{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1326","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1994-06-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Court records","School board members","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1326"],"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":["172 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1196","title":"Little Rock School District Court Submission","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":["1994-06-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Court Submission"],"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/1196"],"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\nInserted legal documents include order to review progress of Little Rock School District's 1994-1995 budget development process, and notice of filings for exhibits 1-15 for hearings scheduled June 28-29, 1994\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COURT SUBMISSION JUNE 20, 1994 LITTLE ROCK ScHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT June 20, 1994 JUN 2 0 1994 - -3:,.P Office of Desegregation Moniioring TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~am~t { SUBJECT: Court Submission - June 20, 1994 Provided for your review is a copy of the District's June 20, 1994, Court submission. The following revisions have been made to the appropriate revenue and expenditure line items to reflect the strategies under consideration at this time: 1. $2,000,000 reduction to the proposed draw down on settlement loan. 2. $158,776 additional deducted from salaries and benefits for projected savings on 144 participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. 3. $300,000 deducted from salaries and benefits for the proposed reduction to substitute expenditures. Also included are five-year revenue and expenditure projections, business cases addressing specific changes and other requested informational items.  810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description Page No. Exhibit 1 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 3) 1- 13 Exhibit 2 Budget Revisions Since May 18, 1994 Submission 14 Exhibit 3 Status of Budget-Balancing Measures 15- 16 Exhibit 4 Status of Negotiations/Reduction In Force 17- 18 Exhibit 5 New Budget-Balancing Measures 19 Exhibit 6 1994-00 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 2) 20- 27  Exhibit 7 Business Cases 28- 42 Exhibit 8 Budgeting Management Timeline Update 43- 50 ' Exhibit 9 Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections 51- 80  Exhibit 10 Needs Assessment Report (1993-94) 81-103 Exhibit 11 Program Inventory Report, FY 93-94 104-113 Exhibit 12 Desegregation and Non-Desegregation Related Programs 114 Exhibit 13 Board Review of Tentative Budget 115-117 , Exhibit 14 Incentive School Program Modifications 118 Exhibit 15 Progress Toward Completion of Task Numbers 5 and 6 of the May 31, 1994, Management Tool 119-120 Exhibit ,:r ----- ''\"'\"'''''''''. ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 31,899,357 38,196,979 39,701,855 39,625,387 38,600,327 (1,025,060) 40% PULLBACK 20,601,593 21,081,833 22,220,949 22,011,928 21,420,949 (590,979) DELINQUENT TAXES 3,214,974 4,250,186 4,293,380 5,666,289 4,802,692 (863,597) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 118,998 140,858 145,690 146,379 140,000 (6,379) DEPOSITORY INTEREST 317,646 241,476 360,734 313,341 300,000 (13,341) REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 120,412 224,667 245,162 182,353 180,000 (2,353) MISC. AND RENTS 317,978 406,878 574,918 250,000 345,892 95,892 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 141,376 354,446 208,519 319,042 322,232 3,190 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 91,322 100,857 87,005 74,416 87,005 12,589 { -:-\n...:::Jt/::.  :\n?dti~Jt ji:r\\ni~r ?}~?t~t r: ..... :-: --.-\n-:-:-:-.-.-.. :.:-: --.. - : -:~- :-==:-----.. -=:\\:J ?: n :-:-: :t:5:~f:\u0026lt; ::::_::= =~{: ::=::::::::::::}~:==fit\n~j~~ REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT -, /\\. --\"'' _,,,: 'i:/'\"'\":\"'\"'\"\"t::''c\" \"'\\ _ 73,971 16,232 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 28,585 95,588 613,166 73,419 73,428 73,210 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 9,385 129,428 394,675 1 25,275,221 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 17,749 25,594,035 8,094,112 0 0 1,341,887 1,339,549 240,873 3,540 3,663,681 505,260 2,720,581 792,081 40,866 40,000 171,006 1,250,000 0 500,000 73,419 18,000 26,778,326 6,042,591 1,000,000 0 1,200,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,540 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 792,081 38,000 500,000 400,000 209 251 1,184,291 (2,051,521) 1,000,000 -it 0 (141,887) 4,950 (6,881) 0 36,319 75,175 379,419 0 (2,000) (750,000) (100,000) I : .., ..   l I/\"'''\ni_::,\n. . .'  !\\l .. i''''''' ,.. ... I ...... ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 2,886,618 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,311,404 4,406,404 95,000 CHAPTER II 227,900 224,423 215,020 122,666 122,666 0 TITLE VI B 468,964 558,810 589,011 624,024 624,024 0 OTHER 974,090 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091 ,051 1,400,000 308,949  ..: .... ,.. ,,,,_.,,, ...................... ,.,..