly house payment increased by about $100  much less than the tuition the There is a lot less cussing at ...... Tom and Mary Lieblong chose this school, he said. You dont Cabot when they decided to leave have to be scared about violence. Little Rock. The property values If I went to junior high at Mabel- in Benton and Conway had skyvale. right now I would feel so rocketed because of population worried every day at school I growth. would try not to mess with some people. I just wouldnt have anything to do with some people. Tom Lieblong said the family decided to move to Cabot while land prices were still affordable. Other nearby districts have When he first moved to Cabot, seen an influx of Little Rock fam- Lieblong made a 50-minute com- Ilies over time, but ofilcials in mute to an insurance sales job in Benton and Bryant said few, if Little Rock He is now trying to any, families moved there recent- establish a client base in Cabot ly from Little Rock because of the - - -.................. The Lieblongs moved after schools. In fact Bryant and Ben- their son completed kindergarten ton enrollments declined this fall. at Little Rocks Jefferson Elemen- School principals, real estate tary in 1994. The family sold their agents and parents said they Kingwood home near Cantrell knew couples who moved before Road and Mississippi Street for a they had children or when their new country house and what they children were Infants, fearing the believed would be a better educa- schools before their children en- tion system in Cabot tered them. Others came from Like the Launius family, the other parts of Arkansas or out of Lieblongs didnt have any probstate and chose to avoid Little lems with their child's elemen- Rock altogether. tary school but worried about the We get a lot of people who, future  junior and senior high once they move out here, look for   swer for me. DISAPPOINTZD IN MSCIPUNE Little Rock lawyer John Moore moved his family out of west Little Rock a little more than a year ago, not because of the schools, but for a new house in west Puias- k County. After the move. Moore's oldest son continued to attend Little Rocks Henderson Junior High Schoolfor a while. He started this year at Arkansas Baptist School I dont want to slam the district, said Moore, who was president of the Little Rock School Board in 1992-93. But, the main reason we left was because, while I heard the administration talk about a strict discipline policy, I never saw it get down to the school. My son was tired of being in classes where teachers spent most of the time trying to maintain discipline. Im almost embarrassed to say I dont have any kids in the district, even though I dont live there anymore, Moore added. . But my boy actually made the re-  quest to change.\nHenderson lost 125 students, 14 percent, this year and more than any other school in the district The exodus followed a troubled year that included a controversial midyear change of principals and a steep increase in violent incidents. Moore said he believes Principal James Washington is working hard to improve student behavior, and he feels Henderson is a safe school. Moores niece continues to attend Henderson.-I I- - 'J Arkansas Democfat-GazettaSTcPHEN 9. THORNTON But Moore also believes teach-', ers and the principal didnt have the authority they needed last\" year to deal with the troublemak-I ers. There were students at Henderson who shouldnt have been, in a regular public school, said! Moore, who was a frequent visitor to the school and its classrooms. Moore said Washington would! beg district administrators to get. those students out of his hiiilrling, Some were removed for awhile.. but returned at the beginning\nof? the new semester to cause more problems. tziiMfr, Dale Gunter, an engineer wjth  the citys public works depMt , ment said he moved his 14-yeary old son, John, from Hendersonrto-. Robinson Junior High in the Pu-'\nu.ski County Special School Dis- People would just hit me, jump me, simply because youre white, happened all the time. The education theyre trying to sve you is good, but the fear tand of distracts you. I was so unhappy there, I didn't care about my grades anymore. Im 6-l,:.-\n'I60 pounds, and I was terrified. I doirt partcularly like to fight i\n,... At Robinson, the princip^ doesnt give you any slack no matter what color you are. The teachers have the guts to stand up to students. .At Henderson, the teachers are scared of being shot up. II UI'.' Gunter is frustrated because he wants to support the Little Rock schools. His stepdaughter is now in seventh grade at Dunbar and has had no problems so far, he said. tne: to escape the climate of fear a -. J u.  to try to stick with public scho'o'ls Both his son and stepdaughter, j-.i-   . One of the reasons we chose attended Fulbright Elementary. They had nothing but positive'^ experiences, Gunter said. When it was time to choose a' junior high, the family investigated six different schools, including, private and parochial schools.' The promise of a specialty in health sciences attracted them to. Henderson because it fit Johns.' career interest in physical thera-, py. I felt his educational opportu-. nities would be better at Header^, is that, as a public official. I feel a community is no better than its school system. Gunter said. My personal feeling was that I had an obligation to the city to try to set an example. We really tried. And there are good schools. But they have to get a grip on discipline and security. My sou will stay at Joe T. Robin- son for high school. He's theyve lost one I tri lEU-, O. I nWOII I ------- ------------ ----. --------------.  Tea^ Beisr Henderson (rigM) tells Henderson Junior High Principal James being expelled. The school lost 125 students this year after a sharp increase last private schooisi Washington of the improved attitude of a student who had returned to class after year in violence and discipline problems The first year at Henderson Moore said his advice to the school district is unchanged since the days when he was on. the board: Follow the student TUte S'- 3^\n2yjqw BUCK -153 book to the letter, and. when students continue to misbehave,4st was satisfactory, Gunter said..Buti them out of the school. Give the the school fell apart last .yasat- teachers the auonty to act to get and, though Washington stabifp those students out lized it the damage was already, Moore isnt as involved in his done. he said. sons new school as he was with the There was a distinct, dual set ...... ~ little Rock schools. But his son gOE wffiM xjom OIHER .251 of rules for discipline for white,, likes Arkansas Baptist, is doing well versus black students, he said. ., academically and participates in John said it made him mad tO\nextracurricular activities. I * kzn see blacks with drugs get ex-n We go to the football games, peiled, then return to school thert Moore said. My boy plays footnext week, while a white student^ ball. Its the way school used to go SOURCE. jOeAccx Senoo Qstci Afkartsas Oemocral-Gazene/UZ ROBBTTS caught in horseplay would get suspended for two or three wee!is,i He said black students could even,\nwear things whites couldn't be.\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_466","title":"Facilities Implementation Planning 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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities Implementation Planning 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/466"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District r*\" November 8, 1995 NOV 15 1995 Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Office of Oea\nDear Ms, Brown: 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has reqpiested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., November 9, 1995, in the office of Student Assignments. I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will be forwarded to you. Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours, Djpugllps C. Eaton DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invite 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District J k- f NOV I 51995 Office of Desegregdiion vudy November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ms. Guildin: The second meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. At this meeting we will be continuing our general discussion of the Facility Study and will be trying to define the scope and purpose of the committee and the general plan areas, most respectfully requested. Your attendance is A sincerely yours, D^glas'C. Eaton DI^CTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES: IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their first meeting on November 9, 1995. attached hereto. In attendance were the individuals as listed The meeting began with a general discussion of what the charge was of the committee. We considered and discussed the following areas: Committee Membership - Recommendations were solicited for additional committee members that may be able to serve and provide guidance and research in developing an Implementation Plan. 2. We discussed the draft, scope and purpose of the Committee and decided that this would be an item to be reviewed and finalized at our second meeting. There was a brief overview by Mr. Eaton of the Facility Study which prompted many questions and discussion. We discussed the Implementation Plan outline and began looking at responsibilities. We discussed the considerations. draft Implementation Plan 1. 3 . 4 . 5 . a Dr. Russ Mayo gave the group a brief overview of the Facility Study as it affects Student Assignments. He also answered many questions dealing with the general perceptions of the Study and explained to the members present how student assignment policies generally work and how children are assigned throughout the District. Our next meeting will be Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. DCE/apl/minutesDCE/apl/ic Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Facility Services, LRSD 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 570-4020 72204 Ms. Sue Strickland 19 Pear Tree Place Little Rock, AR 374-0123 Work 455-1843 Home 72209 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Skip Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Fred Smith Manager of Support Services, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2003 72201 Mr. Xanier Heard Alltel Information Services 4001 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 220-5370 72205 Mr. Sammy Mills 7 Conifer Place Little Rock, AR 568-4727 72209 Ms. Diane Vibhakar 3917 South Lookout Little Rock, AR 661-8030 72205 Ms. Suellen Vann Director of -Communications, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2020 72201Ms. Sadie Mitchell Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2007 72201 Dr. Vic Anderson Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2005 72201 Mr. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3907 American Manor Little Rock, AR 565-5715 72209 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonte Drive Maumelle, AR 372-3519 72113 Ms. Linda Young New Futures, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2112 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2006 72201 Mr. Leon Modeste Special Assistant to Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2011 72201 Dr. Russ Mayo Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2271 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Rochelle 401 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201c s Si Little Rock School District November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin O^ce HU'I 0^ - '\\ l l Oese9'eaa^'\" VlO'!^-^' ..4 ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: The third meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, Street. 810 West Markham Your attendance is most respectfully requested. Siijicerely yours. l^bgras C. Eaton ELECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000a '0 MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1995 NOV ^7 /995 OlficQ of ^ssegreg. luui t^oiwomig The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their meeting on November 17, 1995. as listed attached hereto. second In attendance were the individuals The meeting began with a general discussion of the scope and purpose as outlined in our first meeting. There were essentially no comments with regard to the scope and purpose. meantime, until is formally approved by the committee, we will work For the under the charge of the draft, scope and purposes outlined in our first meeting. The second Considerations. item discussed was Implementation Planning A significant addition will be made to the Implementation Planning Considerations to include the securing of public support or any aspect of the recommendations made by the committee. Other discussions centered around the following items: A discussion that we outline committee objectives so that everyone has a clear understanding of what is to be A. accomplished. That a Neighborhood Association list be compiled by committee members so as to insure that we are including the associations in our public meetings at our schools. B. C. Discussions ensued regarding how we structure the committee, how we divide into sub committee's in order to analyze our charge. D. How do we develop a program that clearly emphasizes and supports the strategic plan as adopted by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors? E. Suggestions were made to form a sub committee on how to market the Facility Study to the general public, addition, a list was requested identifying where various copies of the Facility Study are located. In F. Fred Smith gave a briefing and commented on the planning and budget time lines which are Dr. Mayo and Mr. presently being pursued by the District and how the recommendations of this Committee tie in with the budget procedures.Page Two Continued Copies of the District Facility Plan are located at the following locations: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. Office of Student Assignments (Full Copy) Director of Communications (Full Copy) Manager of Support Services (Full Copy) Office of the Superintendent (Full Copy) Director of Facility Services (Full Copy) Copies of Volume I, Executive Summary, and Volume II, Demographic Analysis are located in the following offices: Office of Human Resources Office of the Federal Court Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attorney for Knight Intervenors Attorney for Joshua Intervenors North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Office of the Assistant Superintendents Office of Neighborhood and Planning, City of Little 1. ( 2. ( 3. ( 4. . 5. . 6. 1 7. 8. ( 9. I Rock 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Office of Judge Susan Weber Wright Department of Education, State of Arkansas Office of Procurement Each Board Member, Little Rock School District Board of Directors Our next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 1995, Board Room. in the DCE/apl/ininutes2Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I I 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT I 4 GOALS I I 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I 6 BUDGETING I 7 LZ I I I I I I I I MONITORING A REPORTING I I I I I I I I I I I 0 REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS A ORGANIZA IION 5 Little Rock School District 1RECEIV an y SCHEDULE OF NOV 1 7 1995 PARENT MEETINGS FOR FACILITIES STUDY^**'' ^sresaticn Mon AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THOSE SCHOOLS 1. November 29, 1995 3. December 14, 1995 Pulaski Heights Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Judy Magness) Jefferson Elementary 6:30 p.m. (Judy Magness) 2. December 12, 1995 4. January 9, 1996 Mabelvale Jr. High 6:00 p.m. Woodruff Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Sue Strickland) (Michael Daugherty)/ JUL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning and Budgeting Time Line NOV 1 I 1995 \"J -nicR of Daseyreyaiiori Moruoimy AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG PROGRAM INVENTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION I I NEEDS ASSESSMENT I GOALS I I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I BUDGETING I I I I I I I I I I I I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS * ORGANIZATION I I I 3 I LHUe Rock School District I RiCEIV^n OK 2 7 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregajiofl Monitonrig December 21, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The sixth meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996 in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 1996, 810 West Markham Street. Your attendance is most respectfully requested and should you not be able to attend, it is requested that you contact the undersigned prior to the meeting. you not I wish to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to teview the scope of work and the charge of this committee. tendency to be side tracked the last two meetings Oxx j-ooxxca that parallel our charge, but which we are allowing to overshadow our real intent. We have on issues The scope and charge of the Implementation Planning Committee is to analyze the Options in the Little Rock School District Long Range Facility Study to determine whether or not they can be implemented, and if so what other steps to take for implementation. It is not our charge to determine whether or not we agree or disagree with the Options, but rather to use our knowledge to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of the various Options are so as to be prepared to make a recommendation to the Superintendent and Board Education on an Option and what other steps to take for implementing the Option. an Option steps Long Range Beginning with our January meeting, we must focus more on the Option which was determined to be studied by the committee which is Option M Modified Junior High School and determine the steps of implementing that Option. various See you at our next meeting... Sincerely yours. Dd g s C. Eaton DCE/apl/ipcmeet DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1995 - IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Office Of DesefliegtUion MoiWerii'U DECEMBER 20, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their fifth meeting on December 20, 1995. The meeting began with comments in regard to the December 13th Minutes. A typographical error was noted and references to Option M in those minutes should reflect that Option M deals with the Junior High Schools and not the High Schools. 1. Special Report Hightower and Ms. Van Light. Public Meetings, Mr. Robert A special report was given by Mr. Hightower and Ms. Light regarding the District's public meetings at Mitchell Elementary, Wakefield Elementary and Jefferson Elementary, with regard to specific comments: Mitchell Elementary comments centered around concerns of intercity schools being closed and that facilities would be allowed to decay. This was the concern around the community that this could be the circumstance with regard to Mitchell. Indications were that the Little Rock School District does not have a good tract record disposing of its intercity schools. All other concerns and statements during the Mitchell meeting were of the same general nature. With regard to Wakefield Elementary, Wakefield, as was Mitchell and Jefferson, was well attended. Members of the City Board (Ms. Adcock, Ms. Joyce and Ms. Wyrick) were present. The concerns at Wakefield centered around the recognition that Wakefield very much considers itself to be a neighborhood school that should not be touched because it was successful in attracting students from its own neighborhood and that the District needed to be more positive in managing its assets as opposed to preparing for restructuring. In addition, concerns were expressed with the possibility of expanding the school and its utilization to support community initiatives by increasing the building and possibly bringing outside entities into our school to operate and that they should be a consideration when schools are looked for possible downsizing. Jefferson Elementary School comments centered around the general building concerns and the future plans for the school in the area. There was many positive comments with regard to the retention of our Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams. There was also demographic concerns via questions asked as to where children may be reassigned. Concerns raised over the criteria used to establish schools would be considered for restructuring during downsizing and what positive steps the community and the District might take to reserve the trend of decreasing enrollment. meetings are being accepted, primarily on The public a very localized basis\nalthough, the intent is to inform thegeneral public of the overall condition of the District and its direction with regard to student enrollment and demographics. must continue to be stressed. The localized situation in each school 2. Special Report Dr. Middle Schools, Dr. Vic. Anderson. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, gave the committee a briefing on the Middle School Concept. His talk centered around the educational development throughout the nation which thrives on the concept of Middle Schools by stressing community involvement and an active learning in grade grouping as trends for academic achievement. He indicated that the committee, which has worked over a year on the Middle School Concept, appears to be gathering support from the general populace for different grade configuration within the Little Rock Schools. A definite date for implementation or recommendation to the Board has not been made. within this school year. The recommendation is expected to be made We briefly discussed the committee composition and a list of permanent committee members was distributed to all that were present. These are committee members who were requested to serve on the committee or were nominated to serve. Committee membership covers the wide breadth of experience and concerns and should give the committee a broad base on which to conduct its business. A draft Implementation Planning Sub Committee recommendation was presented so that the committee could discuss how it could subdivide to ensure that the multitude of areas necessary to be considered in studying Option M would be achieved. Committee members were asked to volunteer for the various sub committees. It is hopeful that the sub committees will be finalized by our next meeting. A draft recommendation to the Superintendent based on the desires of the committee from previous meetings was presented. In essence, the recommendation stated that the pursuit of Option M Junior High Schools for possible implementation during this school year was not possible. committee members. This draft recommendation brought much discussion from Discussions centered around public involvement in the process and whether or not the committee could solidify the support necessary for these recommendations. We voted three (3) times on whether or not we would make a recommendation to the Superintendent and ended up dead locked in that no majority could be determined as to whether or not to recommend the pursuit of Option M. Our next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 3, 1996 in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. DCE/apl/minutes5eouNnrju I T I W,. .\u0026lt; ^Utu IhM el School CompoMon Auguo(21.1M u9U3f 23. 1995 I I I August 21, 1996 I T Central HS FairHS HallHS McClellan HS Parkview HS Magnet Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann jH Magnet Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Carland Ceyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson______ King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Heights Pightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson woodruff Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total vtio Magnets u 5 899 591 565 663 411 3129  3 508 214 243 167 361 o  O 41 9 32 11 40 a .0 1448 814 840 841 812 27181 1132 14931 1331 4735 93I 3943 501 433 484 603 306 439 431 381 61 268 152 154 107 362 315 73 9 18 11 14 13 23 9 13 35781 14921 1101 571 719 647 771 426 824 755 467 5180 u m 62.09% 7260% 67.26% 78.83% 50.62% 6530% 68.93% 87.74% 6022% 74.81% 78.21% 71.83% 53.28% 57.09% 81.58% 69.07% u n 978! 508 554 654 453 3 595 116 191 111 351 e  O 45 11 25 15 34 a o 1618 635 770 780 838 u a m 60.44% 80.00% 71.95% 83.85% 54.06% o (8 o o a a a O 31391 11301 87| 43561 7206% 1531 233 236 313 243 319 338 365 187 208 40| 75 64 243 110 281 89 59 91 1 20 7 24 24 18 6 7 7 53i 10 1841 214) 12| 365 247 219 216 165 209 287 282 151 121 253l 121 2 191 68 122' 131 281 Ot 2181 141 1^ 31 1941 328 307 580 xn 618 433 431 285 271 410 392 512 240 289 300 497 519 412 78.87% 71.04% 76.87% 53.97% 64.46% 51.62% 78.06% 84.69% 65.61% 76.75% 44.88% 93.11% 48.24% 9125% 74.74% 55.00% 4205% 5530% 68.45% 2511 2131 201 305 229 132 176 190 229 218 228 94! 51 183! 01 01 71 191! 171 5i 1071 3! 17! 3541 65! 121 2771 261 411 21! 4231 2071 32! 3291 206 253' 290 154' 741 1041 7! 3! 2231 16l 74 771 91 ir 4841 51.86% 3991 76.44%, 234 322 384 198 353 295 531 416 662 410 313 492 373 239 97.86% 40.99% 45.83% 95.96% 64.87% 73.90% 42.94% 85.10% ' 63.90%  80.24% ' 65.81% ' 51.42%  77.75% ' 64.44% ' 87361 4345! 4191135001 64.71% 76861 34761 3481 115101 66.78% 154431 73301 6621 234351 65.90%, 135431 57381 5281 198091 68.37%i 31471 13641 130 26941 10131 96 46411 67.81% 38031 70.84% 4761 411 420 550 315 460 438 353 44 271 121 100 114 355 304 68 21 33 9 16 6 20 8 12 541 715 550 666 435 835 750 433 87.99% 57.48% 7656% 8258% 72.41% 55.09% 58.40% 81.52% 1891! -273 9541 -319 1291 -521 1199^ -419 10001 -162 6335! -1694 5335  -1532 868, -327 812: -97 858! -308 907! -241 614! -179 850! 745 -15 5 34231 1377| 125| 4925 | 6950% 29631 10221 1051 4090! 72.44%| 163 246 226 304 225 293 361 406 148! 1781 36 82 48 239 91 264 119 49 84 451 2081 226! 3981 21 1 19 7 26 43 20 27 10 4 7 5 9 200 347 281 569 359 577 507 465 236 81.50% 70.89% 80.43% 53.43% 6267% 50.78% 7120% 8751% 6271% 737 -304 6391 -1466 5541 -1451 257 401 390 656 -57 -54 -109 -87 467 -108 2301 77.39% 2451 230 11 234i 3 641 16 5 1571 122| 10 201 '317? 2831 282 241 9 19 96! 10 439 428 486 253 284 289 492 577 47.38% 9299% 50.41% 92.49% 75.70% 54.33% 40.85% 54.94% 265i 193! 19 263! 2231 77! 7 128i 165i oj 1 71 2331 197! 19 aef 224? 205| 4! 4 127! 22 76! 17 217! 2611 23 3651 29| 17 414| 2301 47 3571 207! 79 91 2571 221 269! 183! 52 761 11 2 22 13 8 3891 72.75% 4771 55.56% 347! 75.79% 230 i 96.96% 300! 42.67% 4491 51.89% 224 ! 96.43% 3731 60.05% 2981 68.79% 501! 43.31% 4111 88.81% 691! 59.91% 447! 79.87% 300 ! 69.00% 5001 51.40% 334! 80.54% 267! 68.54% 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 -36 -51 -27 -92 -121 40 -6 -54 45 -44 -64 ____0 -151 -126 -40 -118 -68 -51 75 -34 -96 -189 -14 -81 836. -145 492! 328! 5171 394i 324! -45 -28 -17 60 ' -S7 88341 42261 4971 13557! 65,16% 7823! 33801 4191 116221 67.31% 15717:-2160 13578 -1956 _____________________________________________ 15404! 69671 752| 231231 66.62%! 28443! -5320 134801 54151 6201 195151 fiS.OSy.l 244541 -4939 Offlca of OtMQrvgattonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Delbra Caradine P. O. Box 164229 Little Rock, AR 72216 B. J. McCoy 2417 S. Marshall Little Rock, AR 72206 Rohn Muse 822 Lewis Little Rock, AR 72204-2016 Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 w. 22nd * Little Rock, AR 72204 Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Kris Baber 2519 N. Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Joa Humphrey 5022 W. 56th St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 Gregg Stutts * 13005 Lemoncrest Lane Little Rock, AR 72209 John Walker 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Joy Springer 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Betty Mitchell CTA Office Frank Martin CTA Office * Skip Marshall, Monitor ODM - 201 E. Markham Brady Gadberry * LRSD Administration Heritage West Bldg-Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 * indicates newly nominated members of the committee(7. Z - Bloc 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0232 0240 0301 0412 0413 0420 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 8/27/96 K-3 17 26 7 26 21 60 15 25 9 48 55 3 17 4 6 2 15 24 28 19 10 7 16 31 35 48 16 7 22 17 8 13 8 54 38 31 7 22 18 12 32 35 20 G3 -6 6 14 5 13 17 30 10 19 4 29 34 1 14 2 3 2 8 11 10 16 8 5 20 19 14 23 9 7 12 16 7 4 2 36 20 24 7 18 10 10 14 24 17 G7-9 7 16 5 15 23 25 12 15 6 43 50 8 14 4 1 0 9 19 11 12 3 9 23 18 17 29 21 11 14 13 8 7 7 25 20 30 10 14 8 17 26 18 22 GlO-12 6 9 7 13 15 19 11 26 7 23 49 0 6 4 2 0 13 15 9 13 7 12 23 12 12 25 16 9 16 9 6 4 6 29 17 14 6 12 9 8 17 23 26 Litlie Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 36 65 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 143 188 12 51 14 12 4 45 69 58 60 28 33 82 80 78 125 62 34 64 55 29 28 23 144 95 99 30 66 45 47 89 100 85 Black 35 63 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 138 173 11 51 14 11 3 22 66 52 59 27 17 82 79 73 124 52 34 61 53 29 28 23 142 91 98 29 66 44 47 68 70 85 Page 1 of 8 6' hit Non-Black 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 1 1 23 3 6 1 1 16 0 1 5 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 21 30 0 B Pin 1 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0Z - Bloc 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0511 0512 0513 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0586 0537 0538 0539 8/27/96 K-3 16 35 27 25 37 22 21 7 18 28 9 29 26 21 20 29 15 65 46 55 10 24 4 2 34 26 40 39 41 0 __n 241 3 0 41 25 15 23 20 43 41 20 4 G3 -6 7 10 20 12 26 13 18 7 12 20 4 22 7 13 15 15 10 27 12 34 10 10 7 5 36 12 26 23 31 0 _____7 11 2 0 26 20 13 12 19 29 24 7 4 G7-9 12 12 16 21 21 13 20 7 18 15 5 37 16 9 16 9 11 23 11 30 10 18 4 6 32 24 ___ ___ ___ 1 7 15 1 0 24 24 13 7 12 19 26 13 4 GlO-12 13 20 10 13 11 10 15 12 16 27 10 17 13 5 7 16 14 21 19 14 6 15 3 5 33 ____ ____n 26 34 0 9 8 2 1 16 23 12 8 18 24 32 16 6 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 48 77 73 71 95 58 74 33 64 90 28 105 62 48 58 69 50 136 88 133 36 67 18 18 135 90 135 121 132 1 ___ 58 ____8 1 107 92 53 50 69 115 123 56 18 Black 48 74 69 62 91 57 73 33 64 88 28 100 61 48 57 69 50 131 84 132 36 67 13 16 129 70 121 120 126 1 ___ 56 8 1 91 85 51 41 61 105 116 55 18 Page 2 of 8 Non-Black 0 3 4 9 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 2 6 20 14 1 6 0 1 0 0 16 7 9 8 10 7 1 0 B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 0 ____2 2 0 0 4 ____3 ____2 ____2 2 4 5 ____2 1 WPins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 _____0 _____0 0 _____1 _____0 _____0 _____0 _____0 ____0 ____0 ____0 0Z - Bloc 0540 0552 0553 0554 0556 0561 0562 0563 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0591 0592 0610 0620 0630 0640 0641 0650 0651 0660 0662 0670 0710 0811 0821 0910 0920 1010 1020 1110 nil 1120 1121 8/27/96 K-3 5 40 49 31 24 31 29 32 34 19 24 34 7 28 37 32 40 42 15 18 34 5 14 25 4 23 14 9 37 55 13 59 28 18 44 37 29 8 20 24 54 6 6 G3 -6 1 20 45 17 11 26 18 19 25 17 15 15 8 18 22 15 34 25 16 13 14 1 18 16 7 3 8 3 33 40 12 49 12 18 22 33 17 4 15 14 11 3 2 G7-9 5 27 37 14 24 26 30 18 29 21 21 18 10 16 20 21 35 31 9 16 20 2 20 20 6 6 7 2 28 54 18 36 27 16 25 42 27 5 ___17 7 23 5 6 GlO-12 4 25 27 21 16 33 20 25 31 14 15 16 12 17 25 24 36 27 8 17 18 1 13 21 6 4 0 10 26 41 13 28 13 15 24 34 25 4 ____ n ____ 6 2 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 15 112 158 83 75 116 97 94 119 71 75 83 37 79 104 92 145 125 48 64 86 9 65 82 23 36 29 24 124 190 56 172 80 67 115 146 98 21 68 62 113 20 16 Black 8 105 152 80 74 116 96 93 113 71 74 83 36 76 103 92 141 102 48 62 81 5 0 10 1 3 0 13 3 148 51 90 16 0 2 12 15 10 20 0 41 4 1 Page 3 of 8 Non-Black 7 7 6 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 23 0 2 5 4 65 72 22 33 29 11 121 42 5 82 64 67 113 134 83 11 48 62 72 16 15 B Pin 0 4 6 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 0 0 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 5 2 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 0 2 2 3 1 1Z - Bloc 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 1310 1311 1312 1331 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 8/27/96 K-3 16 8 28 18 122 37 20 11 23 4 13 74 18 16 105 21 27 68 20 50 19 10 17 17 15 37 12 9 __ 8 __ 9 92 40 39 44 29 27 17 44 16 23 50 G3 -6 9 4 26 14 92 17 11 2 17 5 12 43 23 20 59 13 13 46 15 41 5 2 3 12 12 20 10 3 22 6 26 2 50 21 23 33 18 29 14 ____30j ____B ____11 29 G7-9 13 7 33 22 96 11 18 2 15 2 8 47 17 23 65 8 22 36 10 40 6 6 6 11 12 17 7 6 22 9 30 9 ___ ___ ___ 44 31 31 20 26 10 14 20 GlO-12 22 7 31 22 61 14 18 7 18 7 18 74 26 25 48 18 15 25 11 40 10 2 8 8 10 23 5 6 17 6 38 5 60 37 20 43 ___ 18 22 29 14 21 28 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 60 26 118 76 371 79 67 22 73 18 51 238 84 84 277 60 77 175 56 171 40 20 34 48 49 97 34 24 91 29 122 25 248 127 100 164 121 105 73 129 53 69 127 Black 8 0 4 1 10 41 63 0 10 0 9 32 10 10 109 7 14 49 14 11 8 12 6 28 13 18 3 5 ___ 7 110 15 239 123 80 160 108 71 71 111 50 46 118 Page 4 of 8 Non-Black 52 26 114 75 361 38 4 22 63 18 42 206 74 74 168 53 63 126 42 160 32 8 28 20 36 79 31 19 68 22 12 10 9 4 20 4 13 34 2 18 3 23 9 B Pin 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ____0 1 ____0 4 1 10 5 3 6 4 3 3 4 ____2 2 5 WPins 2 1 5 3 14 2 0 1 3 1 2 8 3 3 7 2 3 5 2 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 _____0 _____1 _____0 1 0Z - Bloc 1728 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 3201 3250 3251 3253 3301 3312 3316 3330 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 8/27/96 K-3 31 33 12 36 33 47 48 85 39 11 20 28 30 47 7 22 32 17 72 48 1 32 15 14 34 30 23 21 49 43 52 13 19 14 18 6 14 11 36 24 8 14 15 G3 -6 14 19 10 30 24 25 32 50 21 9 15 19 14 32 6 16 36 15 51 35 2 29 13 13 40 22 11 19 30 26 35 12 18 8 7 7 12 10 20 21 12 14 10 G7-9 16 12 15 19 38 26 30 66 31 10 17 18 15 38 5 12 32 15 49 36 0 24 11 9 22 13 10 18 30 28 33 8 17 2 12 4 12 8 15 23 10 10 10 GlO-12 28 15 16 44 50 30 35 59 22 14 20 19 16 40 9 17 27 16 47 23 2 24 17 14 34 16 16 16 18 34 26 6 14 5 7 3 12 5 7 11 7 9 4 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 89 79 53 129 145 128 145 260 113 44 72 84 75 157 27 67 127 63 219 142 5 109 56 50 130 81 60 74 127 131 146 39 68 29 44 20 50 34 78 79 37 47 39 Black 82 68 53 112 121 109 126 198 76 41 48 36 31 123 12 26 56 29 109 86 5 63 31 44 37 19 10 13 93 110 135 20 64 22 38 7 26 25 33 59 24 38 21 Page 5 of 8 Non-Black 11 0 17 24 19 19 62 37 3 24 48 44 34 15 41 71 34 110 56 0 46 25 6 93 62 50 61 34 21 11 19 4 7 6 13 24 9 45 20 13 9 18 B Pin 3 3 2 4 5 4 5 8 3 2 2 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 3 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 W Pins 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1Z - Bloc 3625 3630 3635 3640 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 8/27/96 K-3 15 0 39 12 25 13 26 34 18 46 12 7 40 8 13 30 5 15 7 6 11 14 6 0 37 22 14 12 __n 24 17 4 __14 ___9 6 9 __ 6 ___ ___4 15 3 13 G3 -6 13 1 37 4 19 7 9 15 12 20 11 7 23 9 4 21 6 7 14 7 15 19 9 2 29 10 9 5 13 13 7 2 13 8 6 5 19 5 11 1 13 2 5 G7-9 10 0 30 8 16 17 8 15 10 11 9 7 24 11 4 32 7 6 13 6 16 22 6 1 23 15 ___16 ____7 14 20 10 3 ___ ____8 8 10 ___ 6 2 1 21 0 7 GlO-12 18 0 24 7 9 14 12 7 8 15 5 3 12 6 7 57 4 4 22 8 17 11 7 2 26 19 8 6 11 17 7 1 3 9 2 8 18 3 6 2 10 2 8 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 56 1 130 31 69 51 55 71 48 92 37 24 99 34 28 140 22 32 56 27 59 66 28 5 115 66 47 30 69 74 41 10 40 34 22 32 86 20 28 8 ____ 7 33 Black 28 1 113 30 61 47 47 57 32 85 33 18 81 19 3 118 12 3 53 2 19 44 4 0 106 54 32 13 59 61 28 0 2 14 2 18 73 5 0 2 4 0 9 Page 6 of 8 Non-Black 0 17 1 8 4 8 14 16 4 6 18 15 25 22 10 29 3 25 40 22 24 5 9 12 15 17 10 13 13 10 38 20 20 14 13 15 28 6 55 7 24 BPin 1 0 5 1 2 2 1. 