\n.. :-\n-:..:-:-.-.-.'.=:-:.:.: :m , , tt\\,,,, .. :ii ,. .. ... .. , ..... ,.. ,,., ...... ,. ,.. ., .,.. .. ,., ... .,. ,.,,, -... ... 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,952,534 397,864 :~=~--!!!=== EXPENSES SALARIES 65,192,947 73,191 ,213 71,912,128 75,925,133 73,396,806 (2,528,327) BENEFITS 8,032,967 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,300,055 10,475,737 1,175,682 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,735,854 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,683,431 22,149,419 465,988 DEBT SERVICE 6,646,769 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,533,631 (316,492) CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR 714,896 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES \\ EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS ~ EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 4,190,920 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,035,052 6,547,138 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,952,534 (487,914) 397,864 -............. .-,--.-,:.--.,~---.::: .... ,.-   r:: 111 :: ii~~i\nii ~:~1~~M~1\n: jai~t~mt5Pt 1at~t~ : ~lit~o.ss.~: ::~~~~16i INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 1,777,714 1,394,9TT (1 ,878,956) (3,545,656) (1 ,666,700) 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 (885,907) 634,844 2,321 ,867 4,985,188 3,992,139 (993,049) 643,181 964,951 79,044 85,000 5,956 2,321,867 3,395,074 3,992,139 440,5?7 (3,551,612) f Z'965~048 : 4i'360l025 (4i071~1S3 }525(527} (3\n54St'656\n2 FUNCTION SALARIES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0115 CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0121 MAINTENANCE 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0130 SUBSTTTUTE TEACHERS-SHORT 0140 SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SALARIES TOTAL BENEFITS w 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE 0250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0290 OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL PURCHASED SERVICES 0310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL 0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES 0312 INSTRUCTIONAL PROO IMPROV 0313 PUPIL SERVICES 0314 STAFF SERVICES 0318 BOARD OF ED SERVICES 0319 OTHER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1992/93 $52,899,585.23 $5,386.52 $326,649.66 $15,668,717.99 $1,167,691 .67 $69,487.74 $1,363,632.01 $410,9TT.09 $71,912,127.91 $5,497,924.65 $7,755.35 $166,240.10 $3,985,992.66 $192,426.52 $57,835.84 $9,908,175.12 $295,885.37 $18,610.84 $768,382.37 $279,291.40 $61.60 $595,179.47 $64,266.08 Budget 1993/94 $57,841,367.85 $0.00 $305,885.31 $14,962,781 .62 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $1,226,321.00 $416,844.45 $75,890,145.51 $5,381,489.39 $6,882.48 $147,104.28 $3,467,184.64 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $9,257,660.78 $626,800.00 $21,015.00 $741,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $752,500.00 $75,100.00 Budget 1994/95 $54,186,760.79 $0.00 $291,797.11 $16,247,301.12 $1,089,626.75 $60,000.00 $1,121,320.00 $400,000.00 $73,396,805. n $5,462,459.03 $0.00 $155,000.00 $3,788,278.00 $200,000.00 $870,000.00 $10,475,737.03 $737,480.00 $11,115.83 $631,371.00 $54,752.00 $0.00 $1,172,000.00 $59,300.00 FTE 1994/95 1542 0 0 1298 50 0 0 1 2891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL $581,209.n $826,700.00 $725,500.00 0 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC $2,232,084.12 $2,879,165.00 $2,824,615.00 0 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ $149,273.82 $209,950.00 $189,200.00 0 0324 CLEANING SERVICES $207,407.65 $400,000.00 $250,000.46 0 0325 REPAIRS-BUILDINGS $259,257.67 $200,300.00 $330,700.00 0 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT $531,707.94 $505,785.09 $646,911 .00 0 0327 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING $135,447.85 $135,700.00 $142,012.00 0 0328 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH $12,944.93 $15,050.00 $21,502.00 0 0329 OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES $18,924.55 $128,650.00 $67,000.00 0 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $645,404.74 $628,067.30 $350,820.00 0 0332 TRAVEL-PAYROLL $1,286.44 $24,160.00 $0.00 0 0333 TRAVEL $112,709.23 $60,843.63 $124,676.18 0 0339 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERV $1,258.82 $0.00 $0.00 0 0341 TELEPHONE $338,295.60 $386,500.00 $406,000.00 0 0342 POSTAGE $91,2TT.58 $104,016.20 $88,717.06 0 0350 ADVERTISING $21,046.31 $18,006.00 $16,300.00 0 0360 PRINTING \u0026amp; BINDING-INTERN $91,146.74 $151,142.39 $170,721.02 0 0361 PRINTING AND BINDING-EXTE $116,235.20 $153,645.50 $126,169.54 0 0362 FREE PRINTED ITEMS $404.24 $515.00 $0.00 0 0365 COPIER LEASE $362,507.86 $503,000.00 $530,000.00 0 0370 TUmON $1,292,991.82 $1,195,000.00 $1,440,621 .16 0 0380 FOOD SERVICES $144,413.73 $178,062.69 $105,027.00 0 0390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES $165,837.05 $59,380.00 $162,500.00 0 PURCHASED SERVICES TOTAL $9,534,750.79 $11,034,850.80 $11,385,011.25 0 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0409 SUPPLIES ($64,411.96) $0.00 $0.00 0 0410 SUPPLIES $1,180,159.22 $1,041,625.83 $1,311,499.11 0 0411 SUPPLIES - SP TRACKING $870,780.43 $784,000.00 $764,642.13 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN $17,966.31 $32,157.04 $13,378.00 0 0413 SOFlWARE $31,128.18 $33,405.00 $100,050.60 0 0414 SUPPLIES $1,098.52 $2,000.00 $136,660.00 0 0415 TEST MATERIALS $39,900.00 $53,000.00 $42,000.00 0 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER $479,578.46 $466,941.10 $455,969.70 0 0417 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER $1,075.62 $2,044.55 $353.00 0 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES $0.00 $714,896.22 $0.00 0 0420 TEXTBOOKS $0.00 $862,542.00 $817,000.00 0 0421 TEXTBOOKS-LOCAL SOURCES $167,488.65 $362,420.00 $407,338.28 0 0430 LIBRARY BOOKS $0.00 $1,120.80 $375.00 0 0440 PERIODICALS $22,988.87 $26,498.35 $23,180.00 0 0450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS $3,898.09 $2,150.40 $6,515.00 0 0451 AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS $24,869.01 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 0 u, 0481 PLUMBING $18.54 $0.00 $500.00 0 0482 CARPENTRY $486.02 $0.00 $500.00 0 0483 ELECTRIC $708.32 $0.00 $15,500.00 0 0485 AIR COND/HEAT $172.70 $0.00 $5,000.00 0 0486 BOILERS/SM ENGINES $15,453.14 $15,000.00 $10,100.00 0 0488 PAINTING $282.25 $0.00 $200.00 0 0489 ROOFING $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0 0490 OTHER SUPPLIES $17,943.27 $10,300.00 $18,000.00 0 0491 UNIFORMS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES $79,376.33 $80,974.40 $85,967.85 0 0492 STADIUM OPERATIONS $82,828.00 $71,275.80 $64,540.00 0 0494 GAME RELATED EXPENSES $0.00 $2,224.80 $0.00 0 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TOTAL $2,973,787.97 $4,594,576.29 $4,299,768.67 0 CAPTIAL OUTLAY 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER $654,966.90 $600,575.24 $671,824.19 0 0541 EQUIPMENT PER PROP SP TRA $6,461.34 $10,000.00 $10,250.00 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .. Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0542 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0 0543 EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) $67,025.70 $60,000.00 $69,106.94 0 0545 EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE $1,546,013.55 $926,742.00 $1,253,100.40 0 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER $61,031.26 $52,093.00 $21,351.00 0 0551 VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE $618,895.35 $0.00 $0.00 0 CAPTIAL OUTLAY TOTAL $2,954,394.10 $1,649,410.24 $2,025,832.53 0 OTHER OBJECTS 0610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL $4,951,180.35 $4,074,616.00 $4,063,012.00 0 0620 INTEREST $4,597,390.58 $4,785,507.40 $4,462,619.00 0 0630 DUES\u0026amp;FEES $52,817.64 $58,539.50 $42,806.45 0 0635 DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA $15,023.01 $17,000.00 $19,000.00 0 0640 INSURANCE $920,983.15 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0 0642 LIABILITY INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0 0649 OTHER INSURANCE $52,791.12 $54,TT5.00 $54,000.00 0 0660 IMPROVEMENT TAX $14,769.85 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 0 0690 OTHER EXPENSES $3,567,012.06 $5,148,290.00 $4,914,000.00 0 OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL $14,171,967.76 $14,553,727.90 $13,972,437.45 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL ,,,, ,,., $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 $115,555,592.70 2891 Function Description 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROORAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1125 ELEMENTARY MAGNET 1127 SPECIAL 1Y PROO RAMS 1129 SPECIAL 1Y PROORAM 1130 MIDDLE\\JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1132 JUNIOR HIGH 1135 JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET 1137 JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 1145 HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET 1151 BOYS ATiiLETICS 1152 GIRLS ATiiLETICS 1154 FOOTBALL/MINOR SPORTS 1155 VOLLEYBALL 1156 BASKETBALL 1157 TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF \u0026amp; SWIMM 1158 BASEBALL 1190 OTiiER REGULAR 1193 TRAVELING TEACHERS 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROORAM 1199 SUBSTJTIJTES-INSTRUCTION 1210 mNERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1240 HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL 1290 OTHER 1292 EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI 1321 MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP 1331 BUSINESS ED COOP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $1,195,358.85 $1,746,831.33 $3, 121,214.45 $3,261,957.67 $19,905,274.36 $20,414,196.37 $0.00 $956,385.00 $146,003.86 $196,675.45 $24,406.82 $0.00 $0.00 $86,475.45 $8,267,275.44 $8,870,100.00 $5,540.42 $26,480.41 $132,143.30 $453,430.57 $535,179.49 $539,265.87 $7,823,764.65 $8,651,142.90 $265,987.68 $104,648.26 $39,661.58 $44,506.65 $25,254.43 $9,798.71 $48,990.82 $49,680.00 $6,393.73 $7,416.00 $42,832.09 $45,880.20 $13,487.01 $11,354.40 $7,440.07 $10,800.00 $20,238.80 $17,936.19 $19,897.81 $15,000.00 $2,121,435.04 $1,300,017.05 $1,438,180.85 $1,434,535.20 $1,004,570.16 $1,123,449.98 $2,088,460.12 $2,229,816.67 $1,321,771.13 $1,321,770.46 $215,503.17 $319,407.51 $1,308,911.09 $1,246,285.43 $4,123.47 $5,705.28 $228,230. 