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Pins i 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 _____1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1Z - Bloc 5467 5470 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 8/27/96 K-3 2 4 30 29 19 23 19 58 30 1 12 9 13 26 59 15 11 18 37 17 54 34 14 22 17 7 15 40 5 7 38 19 5 15 45 6 40 25 67 4 28 22 98 G3 -6 0 0 22 18 18 8 10 28 16 0 6 6 10 23 45 13 5 23 19 10 40 22 19 17 6 9 13 30 6 6 26 8 5 10 25 7 20 15 27 4 20 8 48 G7-9 2 1 18 18 23 9 9 13 10 0 19 4 12 14 34 10 7 17 22 9 18 22 22 20 16 6 14 26 18 5 30 9 9 17 42 6 20 8 6 8 29 ___10 37 GlO-12 0 2 12 28 23 5 7 24 24 0 11 5 6 16 39 9 3 18 18 19 12 16 10 12 15 8 7 35 8 8 22 10 3 5 23 7 39 15 7 8 29 18 29 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 4 7 82 93 83 45 45 123 80 1 48 24 41 79 177 47 26 76 96 55 124 94 65 71 54 30 49 131 37 26 116 46 22 47 135 _______ 119 _______ 107 24 106 58 212 Black 0 3 11 31 13 4 10 12 23 0 8 3 5 17 146 36 15 57 83 45 106 79 47 35 46 19 33 115 22 24 93 46 16 36 114 ________ 108 51 102 22 86 54 199 Page 7 of 8 Non-Black 4 4 71 62 70 41 35 111 57 1 40 21 36 62 31 11 11 19 13 10 18 15 18 36 8 11 16 16 15 2 23 0 6 11 21 4 11 12 5 2 20 4 13 B Pin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 ________ 1 ____4 2 4 1 3 2 8 W Pins 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Z - Bloc 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7415 7420 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 7490 7495 Totals K-3 14 17 64 15 28 29 7 12 5 25 11 9 11 19 27 18 1 5 3 10 7718 G3 -6 9 25 24 11 25 26 13 16 9 13 10 7 4 22 21 4 0 9 4 9 5086 G7-9 14 21 28 17 26 24 17 23 13 18 2 16 12 11 18 17 1 9 4 11 5384 GlO-12 13 19 27 16 27 25 16 18 7 18 10 14 15 17 27 20 0 6 0 14 5188 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23.1996 Total 50 82 143 59 106 104 53 69 34 74 33 46 42 69 93 59 2 29 11 44 23376 Black 48 77 80 52 88 82 46 53 32 50 31 36 38 55 80 53 1 20 4 34 16331 69.86% Non-Black 2 5 63 7 18 22 7 16 2 24 2 10 4 14 13 6 1 9 7 10 7045 30.14% B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 653 WPins 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 282 8/27/96 Page 8 of 8Arkansas Democrat T3'(0azcllc  FRIDAY. MAY 10, 1996 LR panel on closing schools is reborn \u0026lt; BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer 'AyLittle Rock School District committee created to make recommendations about renovating and possibly closing schools to cut costs is back in business with new faces. -The Little Rock School Board voted, unanimously at its agenda-setting meeting Thursday to recreate the Facilities Study Committee, dis- Ijanded in February. 'The panel will consist of two res- idents from each school board zone\ntwO representatives of the Joshua intervenors, who represent the black children in the district\nand twb people from the Knight intervenors, representing the teachers. The old panels composition had drawn complaints from board member Sue Strickland, who helped disband tlie committee. She will be the new committee's chairman. Strickland said the old committee included district administrators but not residents who would actually be affected by school closings. She also said that she disagreed with what she believed was the committee's sole intent  closing Mabelvale Junior High School in Southwest Little Rock. School district officials calls for closing some schools with low enrollments have continued during the conuiiittee's absence. The old committee began meeting in November after a consulting firm from San .Antonio issued a 13- volume study of district demographics and tire condition of school buildings. The study said the schools need S77 million in repairs, renovations and modernization. The consultants recommended closing as many as 11 schools because of poor physical condition and declining student population. The distncfs 50 school buildings have as many as 5,000 vacant seats. Bob Morgan, a member of the district's financial advisory committee. has said the districts student-to- employee ratio is below average when compared with districts of similar size. Maintaining schools not filled to capacity contributes to the low ratio and extra costs, Morgan said. The board also voted Thursday to allow, but not require, individual schools to determine the dress code for students, including the use of uniforms. Board member Judy Magness said Watson and Forest Park ele- i inentaries plan to use unifoi^ next I school year. Those schools join sev- | eral other elementary schools in the district that have a voluntary or mandatory' uniform policy./ 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 7300 100LRSD plant SERyiCES TEL:501-570-4027 Nov 08,95 12:05 No.003 P.02 5?-* I I Little Rock School District I November 8, 1995 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Dear Ms. Brown: I I The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Pleuining Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. I I I I Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.m., November 9, 1995, in _ I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will ba forwarded to you. I i I Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours. ^ugl^s C. Eaton DIRECTOR :rector FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invxte I I ) iAGENDA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 NOV. 1995 1. Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions 2. Committee Membership Discussion received 3. Scope \u0026amp; Purpose of Committee NOV 9 199S Ql 4. Facility Study Overview (Optional) Discussion 5. Implementation Plan Outline, Responsibilities 6. Implementation Plan Considerations 1. Ne?d MeetingRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund  Policy Protected Escrow  Annual Incremental Funding 9 9 9 Separate from Maintenance Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program 9 9 9 9 Five Year Building Program Preferable Strategic Plan for Capital Program Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database  Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries 9 On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census  Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System  Include Magnet Information  Include Record of Private School Attendees  Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status e 9 Continuing Quality of Education Complete Capital Program Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget Reduce Burden of Bussing Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for Ali Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use 9 9 9 Establish New Attendance Zones Closure of Seven Elementary Schools Closure of One Jr. High School One to Four Elementaries out of Service Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference  Enhanced School Experience for Children  Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation  Development of Community Identities  Diminished Burden of Bussing  Comparable Cost to the District  Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities  More Student Value for the DollarRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Reviev\\/ of Options  Representative Review Team for Options  Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses  Include the Court  Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives  Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force  Support of Educational Programs \u0026amp; Achievements Support of Capita! Programs and Bond Offering Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core  Board Initiative  Community Representation Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area  Include Industry and Commerce Leadership  Commuter Assignments  Encourage Board Service (subject to election)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Recommendation No 7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership CoreBia an OPTION C JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Closed School Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Pulaski Heights Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson OPTION M JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Forest Heights Henderson Dunbar SouthwestEBfiH OPTION C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Closed Schools Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost 1. Fair Park Brady $0 Franklin $1,300,596 Forest Park $2,086,500 2. Garland RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 New School $4,190,120 3. Ish N/A 4. Stephens New School $4,190,120 5. Jefferson Badgett $938,925 RightseU $1,996,085 ML King $0 Brady $0 Mcdermott Bale $271,245 Cloverdale $549,445 Dodd $681,590 Romine $1,432,730 Western HiUs $1,571,830 6. Mitchell RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 7. Wakefield Geyer Springs $2,566,395 8. Woodruff Forest Park $2,086,500 SUBTOTAL: $16,896,916 $3,092,193Closed Schools 1. Fair Park 2. Garland 3.1sh 4. Stephens OPTION M ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost__ New School $3,778,170 New School $3,625,160 N/A Terry $1,008,475 McDermott $375,570 Bale $159,968 Cloverdale $111,280 Otter Creek $452,075 Watson $111,280 5. Jefferson New School $3,778170 Western Hills $326,885 Rockefeller $0 Rightsell $389,480 Washington $0 ML King $0 6. Mitchell New School $3,625,160 7. Wakefield Baseline $1,189,305 Geyer Springs $1,057,160 8. Woodruff Forest Park $236,470 SUBTOTAL: $11,659,790 $1,161,488 SB anBsan IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Cost (Renovation, New construction. Relocation, Equipment, Supphes, Organization) 2. Funding Considerations (Operational Budget, Multiple yr. Funding, MiUages, Bond Issues, Program impact) 3. Personnel (Reductions, Reassignments, New personnel. Organizational Changes) 4. Student Assignment Changes (Policies , Start dates, Academic Program Changes) 5. Desegregation Plan Changes (Racial balance definition. Student Assignment pohcy Changes, Multiple Areas) 6. Grade Structure Change (Middle school concept) I. Support Function Changes (Transportation, Procurement, Facihty Services) BganPURPOSE AND SCOPE FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE This document outlines the purpose and scope of the Little Rock School District Implementation Committee which is being staffed to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study completed in 1995 by 3D International Corporation. The Committee will consist of persons from the Little Rock School District staff and local community who will be charged by the Superintendent to make recommendations to him and the Little Rock School District Board of Education on the various aspects of the Facility Study. Their charge may also be extended to put together implementation plans and time lines once recommendations have been approved by the Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Committee is to devise an implementation plan and schedule based upon approved recommendations by the Little Rock School District Board of Education. The Committee will work within the frame work of the study analyzing the study recommendations for possible adaptations by the Little Rock School District. Those recommendations will comprise the final reports submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education on which aspects of the Long Range Facility Study should be implemented by the School District along with recommendations as to an implementation schedule, time line and staffing of other areas of consideration. The Committee derives its authority from the Superintendent and is to work within the confines of the purposes and scope of the Facility Study as outlined in the contractual agreement between the Little Rock School District and 3D International Corporation. SCOPE\nThe scope of this Committee is to put together recommendations for the Superintendent and Little Rock School District Board of Education based on the nine (9) recommendations as made in the Long Range Facility Study. The Committee has the authority to consider and recommend or not recommend any and all aspects of the Facility Study for implementation. The scope of this Committee will be centered around the various aspects that run parallel to the basic recommendations in the Study by drawing them together as points of consideration and present recommendations to the Superintendent and Board. The Committee has the authority to deal directly with other staff members in making requests of them for information and cooperation should sub committees be formed under this general committee. It is intended that those recommendations whether they specifically impact the financial programming of the District would be made in such a way and at such a time that implementation can possibly BBaO'Page Two Bsan Continued occur during the next budget cycle. Recommendations dealing with closures and expansions, both cost saving and cost expanding, items in the study will be included in the recommendations. The Committee will work closely with the office of Program Review and Evaluations to ensure that its time lines accurately in project and budget documents. are reflected DCE/apl/lrfsBESaO COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: LONG RANGE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Implementation Committee that is being drawn together to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study will consist of the following individuals by job title and general subject area. 1. Associate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment\nwill oversee the aspects of student assignment policies and compliance with the Desegregation Plan. 2. Director of Facilities Services: will oversee cost analysis and facility related matters dealing with expansions and closing of facilities. 3. Director of Communications: to oversee the public affairs efforts and public notifications dealing with meetings and the general public. 4. Special Assistant to the Superintendent: responsible for coordinating meetings in conjunction with the Director of Communications. 5. Manager Resources and School Support: to oversee financial planning and provide financial and fiscal guidance with regard to recommendations. 6. Assist ant Superintendent: to provide information regarding academic implementation and program changes with regard to the recommendations. 7. Human Resources Representative: to provide information regarding general knowledge of the District history and human relation aspects of the recommendations. 8. Board Members: to provide input and guidance from the Little Rock School District Board of Education. 9. Strategic Planning Committee Members: to provide input, analysis and guidance with regard to the tie in of the Long Range Facility Study to the Strategic Planning Process. 10. Representatives of the Intervenors, Knight). Desegregation parties (Joshua 11. Representatives from the office of Desegregation Monitoring. DCE/apl/crlrfsBsao FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Facility Study Review 2. Superintendents Guidance. 3. Implementation Committee Assignments, Purpose and Scope 4. Implementation Planning - Plan of Action - Analysis of Facility Study - Recommendations, Submittal - Approvals - Implementation Plan, Schedule, Time lines - Oversight Responsibility'2 '* . .. -hzt^-\nSchoolV- BADGETT S 2 124 BALE 1 221 II w MO W' ItalilaS ! 2 5 1 i 3 BASELINE 220 1 17 ! o fiH ii\" 26^ 3 BOOKER 10 15 19 ' 12 14 20 BRADY 11 i 199 CARVER 15 8 b'i I 3 5 CHICOT 5 CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK 2 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN FULBRIGH  GARLAND GEYER SP . GIBBS 2 JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL . MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL\nOTTER CR PUL HT E 2 KIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 13 ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN 5 WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 15 18 I 9 4 . 302\n13 3 18 j 1 2 i!8 30 ! 318 7 3 1 10 4 11 3 3 5 8 3 6 4 5 8 2 1 7 1 2 9 6 1 I 2 6 5 7 2 12 2 15 J I 2 6 2 2 11 2 14 7 10 10 1 i 3 ziz: 2 1 i 2 2 1 2 i 13 11 4 2 8 6 2 8 3 4 4 7 2 I 2 J------- 8 I 11 ! 2 5 2 I I 1 3 23 { 20 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 34 ' i 8 2 16 6 4 14 1 I 4 2 8 1  f 1 tS *\"1...14 12 12 38 I 11 8 6 j 3 1 1 LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 Bi ip\ni 180 1 6 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 28 7 4 2 6 9 8 ffi o 1 5 1 9 4 1 165 4 9 1 2 4 6 3 9 11 } 8 3 9 11 5 286 11 7 5 1 1 7 6 5 2 6 2 3 2 15 5 52 2 2 4 249 8 I 4 1 8 1 9 0 6 I 2 - r....... 7 1 6 1 5 1 2 2 10 30 15 6 1 6 0 4 2 10 1 4 ...i....... 3 6 ! 14 10 17 6 I 160 I 413 I 357 I 380 j 557 | 506 1 306 | 320 | 412 [ 464 ifi LsiOllaiij o U Isii 2 5 2 1 3 5 11 1 12 17 i 19 2 5 2 6 4 385 3 1 9 6 10 21 2 3 1 5 15 18 16 S 12 13 6 605 4 2 2 1 3 2 8 24 164 3 2 7 7 1 2 IS 6 2 1 4 8 5 4 1 6 1 2 6 303 3 8 7 1 4 203 9 2 3 9 4 3 4 9 9 4 3 2 310 HJ 10 19 8 41 1 1 3 17 2 6 1 5 352 6 1 4 9 25 2 3 16 1 5 3 6 551 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 2 1 1 B\n18 14 2 4 4 1 s 1 5 1 1 42 2 1 2 5 2 6 7 2 4 9 7 3 11 18 1 11 11 15 5 102 ? 210 59.05% 2 4 4 11 5 6 3 i 347 327 144 9 6 3 2 13 18 26 11 1 24 3 63.69% 67.28% ! 26 1(f Ti6~ 23 5 6 5 604 1 5 14 7 29 6 1 10 2 5 10 9 6 3 2 7 14 221 4 1 4 5 6 13 14 3 2 2 4 9 1 9 1 11 418 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 329 4 5 3 7 1 4 12 19 1 5 4 482 14 4 2 IS 1 8 6 10 2 318 2 S 4 4 3 5 4 11 11 2 14 6 519 4 2 5 2 6 4 6 7 10 12 2 2 3 173 2 11 ..b\" 2 2 3 2 8 1 4 4 9 323 105 186 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 1 4 9 5 2 1 4 2 5 8 1 13 2 1 11 3 27 2 5 3 8 3 1 4 5 5 5 45 2 35 3 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 15 3 8 8 IS 3 4 3 7 1 12 34 14 2 7 5 17 8 10 1 5 6 5 24 1 394 629 50.51% 22 19 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 3 4 3 7 4 452 453 294 270 46 67 18 5 5 1 4 8 15 62 1 3 354 6 9 4 5 140 6 25 4 2 39 2 139 2 774 7 6 2 1 6 10 3 9 161 2 1 4 15 2 3 6 1 317 1 2 3 2 4 3 \\20 2 15 4 1 5 2 285 2 1 8 2 2 4 190 26 8 10 24 19 394 2 5 1 13 6 3 1 7 6 2 1 6 2 12 5 188 4 5 3 8 13 23 2 19 3 3 6 4 392 16 18 2 6 614 2 4 1 8 2 2 2 4 1 1 340 14 5 2 495 14 11 3 6 16 13 3 2 17 2 2 295 5 2 7 9 618 2 2 17 4 6 2 1 5 1 12 16 349 12 4 3 528 5 4 1 2 9 3 2 2 2 4 17 66.81% 70.20% 61.22% 61.11% 2 8 2 2 435 431 518 255 310 307 501 531  i 460 2 487 400 257 339 11 8 406 219 406 65.75% 57.77% 74.32% 64.31% 65.48% 70.26% 41.62% 71.52% 65.30% 68.50% 67.32% 79.06% 59.11% 73.52% 41.87% 3 7 213 8 15 2 296 16 3 21 20 20 226 476 2 2 1 302 536 429 j 656 114  444 315 508 384 62.91% 73.13% 79.25% 44.97% 78.60% 67.62% 58.85% 254 ' 44.88% 162 I 14O7o\"T OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENTCLOVR JR 494 DUNBAR 38 FORST HT 23 HENDERSN 21 MABEL JR 73 MANN M/S 90 PUL HT J 21 SOUTHWST 17 JR TOTAL 777 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 62 3 4 23 1 6 1 15 609 81.12% 443 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 53 732 60.52% 45 36 50 57 21 23 737 483 50 20 72 7 59 759 63.64% 34 4 54 36 18 696 588 4 114 48 20 8 892 f 3 1 7 11 1 19 11 71 792 74.24% 333 66 15 25 508 7 3 17 491 67.82% 109 2 1 123 67 570 4 767 220 8 271 67 59 504 847 781 612 845 15623 72.98% 82.35% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENTLU ILfc HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1 Q X BZEHBi Little Rock School District receivst^ (3 JAN 1 6 1996 Office of Desegregacon fviontojn,^ January 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The Implementation Committee recently held their Enclosed please find a copy of those minutes. sixth meeting. Our next meeting has not been scheduled due to scheduling conflicts\nhowever, I hope to contact you this month to request your selection on which subcommittee that you would like to serve. Once our next meeting has been scheduled, you will be notified. Sincerely yours, V D^ DIR] I [TOR C. Eaton FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/ipcmeet 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 A 5 JAH J 6 ^9% MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 3, 1996 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their sixth meeting on January 3, 1996. At that meeting, a revised scope was presented to the Committee for consideration so as to realign the direction of the Committee. A recommended change was made by committee members in reference to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as opposed to Board of Education\nhowever, the scope was not voted upon and the committee is still not clear on what the general scope of their authority is. A Draft Implementation Planning Sub-Committee list was also prepared which initially divided LRSD employees and some members who have volunteered for specific committees to assist in drafting the various phases of an implementation plan assessment of the Facility Study. and because of The sub-committees have still not been firmed up, this the specific charge. obligations requirements of those sub-committees has not been defined. and An agenda item of a plan time line was not discussed due to lack of time. A special report was made by Ms. Lowe, who is working on the subcommittee dealing with public affairs. They have began holding sub-committee meetings and have taken a first step of holding their own public meeting on January 10, 1996. We had a long, involved discussion regarding what the aspects are of our committee and how we are to develop an implementation plan. Of many items discussed. highlights centered around how the configuration of the middle schools would be impacted or would impact the Facility Study\nhow do we secure public reaction to the various aspects of the downsizing\nand how do we involve public acceptance? We have yet to develop any kind of a firm guideline or plan as to how we should approach the public. At the direction of the Superintendent, informal meetings have begun in various communities simply to inform Little Rock School District patrons and the general public on what the study encompasses and to assure them that a group of LRSD employees and the general public are looking at how the various options in the Facility Study could be implemented if necessary, but that no decisions have been made. It is becoming obvious that specific sub-committees will have to be formed out of the realm of the general committee by securing volunteers and that specific areas of implementation will have to be examined.Page Two Continued covers. At the present time, the only thing that we are comfortable going to the public with is the general parameters of the study and what it Detailed questions regarding whether or not the District is going to implement the Study, and how it will affect the children and the education system have yet to be determined. This leaves many unanswered questions at many of these public meetings. DCE/apl/minutes6! Arkansas Demi  locrat I SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996------- \u0026lt;*\u0026lt; Ulto  Committee on LR school closings sets forum A Little Rock School District committee charged with developing a plan that could lead to some schools being closed will hold a community forum at 10 a.m today at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401W. 12th St The Facilities Committee, made up of district administrators and commimity members, has been studying the recommendations of a Texas consoling firm that evaluat- No decisions have been made by ii J.i 1 1- ujg committee although members have indicated they dont believe ed all district schools. The consultants recommended closii^ at least eight schools and redrawing attendance zones as a way to oSset a projected loss of more any schools should be closed in the 19^97 school year. than 3,000 students by the year 2005. f The facilities conunittee has been meeting with parents at each of the schools that the consultants named as candidates for closure.RECEIVED JUN  1996' FACILITIES COMMITTEE NOMINEES Zone 1 Mitchell Dr. Delbra Caradine B. J. McCoy of O' OOi! :i: i\"cni\ncrinc,^ Zone 2 Daugherty Rohn Muse Zone 3 Magness Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72207 661-8030 Kris Baber 2519 N Fllmore Little Rock, AR 72207 663-5443/682-2479 Zone 4 Riggs Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 221-9632 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-8155/569-8868 Zone 5 Pondexter Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-0876/570-4100 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9498/982-9436 Zone 6 Gee Joa Huphrey 5022 W. 56th Little Rock, AR 72209 565-4110 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 225-9035/225-5534 Zone 7 Strickland Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-4754 Phil Wyrick 11001 Alexander Rd. Alexander, AR 72103 455-4073 JOSHUA INTERVENORS: John Walker 1723 Boadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 Joy Springer KNIGHT INTERVENORS: Betty Mitchell Frank MartinVAN N. LIGHT 15 Sunset Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 663-9287 aa: c/ - mar 7 4- 1996 March 5, 1996 of Oeje\nar\nn. Ms. Sue Strickland Member, Little Rock School Board 19 Pear Tree Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: February' 22, 1996 School Board Meeting\nFacility Study Committee Dear Sue: Thank you for having lunch with me yesterday to discuss my concern regarding your failure to advise members of the Facility Study Committee of your intention to call for the suspension of the Committees work at the February 22, 1996 school board meeting. As I indicated at lunch, in my view, the community members who had volunteered so much of their time to this committees work deser'/ed prior notice of your intention out of courtesy and respect for their efforts. While you and I disagreed on whether the Committee should have been informed of your intentions prior to the meeting, I did appreciate your apology. I think your apology has the potential for healing some of the frustration felt by the community members of the Committee and plan to share it with the Committee by copy of this letter. There remains one open issue relating to the actions taken at the February 22, 1996 LRSD Board meeting with regard to the Committee having to do with a reason you expressed for wanting to suspend the Committees work. I reviewed the tape of the board meeting last week and believe you misstated the present status of the Committee when you stated: Excuse me. I am on that committee. The only thing that we are challenged to address is closing Mabelvale Junior High. As you know, the foregoing statement is simply not true. I advised you by phone on Monday, February 19 and by fax (copy enclosed) the next day that the committee leadership had been restructured and that the Committee was searching for a facilitator to assist the Committee in coming to an agreement regarding its scope, purpose, composition, subcommittee structure, decision timeline and decision framework. The information conveyed to you before the February 22nd Board Meeting clearly indicated that the Committee was no where near making a recommendation of any sort-much less a recommendation to close Mabelvale Junior High. Had you been at the February 14th Committee meeting (minutes enclosed) you would have witnessed the expression of dissatisfaction with the course of the Committee and appreciated the strong desire of theMs. Sue Strickland March 5, 1996 Page 2 community members of the Committee to set the Committee on an agreed upon course. Unfortunately, this information was not relayed to the Board and it was forced to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Of course, if I or a member of the Committee had been informed of your intention to seek suspension of the Committee at the February 22nd meeting the Board could have been informed of the current status of the Committee. The failure to portray accurately the status of the Committee is particularly puzzling in light of the concern you expressed at the February 22nd meeting about recruitment of students and families to the Little Rock School District. How can the Board expect to instill trust and involvement in the District when the efforts of people, like the volunteer members of the Committee, are summarily dismissed based on inaccurate information? Volunteers who take time away from other priorities to serve the public school system deserve more. The very least you owe the Committee members is to set the record straight regarding the work of the Facility Study Committee. The Board and the public should know that the committee members were determined to set the Committee on a correct course, had taken steps to do so and did not have the single issue agenda of closing Mabelvale Junior High. I would hope that you would make this information available to the Board. If you wont correct the record, then I will at the next available opportunity address the Board. I care very deeply about the future of the Little Rock School District and have been actively involved since my children began attending public schools. I also care about getting other parents involved in the District. I hope you will help insure that the efforts of those who do get involved will not be taken for granted or misinterpreted by accurately conveying the work of the Facility Study Committe to the Board. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. Sincerely, inht Van N. Light Co-Chair Facility Study Committee cc: Facility Study Committee MembersDELIVERED BY FAX 9 V DATE: February 20, 1996 TO. Facilities Study Committee Members OJSce ^4i-' 7 FROM: RE: Van Light, 663-9287 Co-chair, Facilities Study Committee Facilitator Selection/Critical Questions Input for Facilities Study Committee At the Facilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1996, the committee decided to restructure the committee leadership with a co-chair format, one chair from the community and one chair from the LRSD staff. I was elected as a co-chair representing the community and Doug Eaton will continue as the LRSD staff co-chair. In addition, pursuant to Committee action on February 14th, a facilitator is to be identified and selected to assist our committee in developing committee goals, scope, decision timeline and framework. Several other critical questions were compiled at this meeting. They are enclosed for your review. Please call me with additions or corrections. These questions will be given to the facilitator. Selection of Facilitator The Committee agreed to seek the assistance of a facilitator for a limited time and as a volunteer. Suggested work parameters are at most 2 committee workshops of up to four hours each. Please submit your suggestions by the end of the week. I contacted as many of you as I could by phone on Monday, February 19th in advance of this memo. Two suggestions have been made so far: Judith Foust and Max Snowden. Since we are asking candidates to volunteer his/her time, several suggestions are required. Thanks very much. If you do suggest someone, please provide a short profile. Once all suggestions have been made, then I will contact you again by letter/phone/fax with names and profiles. You will have the opportunity to rank preference and/or express concern about a candidate. Remember the facilitator will not make decisions but help us to formulate our own committee structure and framework for the committee members to make the decisions. Thank you for your time and support.DRAFT Facility Study Implementation Planning Minutes, February 14, 1996 Committee Members Present Doug Eaton, chair Nancy Acre Brady Gadberry Melissa Guildin Charles Johnson Van Light Nancy Lowe Leon Modeste Rohn Muse Fred Smith Diane Vibhakar Connie Whitfield Linda Young Members Not Present Sadie Mitchell Sue Strickland Sammy Mills Vic Anderson Russ Mayo Betty Mitchell Xavier Heard Margaret Gremillion Suellen Vann John Walker Donna Creer Robert Hightower Kathy Wells Skip Marshall Frank Martin Richard Roachell 1  ** ~ \" y,  MAR 7- 'i5?3 D Mr. Doug Eaton, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Mr. Eaton asked for a report from the Outreach Subcommittee. This report was defered to the next meeting because certain members necessary to make the full report were not present at the meeting. Nancy Lowe did state that she had presented the overview of the Facility Study to the Area School Advisory Committee on Monday, February 12, 1996 and circulated the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document (attached) compiled by the Outreach Subcommittee. Rohn Muse, who is on a Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce committee, stated that the Chamber's Executive Committee had requested through him that the Outreach Subcommittee brief the Executive Committee. After discussion the Facility committee agreed that future requests for Facility Study briefings should be requested through the Communications Office under the direction of Suellen Vann. Since the Chamber briefing had already been scheduled for the next day, February 15, the committee agreed that only the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document be circulated and that any questions or requests for more information concerning the Facility Study should be directed through the Communications Office.DRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Eaton announced that the Bi-Racial Committee had been given a Facility Study Briefing on February 6, 1996. Additional briefings are scheduled for Wilson Elementary on March 8, 1996\nFair Park Elementary on March 11, 1996\nand, Garland Elementary on March 25, 1996. Mr. Eaton circulated to members the Special Report\nFacility Study Implementation Planning Committee Memo and School Closing Timeline (attached) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. Van Light noted that Number 2 of the memo should read \"Option M\" instead of \"Option C.\" Further discussion occured concerning these documents. Van Light made a motion that written Facility Committee progress reports to the LRSD board should be reviewed, if time permitted, by all committee members prior to submission to the LRSD Board of Directors. The motion was discussed and passed. It was agreed on occasions when LRSD Boardmembers and/or the Superintendent requested information from Mr. Eaton as the Plant Services Director and required immediate response then the commmittee would be apprised after the fact. Linda Young requested that Rohn Muse's name be added on the committee membership list. Mr. Eaton agreed to do so. As Mr. Eaton was circulating a draft Revised Scope for this committee to discuss, the members discussed and agreed that the Agenda Item dealing with Committee Structure should be addressed first. Van Light then circulated a letter (attached) signed by Charles Johnson and herself requesting two agenda items for the February 14th meeting. The first item addressed committee leadership. The letter attached explains the committee situation. The community members recommended that a facilitator should be asked to run the meetings. After discussion and specifically Fred Smith noting that there was no budget to hire a facilitator, a compromise approach was reached. It was agreed that the committee should have co-chairs, one from the community who would run the meetings, and a LRSD staff member as the other co-chair. In addition, a facilitor would be asked to come on a voluntary basis for a limited time to help the committee develop an agreed uponDRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 3 scope, purpose, committee structure, composition, and other organizational needs. The members agreed that a facilitator would be more likely to help if it was a short term commitment. Fred Smith nominated Van Light to be the community co-chair. It was seconded. She was elected to the position. The members then listed serveral critical questions (attached) that are to be given to the facilitator once identified. It was noted that a committee member, instead of the chairperson, should become the official secretary for future meetings. Mr. Eaton had been taking the minutes of all the meetings previously. The second agenda item requested by the community members in the above referenced letter concerned requesting 3D1 to make a formal presentation to the committee. This would allow all questions that committee members had to be anwered and understood fully. No specific action was recommended because it was deferred for the next meeting when the facilitator would be present. The revised scope statement and subcommittee composition agenda items were tabled until the next meeting when the facilitator will be present. Mr. Eaton did state that he had asked three LRSD staff to begin forming subcommittees in order to get issues surfaced that would assist the general committee in its thought process with regard to studying the options. Mr. Eaton passed out, as general information, a document entitled \"School Closing Information Paper\" (attached) to assist committee members in trying to understand the multiple steps necessary in deciding school closings. The meeting adjourned about 6:15 pm. The next meeting would be determined once a facilitator had been identified and an agreed upon date set. Minutes prepared by Van Light with assistance from Mr. Eatons Memorandum for Record, Implementation Planning Committee Meeting - 2/14/96, dated March 1, 1996 and Nancy Lowe's recording the list of critical questions.TO: TKR! q-[jc -r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF FACILITY SERVICES 3601 S. BRYANT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 January 25, 1996 Vittle Rock School District Boar FROM : a Sat on, Director of Special Sucerintendent T ommr tie Rock School District Faci Ccmmi tee xS charged Wltl\" he various restru uring options as presenter The committee administration membership consists staff, Desegregaticr community individuals. d of Directors y Sezn-ices V o do 1 y stU\narty ers ccmmlttee has casi t this point has made the following pre iminary det ns an ions\ncommittee focus Fa will only be on -mendati rents. ty restr'ucturing to meet projected stu^ 7 T 2 . Tha ths specifi e Wi' lT 7 be Optz.cn C.as it ertains to J nior i--ab schools. 