75 $206,250.75 $195,778.88 $201,039.34 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $2,009,758.23 80 $3,269,209.33 93 $18,772,912.58 725 $889,073.86 5 $212,689.64 4 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $8,233,002.21 210 $24,359.35 1 $106,442.18 0 $576,992.68 19 $7,377,300.48 153 $79,954.07 0 $39,459.05 0 $12,580.00 0 $49,680.00 0 $5,793.00 0 $44,545.80 0 $12,400.00 0 $9,000.00 0 $20,790.97 0 $15,000.00 0 $1,588,755.78 74 $1,637,700.00 0 $1,169,835.49 33 $2,302,743.57 62 $1,148,951.07 4 $583,478.49 17 $1,192,896.90 5 $0.00 0 $209,433.82 4 $203,839.38 4 Function Description 1332 BUSINESS ED EXPL 1333 BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR 1341 HEALTH COOP 1351 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP 1352 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL 1353 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-SKILL TR 1354 YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP 1360 HOME ECONOMICS 1362 CONS/HMKG 1371 CAREER ORIENTATION 1392 COORD CAREER-COOP 1410 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION 1420 ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION co 1430 ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1440 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1445 WORKPLACE LITERACY 1490 OTHER ADULT EDUCATION 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 1560 READING 1570 MATHEMATICS 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2111 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2112 ATTENDANCE SERVICE 2113 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 2114 PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2121 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2122 COUNSELING SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING SER urn.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $567,909.51 $647,155.07 $1,029,262.40 $1,001,393.89 $71,936.86 $30,058.48 $195,305.05 $202,903.96 $582,238.42 $552,265.88 $992,355.65 $919,838.00 $23,257.92 $115,764.01 $3,035.70 $0.00 $614,847.68 $727,503.40 $256, 111.14 $247,878.64 $205,769.71 $213,754.13 $437,414.74 $424,133.49 $331,299.86 $326,524.45 $0.00 $1,888.48 $0.00 $953.04 $16,895.83 $0.00 $13,933.79 $0.00 $220,694.23 $241,274.50 $27,887.91 $26,670.67 $8,814.04 $9,807.48 $233,266.90 $352,294.55 $869,433.11 $1,096,530.84 $813,857.18 $1,108,379.67 ($16.00) $4,758.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,287.10 $16,809.66 $119,044.71 $2,542,749.16 $2,798,345.63 $2,684.06 $8,563.51 $66,678.53 $38,551.19 $811,380.61 $765,214.52 $181,256.55 $195,928.86 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $565,530.39 14 $994,887.88 22 $48,226.13 1 $162,269.05 3 $592,290.09 13 $928,161.33 19 $2,600.00 2 $0.00 0 $722,980. 79 18 $251,165.13 6 $216,729.09 4 $438,888.00 13 $359,004.99 11 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $272,927.30 23 $29,135.65 0 $116,508.30 5 $320,000.00 0 $914,257.86 13 $1,327,240.17 33 $0.00 0 $25,115.41 1 $23,774.09 2 $103,381.36 4 $3,015,075.14 74 $9,159.78 0 $39,459.11 0 $733,994.05 28 $155,925.07 4 Function Description 2211 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2212 INSTRUCTION AND CURR DEV 2213 INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAIN 2215 INST STAFF TRAINING - TES 2216 INST STAFF TRAINING - PET 2217 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 2219 OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF INST 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2223 AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES 2229 OTHER EDUCATIONAL MEDIAS 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 2314 ELECTION SERVICES 2315 LEGAL SERVICES 2317 AUDIT SERVICES 2319 OTHER BOARD OF EDUCATION 2321 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND 2326 DESEGREGATION 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2490 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES 2510 DIRECTION OF BUSINESS SUP 2521 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2525 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SERV 2529 OTHER FISCAL ACCOUNTING S 2539 OTHER FACILmES ACQ \u0026amp; CO 2541 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2543 UPKEEP OF GROUNDS 2544 UPKEEP OF EQUIPMENT 2545 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 2546 SECURITY SERVICES 2548 ASBESTOS PROGRAM 2551 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION LITTl..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $808,955.03 $830,928.73 $2,579,824.46 $2,044,017.31 $0.00 $10,713.11 $0.00 $16,070.13 $0.00 $32,139.33 $756.00 $10,713.11 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $2,615,589.49 $2,348,444. 72 $34,043.16 $31,927.05 $76,000.00 $86,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.25 $20,000.00 $467,398.72 $350,000.00 $38,242.50 $35,000.00 $279,740.50 $305,851.08 $232,171.98 $200,221.49 $429,738.70 $433,102.41 $6,093,823.40 $6,176,083.63 $21,541.79 $9,120.69 $63,697.30 $87,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $3,360.50 $0.00 $208,269.23 $239,986.48 $275,n6.67 $222,728.53 $8,176,780.17 $9,328,862.83 $11,749.67 $12,831.91 $16,043.09 $17,500.00 $56,031 .80 $57,206.94 $2,957.29 $0.00 $79,391.19 $68,903.30 $7,031.70 $19,790.05 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $510,398.58 10 $2,418,740.38 52 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $162,670.14 7 $2,388,611 .23 70 $34,408.42 2 $76,000.00 0 $445,000.00 0 $30,000.00 0 $1,560,000.00 0 $42,000.00 0 $48,000.00 0 $507,292.06 8 $506,601.32 14 $6,261,359.45 176 $9,121 .00 0 $32,000.00 0 $68,805.16 1 $352,300.26 11 $0.00 0 $285,928.18 6 $239,969.89 9 $9,109,227.13 246 $14,500.00 0 $14,000.00 0 $80,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $70,335.08 2 $17,600.00 0 ...... 