3 . a school closin reccmmen\n:s .b-e his budget year cue to the estimated time of F 4 . Tha a primary focus will be :ubli and rmation sessions to secure public t and sun 5 . That additional subcommittees will be ether aspects o school restructuring and they ecome to analyte identified. There are no set timelines to implement a school closing, but rather a backward planning process starting with the desired closing date and student assignment effective date and then prorating your time over the identified steps and procedures necessary. The following is a list of significant events and suggested dates\n1. Prior to January: - Completed all data collection and analysis - Comprise list of facilities to be considered - Conduct public information meetings 2. January: - Finalize recommended action to board(Business case) - Secure board decision on closure - Begin support planning - Tentative assignment notification to students Begin support) definitized planning(personnel, students, 3 . Febr-uary: - Request court date - Conduct pre-registration 4. March: - Complete support planning (support staff) - Complete student plans - Complete public hearings - Complete personnel plans - Court hearing 5. June: - Close school - Final notification to students on assignments 6. August: - Reassign students This is a very condensed list and does not include he multitude of specific staff considerations with regard to this type action. CLCB2HPTFebiuaiy 12, 1996 Delivered in Person by Charles Johnson and Van Liuhl Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Plant Services LRSD 3601 S Bryant Little Rock .AR 72201 RE. Aaenda Items for 2'14/96 Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee (FSIPC) Meeting Dear Doug Persuant to your most recent letter in which you offered to receive agenda item suggestions from committee members, we respectfully submit the following agenda items A) B) Committee Leadership Structure Request for Facility Study Presentation by 3D! Last Friday '9/96, five FSIPC members from the community, Charles Johnson. Van Light. Kathy Wells. Nancy Lowe. Rohn Muse, met for 1 1. hours to discuss the FSIPC and its fiiture direction. The group agreed to recommend the above agenda items We also want to recommend that Rohen S Rules of Order be followed in future meetings. A. Committee Leadership Structure Problem Statement. In its present leadership structure the committee has not been able to progress as it should due to members and committee leadership not agreeing on committee purpose and scope. Symptoms of Problem. These symptoms suggest that a change is needed. a) 2 V2 - 3 hour meetings conducted with little or.no progress made or action taken, b) Committee Chairperson forming subcommittees outside the committee structure. c) Poor attendance at last two meetings. d) Expression of frustration by all membersdeadersiiip on lack of committee progress. Discussion This group discussed several strategies to address this problem. In the discussion of all strategies it was aareed that a neutral person was needed to run the meetings. The strategies discussed were. 1. Co-chairs, one community member\none LRSD staff member. The community member tunning the meeting, , 2. One chairperson - a community member 3. One chairperson - an experienced facilitator. This group by consensus agreed to recommend Strategy ^3, to find an experienced facilitator as soon as possible who might donate his/her time.Rationale for Selection of Strategy #3 Due to the obvious public interest and sensitivity/volativity with issues concerning facility changes, it is imperative that the public perception and, indeed, the reality be that this committee be one in which a) the leadership of the committee is neutral, b) the committee membership representation is city-wide, c) the evaluation process is fair and logical and is agreed upon by the committee, and, d) decisions are based on a shared vision by the committee using the Strategic Plans beliefs, mission and objectives as a guide. Due to the various perspectives of the committee members and the complexitv of issues relating to facilitv changes, having an experienced facilitator would be a needed asset. t. B) Facilitator Recommendations. The group did brainstorm on possible facilitators. Of course, other names can and should be considered. Those mentioned were. Ken Hubbell Earl Moore Joyce Springer Williams Mary F Dillard Dr David Sink Judith Foust Cliarlev Crawford Request for Faciiit\u0026gt; Study Presentation by 3DI Problem Statement. The inability of the members to understand the reasons and iustificaiii recommendations that per to facility changes. Reasons for Inability to Understand. 1) Contradictory messages: :ueen sections of studc 2) Insufficient narrative to support and.'or explain recommendations. Discussion. The group agreed that it w before decisions impacting on for the s essential that the integrity and validity of the study had to be upheld 'acilities by the committee could be made. This group agreed it could not and did not want to move fonvard until that point was reached. Therefore, it is recommended that a one-on- one session with the consultant be arranged. Specific information requests from consultant can be determined at the Wednesday meeting. This group recognizes the seriousness of the agenda items recomm.ended in this letter. We are earnest in our desire to make informed decisions We are committed in being supportive of the LRSD and its staff as we work together to recommend changes concerning the Districts facilities We pledge our good faith efforts to make decisions based on the overall good of the District. We await your comments and would be glad to discuss further any issue With regards, Charles Johnson 565-5715   \\ Van N. Light 663-9287'\" y cc: Mr. Fred Smith FSIPC Members (at W'ednesdays meeting) FACILITIES COMMITTEE Little Rock School District Critical Questions 1. 2 3. 4. 5. What is the scope of the committee? Do we need to revisit establishing goals? How can committee set forth a planning framework for itself with goals and timelines and benchmarks? Determine committee composition and numbers. Determine best tune to meet. 6. Vanong levels of trust w ith school district within committee. 7. 8. 9. Wdiat are the specific subcommittees? Determine subcommittee composition and numbers. Wdiat are the subcommittees tasks? 10. 11. 12. 13. Are we satisfied wdth the facilities study as a piece to begin decision making\"? Do we need to have 3 DI make a presentation? Varying levels of understanding about facility study wtliin committee. How did decision to close identified schools within recommendations get done? 14. 15. How do we communicate internally within the committee and with and between subcommittees? How are we going to communicate committee decisions to the general public? 16. Others? SCHOOL CLOSING PROCEDURES INFORMATION DOCUMENT 1) INTRODUCTION: 2) RSCEJVED MAR 7 199$- Office cf Desegrajefien Monitoring School closings are generally examined using the same criteria established by planners for the location and construction of new schools. Such general areas as student populations, demographic trends, economic analysis are the same general areas of consideration to be used when the predetermined goal is consideration of closing a school. Because there are no defined guidelines for decision-makers, nor definitive brackets of cost and population against which an objective analysis can be made to lose a school, we WP can establish research data but not clearly define will fully support a closing, will be heavily subjective. WXiCil that Therefore, our final decision We must understand that School Districts must operate financially by maximizing costs on a per capita basis. Only through maximum economies of scale, by going to maximum class size and facility capability. while meeting students' individual needs for achievement can we hope to operate in an economically efficient manner. In examining a particular school as a candidate for closing. we must certainly examine the entire school system. or at least a cluster of schools which would be immediately impacted by the closing. Basic economic decisions considered in facilities planning include decisions to incrementally add to schools as student numbers go up, and the fact that we design and build for future use, and not just current needs. This leads us to consider projected student populations and current and expected costs as the two (2) main considerations in school closings. WHEN DO WE CONSIDER A SCHOOL FOR CLOSING: I've identified five (5) areas of consideration that would support a decision to examine whether or not a specific facility should be closed: A) Consideration should be given to closing a acility when the repair costs can not be amortized economically. Examples would be when emergency repair costs exceed the value of the school, such as damage due to f 1 fire, 1earthquake, etc., or when the deferred maintenance costs on any major component would exceed a certain value of the overall costs of the facility. This deferred maintenance must include replacement to include costs to upgrade to current standards of such major components of the school as the heating/ventilation system, structural repairs, roof, and grounds. B) We should consider closing the facility when the operational maintenance costs of the facility begins to exceed the norm of all other similar facilities or when it can be shown that the operational maintenance cos C) D) would far exceed the life cycle costing of a new f as compared to the remaining life of the original. This can be done through a life cycle cost analysis of a new facility of equitable size. One must consider here that a replacement facility of larger size can better capitalize on economies of scale and will tend to show a lower operational cost on a per capita basis than the ole facility. This is used as the strength of an argument for normal facility replacement simply due to age and operational costs. We should consider closing a facility when the student population decreases to the point that consolidation or redistribution of students must occur,- or when student projections show a steady decline over a determined period of time. The determined period of time should exceed the number of years of one (1) cycle of the school\nfor example, if the school encompasses K - Sth Grade, we should look, at least, at one (1) full cycle, or seven years, as the projected length and time to fully determine whether or not student projections are rising or falling. This should allow a slight increment in any given year due to a rise in birth rates but not skew the final data. We should consider closing a facility when general demographic trends of the entire area surface indicate a movement or shift in population, away from an existing 2E) 3) school. As population centers shift within the School District, it can be expected that as student populations decline in older areas. that per capita cost increase, that the closing of schools must be considered to meet the demands of the moving population. Many times, this will result in the Board of Education examining older schools. areas in more established areas, yet these established predominantly house older populations which do not tend to move with demographic trends within the city. We should consider closing a facility when the cost analysis of the school shows a disproportionate spending on a per capita basis for all other items not including operations and maintenance. We must closely examine this area. If operational costs on a per caoita basis are increasing due to decreasing student e rising operational costs of the program, be examined in support of school closing, must be cautioned that operational programs, newer technology. then nis However, osts for ust W6 new to achieve higher academic standards are not to be considered in this analysis per capita costs. RESEARCH AREAS: of The research area list is not all-inclusive, but meant to identify those key areas of consideration that will produce objective data. and those answers that will produce subjective answers. The following are areas which can be clearly defined objectively: A) A current operational cost analysis will proouce hard figures showing the operational costs on B) C) either a per school. or per capita basis. against the norm. We should consider both maintenance costs and academic costs. One time costs to bring the facility in line with current academic demands and current physical requirements such as bringing the building in line with current city codes. Examining student projections will clearly show a rise or fall in the anticipated enrollment over a 3given number of years. D) The costs associated with the transfer of students and the costs associated to adapt surrounding schools school. to incorporate students from the closed The following areas of examination will produce subjective answers: A) Trying to determine the impact on student's education if we move the student from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. a B) Examining whether or not the closing of a school is not in contravention to t Laws. Fe C) Whether or not the closing of a facility is in line with the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan, or intent thereof. A subjective analysis will raise further questions such as: A) When do we physically close the school and move children? the B) How long will it take the children to go to, or be acclimated. in their new school? C) What would be the racial balance of the schools to which the children are redistributed? 4) WHEN DO YOU CLOSE A FACILITY: As Stated before, there are no hard, fast guidelines which would produce checklists that say. if you meet four (4) or five (5) criteria, the school will be closed\". It is more a subiective evaluation based on II It subjective objective data, and as such, will allow the decision-maker the ability to determine the nrioritv of the to determine priority listing considerations, and the specific criteria which will determine that the facility will be closed. In general, if a 45) combination of any of the following factors are present, a s A) B) ) D) then chool should be considered for closing: when the operational specified amount\ncosts exceeds the norm by a when the costs to upgrade the facility to current educational and code standards is cost-prohibitive against either new construction or the facility\nthe expected life of when you are considering realigning attendance zones just support student populations, or have to transport simply to maximize the facility. to children into an area or to spend funds to support educational attract students, all of which are intended to offsec L co rograms 11 c W student population and decreasing trends\nand, if schools are examined on a regional cluster. total combined facility space and exceeds the current projected needs and redistribution economic sense, or social considerations. consideration. PLANNING FACTORS: procedure which is does not and violate then closing is The following planning steps formulate a intended to be used as a guide vzhen school closing is contemplated. The procedure is set forth in a logical manner\nhowever, uniformly as local conditions require. its sections may be used separately or uniformly as locai i\nuuuii,j.uuo It is primarily intended to identify the various kinds of information as well that should be considered before as the particular activities It is intended that this procedure will be closing a school. the _______________to provide an organized structure for decision-makers when a school closing is being contemplated. followed so as A) acili.tx Evaluations t Facility evaluations are undertaken only when it is apparent that physical condition school. will influence the decision to close the This evaluation should properly identify the 5general condition of the facility and detail any special problems relating to age, structure or utility systems. The evaluations should include an estimate of useful life be made if the facility is continued in service. expectancy and, in particular, an accounting of repairs to Some schools will need to be closed regardless of age and condition. B) Capacity of Facility: Useful capacity should be C) calculated in terms of the numbers of students the facility can accommodate using criteria as established by *  . Each either the Local or State Board of Education. administration must establish its own formula capacity calculations. Suggested methods include: Capacity as ietermined J* Itiplying pupil.'t ratio times the number of classrooms Capacity as determined by dividing square footage in an instructional area by the per pupil square a footage recommended for the purpose for which the area is being used Capacity determined by physical determination cr each academic space as compared to the Board of Education standard capacity may not exceed the class any case, non cue cj-obo size limits as established by the State Board of Education. In Student Enrollments: Present and projected student enrollments should be a necessary part of any decision uO close a school. To decrease the margin of'error, {7) years should minimum period of time of at least seven be established upon which to base population projections. This should be done for the school system as a whole, all schools included. One should be aware of two (2) factors * *  a in projecting populations: a) The relationship between increases or decreases in the general population and school enrollment\nand. 6D) E) b) The need to project enrollment in a given attendance area where it is anticipated that a school may close. would be appropriate to establish an enrollment figure such that if the school falls below this number, that the school will be closed after due process, and all pupils It and school personnel reassigned. A proposal to close Organization of the School SYStemu should consider the organizational needs of the a school including reorganization of particular school system, schools which otherwise might have been closed. examole, be subtracting grades at an elementary level For consideration might facility could be continued in service. add such that o..e Within this context, one examines the long-range programmatic ntc-s of the school system before deciding to close a s\u0026gt;_hool. In doing so, it may be appropriate to close a school for some temporary purpose, which, in the final analysis will seirve the permanent goals of the school system. Cost of operationL To be explicit in one's assessment to close a school, we must calculate the financial costs of operating the facility, and more especially, the funds to    These costs m.ay be be saved by closing the facility. compared to per capita costs of operating other similar schools in the school system. or just simply on the basis that a given amount of money will no longer be spent if the facility is closed. These financial assessments normally include, but are not restricted to the areas of: a) Personnel reassign or eliminated\nb) Utilities for a period of time such as a year\nc) Maintenance and repair costs for a period of t ime\nd) Custodial costs\n7e) Transportation costs,- and, f) Miscellaneous costs. such as insurance. If the facility is to be closed, and not replaced, then obviously a substantial capital outlay may be avoided. If the facility is to be replaced, then a comparison must be made to the expected operational costs which will be determined from a cost analysis of the new facility. Obviously, if the per capita costs decrease. or the same general operational costs remain approximately the for a larger number of students in a more modern facility, then closing would be advantageous to the District. then F) Transportation: It is not 1 T. ays possr 1 o o.a G) H) savings in transportation by closing a school since ass .sporta' ignment of students sometimes increases transportation However, one may well reduce costs in responsibilities. this area by school closing, and it is incun-ibent upon us to assess this accurately. Specifically, rerouting should be buses, plus its effect upon time and distance, A corollary is the need for additional or examined. fewer buses. distance, issue. The relationship among routing, t ime, number of buses, and concomitant costs is the Racial Balance: racial balance enrollment. which so school The administration must recognize that IS a sensitive factor in No administration should take an school action seriously affects pupil assignment as closing a without being completely aware of its ramifications on racial balance. The probability is that racial balance alone will not likely determine whether or not a school is closed. However, it is a sensitive matter that may not be overlooked, this factor carefully. We must calculate Alternative Uses: Alternative uses of the facility must be examined during the analysis process to insure that the facility may not be compatible with the education process in an alternative use. Instructional programs, as well as auxiliary services, should be in an alternative use. as 8considered. Possible alternatives include: a) Special education\nb) Special purpose schools,- c) Social and community purposes\nd) Maintenance and repair services\ne) Storage\nand, f) Office space. irrrent expense to provide the aroremer and capital outlay costs should be me 1 jded 'Vices 1 any assessment of alternative uses. i) Program Considerations.:. In considering a school closing, the administration should determine where students will be reassigned, and what effect closing will have on j) k) program opportunities which result from staff reassignments and the relocation of resources. Tentative Decision: studies school After the administration carefully the facility evaluations. facility capacity. projections. school organizations, cost operation, effect on transportation, alternative uses the facility, effect on racial balance. of for and effect on local governmental planning, the administration should make a tentative decision. If the tentative decision is to close the school, then informal meetings and hearings should be scheduled. Informal MeetinQSu The administration. in conjunction with the Board of Education, should hold public hearings prior to the closing of the school. The administration should, in order to cement good public relations. hold certain informational meetings with their various publics prior to closing. These activities are strictly for the purpose of providing information. answering questions. and most important of all. establishing in the' minds of those affected. that their reactions and opinions are 96) 1) m) being evaluated, public support. School closings are much easier with These meetings should involve, should not necessarily be restricted to: a) b) c) d) but Parents\nSchool-related groups\nLocal government officials\nand, Other local interest groups. Additionally, the administration should keep a displaced faculty-as well informed as can be. Personnel reass ignm.ent plans should prepared and given to soon as possible. Closing Decisions: d c After all essential info: ion has been obtained and evaluated by the administration, and after all essential activities have been carried out, then the administration should approach the Board of Education, in an official session, regarding closing the school. If a school closing is voted upon. then it should be as specific as to termination date, and should be accomplished in conjunction with applicable general statutes regarding property disposal. Disposition of Surplus Property.:. If the closing of the school results in the property being surplus o the District's needs, then applicable laws should be followed regarding this disposition. Final disposition is. of course, at the determination of the Board, and may include the options of demolition, sell, or leasing. SUMMARY: The following checklist summarizes the school closing procedure. EVALUATION OF FACILITY  * * Report on physical condition State useful life expectancy Identify specific maintenance or code problems 10CAPACITY OF FACILITY  Determine formula useful, pupil capacity by approved STUDENT ENROLLMENT  * Project enrollment five {5} years as a minimum Identify minimum enrollment for automatic closing Project enrollment for specific attendance area ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEM if if  if Needs of total school system Reorganization required by closing Cost of operation Current expense in capital outlay of closing S S' r.crs ?er capita costs in compari to Oti TRANSPORTATION if if Rerouting needs including additional i Cost savings, if any RACIAL BALANCE ALTERNATIVE USES  * Total school system, program needs Auxiliary uses PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS TENTATIVE DECISION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS if Parents, local government officials, local interest groups School related groups, others DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY  Other school system needs Sell Lease 11\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_446","title":"Facilities study","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":["1995/2005"],"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","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities study"],"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/446"],"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\nJ B PUBLIC SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! B Learn More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-57IS, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368 lUSeptember 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more Information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical in determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations: 2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Severed recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an aimual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Facilities Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd FairPark-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jetfcrson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 n 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J.A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed arc marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes arc marked with an R School Allcudancc Zone Population: % While % Black Today Today % While Option M % Black Option M % Wliite Option T % Black Option T % Wliite Option C % Black Option C Elcm. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C JefTerson-C M.L. Kmg. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Milchell-C Otter Creek 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 69 31 80 20 82 18 Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 03 21 39 41 41 59 59 42 25 96 89 92 41 97 79 61 58 68 04 23 87 02 21 47 32 96 77 13 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 43 32 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION 1 6TH-STH enroll * capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 4 #2 k.9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. if 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-B Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210-1 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 i#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features: Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities\nToilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services\nPower installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alanns-and^t.Jjghts\n_genetai.and_special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features\nadministrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development\ndrainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3O/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement. marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day. and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or construction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Schoc) Size ! I I I I I I 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.^ Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for classes of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools,\" shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses, each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate student's perception of size. A large school does not necessarily have to be a numbingly anonymous one. 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction.  Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes cf schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the4)rojected-enrQllments....Table-d-rafJects-thexurrent grade -organizations (PK-6: 7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK6\n78\nand 912), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities. 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800. and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendatiori for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include: 1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 i 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500.students.. .Even at a.large,school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones\" presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools, Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. Impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21, 1994 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 Page 1 December 19, 1995 Difference Central HS** Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS**_____ Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH** Forest Heights JH Henderson JH* * Mabelvale JH Mannjh* Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH______ Sub-Total w/o Magnets u m m 1020 o I 535, 620! 266 646\n310 671 197 re  o Ik 61 38: 13 5 o o \u0026lt;0 m 422 341. 37 3379 1649 145 1606\n63.51% 892\n69.51% 994, 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 52.75% 5173 65.32% e  5 1021 639' s I 530 222 o  0 'Tf 9 S o 2957 1308 108 4373 67.62% 5301 110 4641 204\n573[ 186| 7 11 647 i 81.92% 654! 210i 27 411  452 426 4981 613! 260) 44 741 159, 15! 444, 364! 40 3458 1535 155 1598 870 917 915 848 u w ffi 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 5148 67.17% 3014 1171 115 4300 70.09% 1 3561 21 317! 1131 6 19 679 781  891  570 829 749 630' 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% 5421 4008 1648 120 5776 69.39% 3556 1292 99 4947! 71.88% 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 1576 181 22 16' 21 ' 5| 22 10 17 131 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 5671! 69.90% 3514 1199 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker\" Brady Carver*______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs CIbbs*_______ Jefferson King-________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcllff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller Romine- Stephens* Terry vyakefield___ Washington - mtsojiyy Western Hills Wiiijam^ Wilsey Woodruff Special Schools 136' 2221 2361 48! 74 0 8 4 184! 73.91% 109 48221 72.87% 303, 235i 20i 254! 119\n14! 313^ 268\" UT 344 j 312! 189' 195' 122! 721 103i 8' 7 7 6  2051 2271 394' 244! 241 215' 158' 2151 287. 356! 247' 294 256 161 198' 224, 260 226 36 121 308 314 558 387 595 474 391 292 304 438 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 52.61% 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 2901 TiT 9, 27! 69' 129\n2801 224, 133 226' 1151 61 191 198 A 123 69 7, 13 6 21 9 Zzl 1 i 4 8\n15 31 231. 307 329 70 431' 208, 325 205 249 269 140 15 96 216 80. 84 21' 4421 89.14% 555! 43.96% 277\n87.00% 291 300 501 532 73.86% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256' 1 498! 71.49% 490! 50.41% 410[ 71.71% 266 360 411 96.24% 44.72% 48.18% 3! 2311 96.97% 74! 3971 65.49% T61 Closed 30' 15^ 27 10, 8, 10, 8 0, 311! 72.87% 5681 40.67% 414' 79.47% 666\n64.71% 431 j 75.41% 310! 66.13% 475 [ 52.42/? 358' 75.14% 232! 60.34% 36 41.67% Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 S020 670 24956 65.1S% 14354 6454 555 21363 67.19% 165 219' 289' 312' 262' 306' 250 137 209' 213' 25^ Wf 68 130' 28(r 252 123' 197' 91  5 188 207 4 126 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7' 15 7 16 11  25 6' 2' 8! 2^ 6! 83] 18| Closed 244! 265! 25I 370[ 35 23' 419 372! 2111 264 3061 159! 17! 199 38! 73' 104! 7^ 00 2^ 3, 19! 13, \"8^ 0! 2201 80.00% 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 3181 76.42% 310| 53.23% 5061 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484' 403 257 333' 432 223 402 312 534 428 656 453 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 95.52% 63.18% 67.63% 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318, 66.35% 513- 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239\n66.53% 46! 36.96% 9229 4456 488, 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651 7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 5397  628 21191 69.21% Office of Student Assignment re 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75' -1  16' -2' 21  10 -3 28' 7' 4' 2' -44' 15' 12' -6' -24' 11  -11  -6 -15' 13| 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 2 LU -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34 -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 3 14 a JC -4 3 6 2 3 3 o re m -8 -22 -77 34 48 101 -25 71 -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 -10, 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 111-105 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 0 2 1 -51 2 8 5 -2 0 1 3 8 2 -125 36 33 ___9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52 -6 -7 9 -27 21 -8 5 1 Closed -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 -5 8 11 -34 14 -10 -21 22 -5 9 4 0 0 8 38 24 7 10 350 -267 83\n166 297 -3271 56, 26 385 [-453! 104! 36 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14%  0.08%  4.12%  4.88%  5.60%  2.53%  0.56%  0.37%  -2.06%  -1.53%  3.72%  4.22% 1.04% \" -3.58%  0.20% _ -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 1.45% 3121-5571 731-172 2.02% * u n o. n O 1891 954 1291 1199! lOOOl * o n Q.  u -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 6335 -1187 5335\n-1035 868 812 858 907 614 850 745 737' 6391 5541, 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374? 258! 469 487? 515 4921 836^ 492' 328 394 [ 324 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 ___[7 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 , -3263*5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters *  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and orgariizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district.  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decisionmaking processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)DRAFT/UNOFFICIAL k Little Rock School District 1996-97 Budget Planning Worksheet as of January 17, 1996 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE(7/1/96) $ 1,270,000 REVENUES: Local Sources County Sources State Sources-Settlement Funds States Sources-other Other Sources-Bond Transfer Fd Other Sources-other $71,860,000 $ $ 70,000 683,000 $50,609,000 $ 1,000,000 1,280,000 $125,502,000 EXPENSES: Salaries Benefit Plans Materials \u0026amp; Supplies- Other Purchased Services Bus Contract Capital Outlay-Ex Buses New Special Ed. Buses Other Objects Debt Service $73,710,000 $22,250,000 $20,734,000 $ $ $ $ s. 416,000 2,000,000 375,000 5,349,000 7,574,000 ($132,408,000) NET LOSS IS. 5,636,000) DEFICIT BEFORE ADDITIONAL ITEMS Potential Additional Revenue Sources: Re-appraisal (Dec) Millage Increase Deseg Loan Settlement Draw ($ 5,636,000) $ ??? ??? 