0 Function 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2585 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3100 3500 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Description VEHICLE OPERATION MONITORING VEHICLE SERVICING PURCHASING SERVICES WAREHOUSING \u0026amp; DISTRIBUTIN PRINTING, PUB, \u0026amp; DUPLICAT SAFETY-DRUG TESTING SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU DIR OF CENTRAL SUPPORT SE EVALUATION SERVICES INTERNAL INFORMATION SERV RECRUITMENT \u0026amp; PLACEMENTS OTHER STAFF SERVICES OPERATIONS DIRECTION OF COMMUNITY SE CUSTODY \u0026amp; CARE OF CHILD INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION NF OTHER NON-PROGRAMMED CHAR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTJNGENCI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $3,443,249.84 $3,445,367.55 $327,629.42 $319,159.16 $2,731,640.87 $1,920,281.72 $897,242.75 $1,041,357.74 $47,038.80 $54,936.16 $106,264.92 $125,403.74 $11,897.80 $14,937.36 $804,094.93 $854,143.84 $1,063,284.28 $450,000.00 $89,803.91 $169,500.00 $149,406.41 $174,848.03 $437,888.51 $562,905.71 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $305,827.59 $418,997.31 $88,999.58 $0.00 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419.74 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $0.00 $87,TTO.OO $229,653.19 $249,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,046.80 $0.00 $0.00 $530,400.00 $3,586,103.53 $3,915,500.00 $9,554,534.76 $8,870,123.40 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $3,804,404.87 335 $318,433.25 11 $1,944,818.80 11 $1,541,798.43 15 $15,750.00 1 $102,000.00 0 $14,937.36 0 $819,658.99 40 $450,000.00 0 $144,338.91 0 $285,295.58 3 $426,918.80 12 $170,286.74 4 $341,547.93 13 $104,148.49 2 $1,600,699.76 14 $170,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $331,178.89 10 $100.00 0 $29,512.50 2 $0.00 0 $3,954,000.00 0 $8,533,631.00 0 $1,000,000.00 0 $115,555,592.70 2891 Oper Unit 0001 0002 0004 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0040 0041 0042 0044 0045 0046 0047 0048 0049 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 ,,. $5,150,156.38 $5,482,019.57 $5,433,920.98 $3,463,516.16 $3,531,245.81 $3,434,332.26 $1,634,746.23 $1,841,626.46 $1,730,808.54 $2,233,736.11 $2,506,231.99 $2,488,729.18 $2,953,828.81 $3,160,324.07 $3,194,255.44 $2,365,925.57 $2,635,027.70 $2,605,803.15 $2,484,029.31 $2,606,779.41 $2,572,801.15 $2,299,448.03 $2,359,534.68 $2,204,249.19 $3,631,285.93 $3,617,138.43 $3,743,294.18 $2,836,387.32 $3,284,532.48 $3,177,483.20 $390,402.10 $519,004.74 $443,791.53 $2,162,862.55 $2,292,761.64 $2,539,284.60 $2,047,442.02 $2,340,123.21 $2,198,472.77 $1,040,097.06 $1,158,843.33 $1,115,402.97 $1,009,510.96 $1,090,136.40 $1,164,490.16 $724,769.38 $737,551.85 $732,700.14 $1,291,407.88 $1,314,256.17 $1,461,656.99 $915,687.59 $1,031,401.85 $999,076.00 $873,357.37 $918,162.06 $981,150.48 $1,009,041.26 $1,034,064.02 $1,157,417.51 $1,733,066.85 $1,636,195.14 $1,330,611.42 $1,384,930.53 $1,444,866.58 $1,003,930.66 $1,532,460.98 $1,617,845.51 $1,665,534.01 $870,983.22 $894,632.77 $952,499.14 $1,340,589.71 $1,360,887.52 $1,458,323.39 $919,636.35 $1,091,282.29 $1,066,273.44 $872,462.96 $880,215.87 $847,156.07 $1,051,067.36 $1,044,336.95 $1,074,349.95 $1,319,496.71 $1,370,625.10 $1,042,967.71 $25,501.31 $1,658,864.16 $1,606,689.05 $1,758,362.40 $1,877,365.19 $1,449,830.28 $755,680.79 $784,275.30 $872,981.16 $969,181.35 $1,049,040.22 $1,134,832.00 $1,238,081.45 $1,278,754.99 $967,725.51 $1,147,564.73 $1,329,911.36 $1,346,683.32 $1,255,977.41 $1,318,562.68 $0.00 $2,242,772.97 $2,369,300.33 $2,333,124.94 $1,196,557.69 $1,200,696.51 $1,307,222.75 $669,017.57 $687,642.24 $813,613.54 $1,127,149.24 $1,149,041.07 $1,347,617.81 $1,175,147.95 $1,201,978.91 $1,419,632.27 $1,317,057.53 $1,392,965.59 $1,584,299.53 $1,021,284.19 $80,007.50 $351,715.90 11 Oper Unit 0050 0051 0052 0053 0054 0055 0056 0058 0059 0060 0061 0062 0063 0064 0065 0066 0067 0069 0070 0071 0072 0073 0074 0075 0076 0078 0079 0080 0081 0082 0083 0084 0085 0087 0088 0089 0090 0091 0092 0094 0095 0096 0097 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $879,354.11 $911,092.87 $916,996.n $1,041,513.36 $1,101,790.19 $1,187,895.46 $1,136,159.29 $1,195,073.02 $1,326,128.80 $58,815.19 $90,288.93 $72,553.10 $96,712.67 $112,485.23 $111,143.88 $450,398.58 $268,168.28 $245,354.02 $24,749.60 $19,800.57 $21,090.97 $24,292.35 $2,100.00 $31,700.00 $386,996.18 $465,627.29 $287,254.n $61,057.61 $60,126.80 $64,013.82 $39,106.96 $45,285.50 $34,198.55 $TT,712.18 $43,402.20 $51,761.73 $171,149.13 $193,402.83 $181,190.85 $440,306.38 $442,237.54 $517,294.39 $145,891.45 $398,107.64 $158,556.63 $52,TT0.68 $110,906.89 $35,718.80 $199,493.39 $160,686.51 $238,764.29 $110,425.86 $120,678.75 $131,403.96 $232,171.98 $200,221.49 $246,815.56 $437,872.51 $572,731 .14 $431,985.76 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $170,286.74 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $162,670.14 $76,000.00 $94,000.00 $84,000.00 $4,550,919.06 $4,820,851.08 $6,315,551.89 $242,142.38 $272,986.10 $321,714.66 $372.15 $0.00 $0.00 $45,135.26 ($980,358.15) ($150,000.00) $9,TT1 ,389.93 $10,717,707.25 $10,326,926.58 $1,652,592.95 $1,853,532.51 $1,994,247.93 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419.74 $1,600,699.76 $6,551,836.63 $5,762,498.47 $6,133,556.92 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $421 , 105.42 $1 ,1 71,153.38 $2,374,035.90 $2,833,130.71 $360,339.74 $427,466.03 $343,194.82 $3,152,041.47 $3,305,433.88 $3,449,257.04 $605,504.30 $550,263.48 $3,900.00 $304,720.63 $301,979.43 $306,727.67 $104,170.93 $198,980.46 $432,824.50 $196,060.05 $173,880.33 $246,441.66 $88,999.58 $0.00 $104,148.49 $184,068.50 $225,823.96 $219,797.75 $9.70 $0.00 $0.00 $2,230,622.89 $2,193,870.90 $2,342,456.51 12 Oper Unit 0098 0099 0101 0119 0120 0121 0122 0125 0127 0128 0129 0130 0131 0132 0134 0135 0136 0203 0714 RIF ERET TOTALS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $530,400.00 $530,400.00 $430,400.00 $1,456,369.14 $805,948.04 $884,976.01 $6,383.98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,300.00 $0.00 $118,446.65 $93,249.42 $157,060.95 $93,439.06 $94,381.61 $98,395.25 $8,228.49 $8,400.00 $10,200.00 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $170,000.00 $1,066,644.78 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 $18,395.41 $30,241.82 $27,929.71 $213,982.06 $228,105.78 $264,499.66 $69,413.47 $73,172.82 $182,851.96 $65,396.84 $76,900.72 $85,146.96 $7,452.36 $169,540.09 $106,270.98 $13,146.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $49,085.52 $1,700.00 $0.00 $45,670.00 $70,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,811.65 $799,544.24 $753,499.46 $797,892.99 ($1,622,363.00) ($908,TT6.00) $111 .455,203.65 $11 6,980,371.53 $115,555,592.70 13 1. 2. 3. 4. Exhibit 2 BUDGET REVISIONS SINCE MAY 18, 1994 SUBMISSION Early Retirement Incentive Programs The May 18, 1994, Court submission included a savings of $750,000 based on seventy-seven (77) employees identified at that time. As of June 17, 1994, at 4:30 p.m., one-hundred forty-four (144) employees are participating, resulting in a net savings of $908,776.00. The Draft 3 Budget has been adjusted to reflect the additional $158,776.00 savings. Use of Substitutes The Board of Directors has directed the administration to address the issue of increased substitute usage and employee absenteeism. The Draft 3 Budget has been reduced $300,000 to apply toward this effort. Incentive School Double Funding Recent re-examination of projected enrollments at the incentive schools indicates that a downward revision is necessary in the double funding component Accordingly, the Draft 3 Budget has been reduced $2,000,000. Outsourcing of TranS,Portation The District is continuing its efforts regarding this budget balancing measure. The Board of Directors has indicated that a decision will be made at the June 23, 1994, Board meeting. This strategy is still hoped to produce a savings, but no reduction is included in the Draft 3 Budget 14 Exhibit 3 STATUS OF BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES l. Workers' Compensation Insurance Promm 2. 3. Language included in the March, 1989, Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement raises some issues concerning the State's obligation in this matter. LRSD intends to litigate the issue if necessary. Successful litigation will result in reductions of projected expenditures for future years. Settlement Loan Proceeds Based on recent suggestions by the Board of Directors and a re-examination of projected enrollment, this non-recurring revenue line item has been reduced by $2,000,000 in the Draft 3 Budget Salaty Freeze See Exhibit 4 - Negotiations. 4. Early Retirement Incentive Programs The early retirement incentive programs produced a combined 144 participants from the following groups: teachers, administrators, clerical, nurses, aides, custodians, food service, and maintenance. The cost savings which have been projected come entirely from the teachers , administrators, clericaL and nurses groups. The other groups were offered the incentive primarily for reasons of equity and not for any projected cost savings. It is expected that those groups would produce no real savings or losses because of the salary structure for those positions and the relatively low wages paid to employees in those groups. There were 87 teachers who elected to participate at a projected first year savings of $812,885. There were also 18 administrators at a projected first year savings of $72,394. Nurses represent $19,676 and clerical employees represent $3,821. The total first year projected savings for the early retirement incentive programs is $908,776. 