3,500,000 Potential Additional Expenses: Payroll Step Increases Payroll Structure Increase 1996-97 Business Cases (NET) Desired Ending Fund Balance NET POSITIVE BALANCE/LOSS REDUCTION Options to Balance Budget: Educational Programs Reductions School Facilities Reconfiguration Non School Level Program/Personnel Reductions Optimize Student/Staff Ratios BALANCED BUDGET (State law requires LRSD to have a balanced budget.) OVER ($ ($ ($ $ 1 1,600,000) 0 200,000) 1,000,000) 4,936,000) ??? ??? ??? ??? 0Document format prepared by Van N. Light. Data taken from 1/17/96 financial documents given to Financial Advisory Committee members and to Dr. Williams and LRSD Board. The Best Guess Scenario figures are used in this document.BUILDING INFORMATION Little Rock School District - Facilities Master Plan Study School Name Mifekiel I Street Address RECBfVBO Surveyor Site Size Date acres AUG 2 1999 Permanent Buildings Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Firs l AddiTirm OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footagei Year Constructed Year Constructed Portable Buildings Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. L7I Condition Codes: c? dlOt.^^firooryi CouPcTer i Gross Squ^e Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage 4 - good. 3 - fair, 2 - poor, I - dead Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed 'o+clI 900 195 3 59 J 30 a Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms SB Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition ConditionI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I Facility Summary I I School Address Area Site Capacity Central High School 1500 South Park Street 266,823 SF 16.5 Acres 2256 Pupil Stations I f 1 Summary: Central High School was originally constructed in 1926, with the additions of: Quigley Stadium in 1937, the field house in 1950, dressing rooms in 1965, the library in 1969, and the choral room in 1973. Central High School is listed as a National Historic Landmark Building and is a uniquely imposing structure. The interior functioning plan, however, is complex and in places lacks the quality and finesse that the exterior holds. This building does not appear to have been well maintained, particularly in the mechanical areas. \u0026lt;f Due to the magnitude of the physical plant, surveyors approached the Central High School complex in four separate categories: Main Building, Library, Gymnasium, and Quigley Stadium. The evaluation of this facility placed Central High School fifth among the five high schools surveyed. 3 fl Main Building The most urgent needs and the greatest amount money are in the main instructional building. Surveyors found general deterioration of all plaster walls and ceilings, particularly on exterior walls where through-wall moisture seepage occurs. Renovation and repair work includes: removal and replacement of windows including reflashing and sealing, repair and replacement of plaster, new acoustical ceilings, replacement of hardware, repair and replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment, replace fire alarm system, provide temperature control system. Also, an extensive replacement of fan-coil units, air handling unit bearings and pulleys, new exhaust fans and duct work, and cleaning the existing ductwork system to alleviate air quality concerns are needed. fl fl fl Page 52 I 3 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I fl fl General refurbishment of all interior surfaces is required. In addition, life safety code requirements need addressing in corridors and stairwells as well as the addition of an elevator system for handicapped access to the various levels of this building. fl fl fl 0 fl fl fl Library Renovation work in this area includes repair of plaster, painting of interior surfaces, replacement of lighting fixtures, new toilet partitions and accessories, replacement of the fire alarm system, and the addition of exit lighting. The exterior of the building needs to be spray washed, and cleaning and pointing of brick work is required. Gymnasium Renovation of the gymnasium includes: repair/replacement of hardware, replacement of toilet partitions and accessories, resealing floor drains, replacement of showers, replacement of fire alarm system. Replacement of lights in locker room, new heating^ ventilating, and air conditioning throughout, as appropriate in this structure, and a general upgrade of interior finishes is needed. Quigley Stadium Renovations include: repair of plaster walls\nnew toilet partitions and accessories: fl replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment\nreplacement and refinishing of lockers\nreplace, reflash, and reseal windows\nreplacement of overhead doors\nand general refurbishment if interior surfaces and materials in finished spaces as c appropriate, needed. Repainting brackets and replacing seat boards at stadium are also fl The exterior work associated with this building requires replacement of barbed wire fencing, replacement of running track along with new curb, and spray washing all exterior surfaces along with repairing concrete walls. Page 53 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I I I General Conditions Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the-art, faculty rooms are small and disbursed, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are not useable, and the wooden structure previously used as the Tiger Den needs to be removed. Boiler capacity, producing steam, is currently oversized to produce domestic hot water and should be reviewed for a more cost efficient method using hot water and point of source heaters. I I The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. Priority #5includes expensive retrofitting of this fine old structure with over a half-million dollars for technology updates. With the history of this building, its current outstanding academic reputation, and its landmark status, regardless of its rating, closure is not an option. For purposes of this report, a complete renovation continuing its current mission is recommended. f A unique alternate use, however, could well be the establishment of Little Rocks first community college. With this use, history would be preserved, and the building, which now requires extensive supervision could be renovated for a more mature student base and adult education programs. A second alternative would be a super magnet high school for accelerated programs and adult continuing education opportunities. I Based on these observations, renovation and improvements are recommended to update this facility to acceptable standards and architectural study is recommended to solve code and engineering problems. H II I Bitt i ran - t* \u0026lt; '\u0026lt;^91 Page 54I I I 1 I 1 I I a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I FauulLy improvements and deficiency corrections have been prioritized and are summarized in this volume under the tab Cost Factors as well as complete details in Priority summaries are as follows: Facility subsequent volumes under the school tab. Main Building Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $2,942,332 $922,092 $172,319 $ -0- $753,466 $4,790,209 Library Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $51,905 $10,158 $3,618 $ -0 - $135,580 $201,263 Gymnasium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $77,225 $172,597 $7,328 $33,467 $ -0- $290,617 Quigley Stadium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $153,017 $69,536 $162,128 $ -0- $96,948 $481,629 Total Central High School Property Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 $3,224,480 $1,174,383 $345,393 $33,467 $985,994 Total (without escalation) $5,763,718 Page 55 IOffice 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 \u0026gt;371-0100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently received the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study\nHow do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice 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) 3710100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently recived 'the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorMEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa MEMORANDUM To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKTINSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEJVE9 FEB 2 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregaiion Monttonnjjj-jjipgRvgjjoRs NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. II ( frlej I'n /i krar Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher Helled Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller k.i K j'! h '1' C .1 02^^ 20 lO\n002 I I* \u0026lt; I i V I i! !i 'f' :! ri' DATE j TO\n) 't 't .  I FROM j REi : t 1. UJ- : i .  fi t!  i FA.X 'i:U: I  \u0026gt;1 \n :jFelirjaMy M 4916 -' .j\nblKiSWts .S?tip^Cos(taiitt^ . IVafibahu W.tZ^ l0|c|ttar, Pl^tibe ItHy Ctmv^ittae !i- H At the ^10 resthted^ oM chip^ * Emoa 4H tinuttjutho I J b 'I\ng: I: il :l\nio 'fl ylt 4:' facitilBW'  1 I Se*ac4\u0026gt;fti I i1ions Input tor Facilities Stu4\\' Cowt^e r 4s- r Li4^:|Mf^ti*.^Wedi \\ FetMiMwy 14. 1996, the cenwuittee 4ediM| t|e WsIb a to-|:feiar fttnnat, one chair from tl commulaty sn4 j : f rifloteri ah a cOChair representing the crwninurtty end EMka S*tt)) 4*9 ico-chpir: \" |1 k^ottsil vemether *li 7)..  s i :iton op P ?hruary 14th, a tacditatoT t* to be ideatiiikd aMd } UibeMeiupttig I omnuttee goais^ scope, decisitn dnwiin* and J d tpc^ons wt re compiled at this meeting \"htey ant eddoswliflp 1 WWfross or cjonoctOns. These queationi wU be giwo to du I ip: I f ' ill , l#i .':  .!i iI v-  i j\ni 1 4.  *r Hi !ill\". !}Si5 Hi, each P * i Kill .11 |o the assB^ance oi'a facilitator for a timiaed time ad aaa.\nI-cootd nude )tV. ill , ., ill\n\" 111 hi- MDsm^i^ are .at ateelRHl^hy the a fiWfcodi WMs!Mj*kddatBJjf,J!rre^^rMnf0rs^T 1199^^ ihh. : ibid ^iOwdaP tirne, i sti4gi|it0w3 wbe re^wJM T^i^M ost 2 comnuiiee workshops uf up to (br howi* j of rhe week I contacted as aruay of ypu aa t j ivatKe of this memo Two suggeatHicfi have btm :ince we are asiur^ candidates to votontm llmhi|i bees fvth|a ly \u0026lt;*ll Ifue provide a short proHk One sU sug^estimBt haste [diB by loti er/phone/fax with nwnes and jjtroffles. Vou toil ice and/or express concern about a candidate li 'll cot Ttwnk \"t^ fia!}\ni^qr MjR'hot mgotlited: IritDtui.r.^.!- -a--a---d. aa iL .  . :S . tor the tupi isBOfts but help us to formulate or \u0026gt; i w?e inenbera to make theHet isioiM \" 3 t . 111 iiil ai o* *ip0rt \ni\n! I /  1 ft I' I  I V : !:  fl- I 1 i .ihi I I . r  i . 1 t. i .1 i if ! I t i ir! i t ii:\n !i it 11.: I I i\n5 f f 1  : 1 ! S !  i I i '* I i\n) ( i : ! i' 'i t -\ni\nI '5 J' I ) I 1 r 1 i It : Tt i 10 003 ] 1 I a:  I'' I : J FACauimiESfCOMMlTTEE :j, Il tiM Diitritt {.  t 15 CritSfialjOtiestioBs i! , (' J . Ui it 1 i i\nI I. 2 3, ' 1.  ' I I -, ' IWI lit 'acqatej^o^tb# nw il^isiung i^l to (amjhsee isei fbtth a planing framework for itself with goals Ii0 i'  1' ' \u0026gt; ! i' 1 1 I 4. 5 6 7.  8 SiJ^ici and members J |ll^ ^|lg tejweb ofltnt il*M a\nbix)| district within committee. '5^ s0tt(^ autioommti 9 ! j . H\n! 10 11 i 12 15. illf 14. 15 16 i nr : \u0026lt; :es'? ti|b\u0026lt;{!9t|n4itt|e.' eeanpoqttm] and ntembers- n^0to.! iQiiiun tfcoifaosiities study as a piece to begin decision inakisig? 3iiil iitwke a  fesentaboii ') flidwidiejfc^^ a jwt iM'ihty stutfy within aonimatec. ^felsinw^-lQcliaii:' ^ntifijed schools within recoiTMTiBBdationB get  i j(io mJ cototifcuiiictlrtt interoaty witbm the committee ajd with and Oli i? I Qi W?\nH 11 i 1 ' f t j . i !  I! i !( J\nU I  t '1 I 1\nV' 1 i- ii 1 goit^ t\u0026amp; aMhbMmica^e cirnimritee decisions Io tie gca} pst#^? '' ' i I'' i J'--\n.-- 1{ I - '* I '! I ( ). 1 1 I I I J .L': I ,1 ! ! I !\u0026lt; i! 1 f 1 ill 1 i I J Il ri 'iiiT I'liirrii wiiiwii.-WJroirTtliiiM/' ' r\u0026lt;i.\\\u0026lt;^l''' \"\u0026gt;  1 ?. . uR^D RDMirL BULDING '\"J..-. J^' Fax:1-501-32^-2052 Jan 12 06 16:42 i's*  ' Little Rock School District Media Advisory P.02/02- . jlft 7, ^5 January 12,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 ^Members of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Facilities Study Committee will hold a community forum Saturday. Januan-13, 1995. The discussion will focus on the status of the LRSD facilities study and how the studys recommendations will impact local schools. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12th Street. ao' '3*1-.J ( 1 Media Note: Little Kock School Board members have been invited to this event. A special meeting situation exists if more than one Little R(x:k School Board member attends the same meeting. i7^ I- . i-' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 4*-'' .'lO .RSUR.J\u0026gt;!n 810 West Markliain Street  Little Rock.,Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 UUBt. I3IQ (p a PUBLIC Office Ft- j J 1996 I Oesegfegation f^oiiiteimg SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! a Leam More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-5715, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Suellen Varm, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment: 3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand, 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial Information were gathered and included In the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community Identities, diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Faculties Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255School Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodniff-C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 69 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 31 80 20 82 18 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 25 96 89 92 41 68 04 23 87 32 96 77 13 41 41 59 59 03 21 39 97 79 61 02 21 47 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68 42 58LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 43 32 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J,A,FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL OPTION #1 6TH-BTH * PK enroll capety delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS P1 4 #2 k-8TH.12 enroll capcty delta 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTALVTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ^ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;ta k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY \"210 i 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 396 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 f 445 - 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 I 321 I 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264  426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 1S350 35 ' 42 : 116 I 132 102 I 70 , 151 I 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools| 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features\nAir conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities: Toilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services: Power installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alarms-and-exit.Jights\n_geneEaJ-and-special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features: administrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development: drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a school's capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement, marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day, and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or constnjction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Schoci Size 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.  Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for c/asses of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools, shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses,\" each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. student's perception of size. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate numbingly anonymous one. A large school does not necessarily have to be a 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction. 2 Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes of schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the-projected_enrQllments..- Table.d jBflects-tbe-current grade -organizations {PK-6\n7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK-6\n7-8\nand 9-12), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities, 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800, and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendation for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include\n1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 I 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500 students. .Even at a.large .school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools. Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21,1994 re m 3 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 December 19,1995 Difference Page 1 Central HS\" Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS** Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH DunbarJH** Forest Heights JH Henderson jh* * Mabelvale JH MannJH* Pulaski Heights jh southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets 1Q2O[ 5351 620\n266 6461 310' 671! 197 O \"sT 6' 38' 13! a o re CD 422! 3411 37 3379! 1649 145 2957 1308 108 16061 63.51% 892 i 69.51% 9941 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 ! 52.75% Badgett Bale Baseline Booker* Brady carver* Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs Gibbs* Jefferson king- Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller* Romine ~ Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington - Watson Wes^rr^^is____ Williams* Wilson Woodruff_____ Special Schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 530 464 573 654 411 452 426 498 4008 3556 136 222 236 303 254' 313 344 312 189 195 205 394 244 241 215 I 1101 204 186' 210 152 356 317 7 11 22 27 7 21 6 HTa 19 1648 120 5173 4373 647 679 781 891 570 829 749 630 65.32% 67.62% 81.92% 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% o (B m 1021 639 613 741 444 3458 o I 530 222 260 159, 364 1535 0  6 47 9 a o 1292! 