15 Status of Budget-Balancing Measures Page 2 The racial breakdown of the participants by group is shown below: Teachers: Black 20 White 66 Other 1 Administrators: Black 3 White 15 Clerical: Black 4 White 13 Nurses: White 3 Food service: Black 1 Maintenance: Black 1 White 2 Custodians: Black s White 2 Aides: Black 4 White 4 16 Exhibit 4 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE NEGOTIATIONS: The negotiations teams for the District and the LRCTA began meeting twice a week since the first week of April to reach agreement on a successor teacher contract for the 1994-95 school year. While the parties have reached tentative agreements on several clean up proposals, no agreements have been reached on any substantive issues. Most of the proposals which remain on the table are economic proposals or are proposals on which the parties are reluctant to move until some decisions can be made on economic issues. Some of the economic issues which remain are salaries (including possible salary freeze), fringe benefits, length of extended contracts, and teaching hours and load. On May 18, 1994, the teams agreed to seek the assistance of a mediator/fact finder in an effort to expedite the negotiations process and allow the teams to reach mutual agreement The process was defined in a memorandum of understanding which combined two of the steps in the current contract (mediation and fact-finding). On May 19, 1994, the parties jointly requested a panel of arbitrators who could serve the function of a mediator/fact finder from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The District received the list Friday, June 10, 1994, and on Monday, June 13, 1994, the LRCTA had not received their list and obtained a copy from the District On Tuesday, June 14, the District and the LRCTA selected a mediator/fact finder. The District and the LRCTA have notified the Federal Mediation and Conciliation of their choice and are currently trying to schedule a time for the mediator/fact finder to assist in negotiations. REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF): The District mailed RIF letters to 80 teachers notifying them that their contracts would not be renewed for next year because of a reduction in the size of the teaching force. Although it is unlikely that the District can reduce its teaching staff by 80 positions, this level of notice should help ensure that the District is not overstaffed at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It is more realistic to think that as many as 60 to 65 teacher positions possibly can be reduced at the start of school next year. However, the additional 15 to 20 positions give the District a more prudent approach if the District's enrollment is smaller than anticipated next fall. Many of the teachers who have received RIF notices will be recalled because the early retirement incentive produced voluntary separations which match-up with certification areas of many RIF'ed teachers. Since the RIF notices had to be sent prior to the application deadline for the early retirement incentive, the District could not run the risk of rehiring 17 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE Page 2 the RIF' ed teachers while uncertain of the fate of the early retirement incentive. Although the success of early retirement incentive will allow the recall of many of the teachers, it cannot be guaranteed that all of the RIF'ed teachers will be recalled. The administration is currently meeting individually with each of the District's principals and confirming student enrollment by grade level and course to determine exactly how many teachers will be needed. It is the District's intent to recall only those teachers who are actually needed to meet the staffing requirements. At the time that this is being prepared (June 17,1994), it would appear that at least 40 of the RIF'ed teachers will be recalled\nhowever, it is important to remember that the teachers who are recalled will be replacements for early retirement participants. Therefore, the replacement costs have already been figured into the savings on the early retirement incentive program and do not represent the cost normally associated with recalling a RIF'ed teacher or hiring a new teacher. 18 Exh i bit 5 NEW BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES 1. \"Pooling Agreement\" LRSD's appeal regarding the pooling with PCSSD of Majority-TerMinority transfer payments could result in a reduction of expenditures of $160,000 for 1994-95 and a refund for 1993-94 of $167,113. 19 Exhibit 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 67,617,874 68,789,556 69,985,451 71.204,878 72,461,164 REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 112,826,722 110,749,025 111,018,678 111,122,1n 113,290,984 20 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 134,955,604 133,450,758 134,308,653 135,016,207 137,803,814 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 117,962,920 121,079,737 122,869,244 125,589,624 128,135,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 140,091,801 143,781,470 146,159,219 149,483,654 152,648,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (5,136,197) {10,330,711) {11 ,850,566) (14,467,447) (14,844,430) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79\n044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 (4,695,670) (15,026,382) (26,876,948) (41,344,395) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 (4,695,670) (15,026,382) (26,876,948) (41,344,395) (56,188,825) TOTAL 525,527 (4,610,670) (14,941,382) (26,791,948) (41,259,395) (56,103,825) 21 UTTI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6n 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 67,617,874 68,789,556 69,985,451 