991 4947 5776! 69.39% i 44! 15 40 isT 30141 11711 115 158^ 215 287 48 78 74 235 119 2681 122 72 96 103' 227 36 290 9' 69' 129 280' 0 8 4 20 14 14 8 7 7 6 6 12 21 27 7 13 6 184 308 314 558 387 71.88% 73.91% 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 5951 52.61% 224! 21 3561 133: 2471 226i 294 256' 1^ 115! 6! 191! 198! 198 224! 226 4! 123 69, 231! 307 329! 70 9 474 391 292 304 438 442 555 277 291 300 501 532 498 490 410 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 89.14% 43.96% 87.00% 73.88% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 71.49% 50.41% 71.71% 4, 8 15 3: 16! Closed 30! 15 266! 96.24% 3601 44.72% 411 231 397 311 48.18% 96.97% 65.49% 72.67% 5421 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 3514 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 165 219 289 312 262 306 250 137 209 213 254 211 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 18 22 16 21 5 22 10 17 1598 870 917 915 848 5148 4300 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 (0 m 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 67.17% 70.09% 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 431! 208! 27 325. 205! 96! 97 249i 216 269! 140 15 80, 84, 21\" 10! 8: 10 9 8\n568! 40.67% 414! 79.47% 666! 64.71% 431 : 75.41% 3101 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 , 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 370 1576 131 1199 109 5671 69.90% 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 670 24956 1 65.1% 14354 6454 I 555,21363 67.19% 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256 1 68 130 280 252 123 197 91 5 188 207 4 126 83 265 35 199 73 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7 15 7 16 11 25 6 2 8 16 6 22 18 4822 220 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 318 310 506 72.87% 80.00% 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 76.42% 53.23% 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484 403 257 333 432 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 223 i 95.52% 402I 63.18% 312! 67.63% X o re =\u0026amp; 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75 -1 16 -2 21 10 -3 28 7 4 2 -44 15 12 -6 -24 11 -11 -6 -15 o A -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34  -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 J 14 e -4 3 6 2 3 10 a o o n m -8 -22 -77 34 48 -25 7\\ -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 11 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 ~0 2 1 -5 2 8 5 -2 0 T 3 8 2 -10 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 -105 -125 36 33 9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52, -6' -9 -27 21 -8 5 1 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14% 0.08% 4.12% 4.88% 5.60% 2.53% 0.56% 0.37% -2.06% -1.53% 3.72% 4.22% 1.04% -3.58% 0.20% -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% o \u0026lt;0 a o . 18911 954' 1291 ' 1199' 1000' * o n Q. (0 _S2. -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 63351 -1187 53351 -1035 868 812 858 w Tu 850 745, 737 6391 5541 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 Closed -51 -34 8 14 Closed 251 231 38! 8: 419' '37^ 2111 31 264, 230i 19\n3061 159! 17 104! 63! 721 2^ 13 8' 0 534 428 656 453 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318: 66.35% 513 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239! 66.53% 46! 36.96% 13 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 11 -2 -5 9 4 0 0 -10 22 8 38 24 7 10 9229 4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651,7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 ! 5897 628 21191 ! 69.21% 350!-267 83! 166 297!-327! 56! 26 385[-453!104! 36 312!-557 ! 731-172 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 3.45% 2.02% 515 492 836 492 328 517 394 324 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 -3263 Office of Student Assignment5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other commuruty agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision- making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)11/07/95 13:32 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 I k i 1 i Little Rock School District News Release SPECIAL BOARD MEETING I I November 1,1995 11\n45 a.m. For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Li t I LE ROCK ~ The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special board meeting this evening at 5:30 p.m. to review the facilities study recently prepared by 3/D International. Currently there are no other items on tonight's agenda. t The meeting will be held in the board room of the administration building at 810 W. Markham. I I I t I 1 ### I  1 ! i tRECEIVED SEP 7 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey. i Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:- Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (HAND DELIVERED) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Helle: 2 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\nSeptember 11, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Brown Subject: LRSD Facilities Study In both written and oral representations to the Court, the LRSD Facilities Study was scheduled for completion by August 31, 1995. Please forward a copy of the completed study to me. If the study is not yet finished, please let me know the firm completion date. Thank you very much.-  -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:28 P. 02/04 W September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District New* Release For more Information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD PaciUtles Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes in populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization: and. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study flrm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/asslgnment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkanena 73301  (501)334-3000-  LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.03/04 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. 3. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage increase. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, aU of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modlflcatlons. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C  recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more). . LRSD ADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.04/04 LRSD Facilities Stuify Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday. September 28. 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jul 24 95 9:48 P.02/02 ECEHB Little Rock School District News Release July 24, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Consultants for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are completing work on a comprehensive long-range facilities study. The firm, 3/D International, has been working for six months on the study which is designed to provide recommendations for school buildings and building locations. This fall 3/D International will present Its results to the LRSD Board of Directors. Prior to finalizing the study. 3/D International will meet with community residents on Monday, July 31, 1995. at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. This meeting wUl allow for additional community Input regarding school building needs for the district. The community is invited to attend the meeting which will be broadcast live on the LRSD cable channel 4. ### Note: School Board membere have been invited to attend the July 31 meeting. A special meeting situation exists when two or more school board members attend the same event.'WMtes Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEfW^ July 21. 1995 1995 Office of Dasegrsgabon Mo.m^ f J Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is studying its current facilities and planning its facility needs for the future. This comprehensive facilities study is critical to the future of the school district. 1 invite you to attend a community meeting on Monday, July 31, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. to leam more about this study and to provide you an opportunity to participate in this process. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Your input is vital as we finalize this comprehensive study and prepare recommendations regarding our facilities needs. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 received JUL 1 8 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Moniionngi Date: July 14, 1995 To: Interested Parties From: Henry P, , Superintendent Re: Draft Policy - Naming Facilities At the suggestion of Board Member Judy Magness, I am forwarding a copy of a policy that will be considered for first reading at the meeting of the Board on Thursday, July 20, 1995. If you would like to make any suggestions for revision of this policy, please feel free to contact me or Mrs. Magness. Thank you for your time and interest.Code: NAMING FACILITIES The Board of Education shall approve the official names of all school buildings. In selecting names for new buildings, recommendations will be considered from the superintendent of schools, interested citizens, students, or staff. Proposed names may be submitted by the superintendent to the school staff, students, and interested citizen groups for reaction. The final recommendation shall be forwarded by the superintendent to the Board of Education for approval. The following guidelines shall govern the naming of facilities: 1. 2. 3. Schools shall be named for persons identified with public education or who have rendered some other distinguished public service locally, nationally or internationally. When possible, the group making the nomination should agree to provide appropriate recognition for that school in the form of a plague, portrait, marker or in some other way. The nomination shall be presented in a brief three paragraph statement which shall contain: a. b. c. Appropriate biographical data about the person The significant contribution made by the person A statement of why the school should be named after the person The attached form shall be used by persons nominating names for facilities. Also, the Board at its discretion may name portions of a building, such as the library or auditorium. Guidelines listed above shall apply in such cases. In all cases, care should be taken to avoid similarities with the names of existing schools. Once a person's name has been proposed, written authorization shall be secured by the superintendent from the closest relative to the third degree of the descendant before any official action is taken by the Board.Following the adoption of the official naming (or renaming) of a new school building or program housed within the building, the administrative officers of the Board will be authorized to give public notice of such action and to modify existing records and other legal documents as may be necessary. Bie official names of all schools will be approved or altered only by motion of the Board. Request for renaming facilities will follow the format listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State the proposed name Identify the facility location or building location Provide biographical or historical data supporting request Describe significant\ncontribution of individual for which considered Offer a rationale for naming or renaming school naming is RENAMING FACILITIES 'P deemed unusual or appropriate, the Board may take steps to rename school fact ities, or portions thereof. Schools named for a person will retain that persons name as long as the facility is used for instructional purposes by the District. Exceptions to this may be made by the Board. In renaming the facility, or portions thereof, the provisions set forth above shall be followed. Recommendations for new names or name changes shall be received anytime during the year, and shall be referred to the administration for obtaining comments and input from the school community involved. The Board shall review all such proposals and input at Its May work session and shall vote on any recommendations to the full Board at its first June Board meeting. Proposed changes must be submitted prior to April 1 to be included in that year\"s consideration process. A school building name, other than the name of a person, may be considered in naming new school buildings. Names may be recommended using the following guidelines: 1. 2. A school name may be recommended considering its geographical location. A school name may be recommended considering its function. A distinction may be made between the building name and the official name of the program(s) housed in the building. Buildings will retain the names they were given at the time of the dedication by the Board of Education, such as, hypothetically, Instructional Resource Center at Lee School\". The superintendent shall use the same procedure as outlined for naming schools after persons in securing reactions to other suggested names.PUBLIC DEDICATION New school buildings and major additions to these facilities shall be dedicated in a public and formal ceremony. There shall be a program or open house to which the Board, citizens, parents, and students are invited. All plans for the public or formal opening of any school shall be made in cooperation with the schools principal. Detailed procedures for dedication ceremonies shall be furnished by the principal to the Superintendent.NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the (Designation of building and/or location) (Address) be named for I. Biographical Data: IL HL The Nominee's significant contribution is: I believe the facility should be named for this person because: (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the Board of Education prior to July 15, for consideration during the period between July 15 through August 1.CM. April 17, 1995 Little Rock School District il APR 2 0 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Otfise of Oesegregisiiuii ,-.-y Little Rock, AR 72201 R / Dear Melissa: Pursuant to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Facilities Study which I completed in March of 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to call. Sa^ncerely yours. al C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg Encl. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)834-2000TO: ac. COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas March 31, 1995 receive /^PR 5 1995 Memorandum OHice of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Parents FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Facilities Study Survey The Little Rock School District is studying the condition of all of the school buildings in the district. This study wiU help us determine which buildings require maintenance and which schools should be replaced with new facilities. As part of this study, we are doing a survey to get your input on the condition of the school your child attends. If you have children in more than one Little Rock public school, please fill out a survey for each school. The survey is on the back of this letter. Please fill out the survey and return it to your child's school by Friday, April 7, 1995. Thank you for helping us as we plan future improvements to our schools. cc: Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Sadie Mitchell Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Dennis Snider Leon ModesteLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SURVEY The school I will address with my responses is: Select one only (related to school listed above): Parent of child at this school ____ Employee at this school live near this school, but no children attending this school 1. This school is an asset to the community. Yes No 2. The overall appearance of this school is: Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement 3. This school needs improvement in the following areas: (Check all that apply) Site: Handicapped accessibility Playground Bus loading zone (at school) Parking Security (outside building) Drainage Traffic flow Location 4. 5. Maintenance: Building exterior Building interior Grounds Special Areas: Handicapped facilities Cafetorium Restrooms lutsnoi: ______ Floors Ceilings ______ Carpet ______ Walls Lighting Paint Equipment Telephone Equipment Furniture Security (inside building) In general, classroom/building conditions at this school are: Excellent Good Fair Poor Additional Comments: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.'t Jt. LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 5 95 7:53 P. ,02/02 f. - I' a 1 4 '2 li h'-  .  \u0026lt;'\u0026lt;'00 1 -'7 '2V 'ft'.. LrntE Rock School District ' -.a: News Release April 4,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 *4 ' . The bitle Rock School District (IRSD) is evaluating school buildings through a i }.\u0026lt; ?  r a 5=1  iff 1^:'^ B\n.1. s\u0026gt;i comprehensive fadlltles study. The study wlU cover a 10 year period and U1 assist school officials in making decisions regarding school closings, repair of existing schools, new construction, and consolidation of existing facilities. Doug Eaton. IKSD Director of Plant Services, said, \"Any prudent school district does a facilities study to project its long range needs. This study will tell us whether the district is meeting the educational needs of the city based on the way the city is expandtas.\" Eaton added. \"The study will look at the demographics of our dlsmcl, ihe and eondidon of our schools, desegregation plan obligations, snideot populations, age II city planning and zoning factors, and costs to implement recommendations.' 3/D International of San Antonio. Texas has been hired to develop the facilities study. 3/D is coordinating its efforts with an architectural and engineering firm, a demographics corapanj\nand educational specialists to develop a set of recommendations. The study should be\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":86,"next_page":87,"prev_page":85,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1020,"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}}]}}