71,204,878 72,461,164 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91 ,419 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STA TE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,nS,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 112,826,722 110,749,025 111,018,678 111,122,1n 113,290,984 22 LfTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT2) 06-20-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS ST A TE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 134,955,604 133,450,758 134,308,653 135,016,207 137,803,814 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 POSITION/PROGRAM CUTS (4,700,000) (10,400,000) (11,800,000) (14,500,000) (14,800,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 113,262,920 110,679,737 111,069,244 111,089,624 113,335,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 135,391,801 133,381,470 134,359,219 134,983,654 137,848,244 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (436,197) 69,288 (50,566) 32,553 (44,430) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 4,330 73,618 23,052 55,605 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 4,330 73,618 23,052 55,605 11,175 TOTAL 525,527 89,330 158,618 108,052 140,605 96,175 23 LITTLE ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,TT9 25,1 95,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TT0 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 70,417,874 74,983,076 76,027,884 n,091,292 78,173,658 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551 ,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 115,626,722 116,942,545 117,061,112 117,008,591 119,003,479 24 llTT1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 137,755,604 139,644,278 140,351,086 140,902,621 143,516,308 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 117,962,920 121,079,737 122,869,244 125,589,624 128,135,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 140,091,801 143,781,470 146,159,219 149,483,654 152,648,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (2,336,197} (4,137,192) (5,808,132) (8,581,033) (9,131,935) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 (1,895,670) (6,032,862) (11,840,995) (20,422,028) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 (1,895,670) (6,032,862) (11,840,995) (20,422,028) (29,553,963) TOTAL 525,527 (1,810,670) (5,947,862) (11,755,995) (20,337,028) (29,468,962) 25 LITTlE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,779 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,770 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 70,417,874 74,983,076 76,027,884 77,091,292 78,173,GSa REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STA TE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 115,626,722 116,942,545 117,061,112 117,008,591 119,003,479 26 LfTTlE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS ST A TE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 137,755,604 139,644,278 140,351\n086 140,902,621 143,516,308 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 ' 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EOUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 POSITION/PROGRAM CUTS (2,000,000) (4,100,000) (5,800,000) (8,600,000) (9,100,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 115,962,920 116,979,737 117,069,244 116,989,624 119,035,413 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 138,091,801 139,681\n470 140,359,219 140,883,654 143,548,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (336,197) (37,192) (8,132) 18,967 (31,935) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 104,330 67,138 59,005 77,972 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 104,330 67,138 59,005 77,972 46,038 TOTAL 525,527 189,330 152,138 144,005 162,972 131,038 27 Exhibit 7 BUSINESS CASES The following business cases are being withdrawn from consideration at this time: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Description Teaching Assistants/Substitutes Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Garland Incentive School Multi-Media Technology and Educational Research Theme Garland Incentive School Multi-Media Technology Theme - Phase II New business cases are being submitted and attached as follows: 1. Staff Attorney 2. Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation 28 Original Court Submission Date May 18, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 BUSINESS CASE STAFF ATIORNEY FOR THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Throughout the stages of the District's desegregation litigation, the Little Rock School District has contracted out its legal services with local law firms. The Friday Firm currently represents the LRSD, and in July of 1993, the firm agreed to house one if its partners at the district However, the representative remains a member of the firm and must devote some of his time to his clients and their needs for timely legal counsel. Furthermore, the desegregation case has become increasingly complex and the district's continued financial problems have caused us to carefully scrutinize our budget In addition to the desegregation litigation, the Little Rock School District has experienced a surge in the number of lawsuits directed at the District for a variety of claims. Typically, these claims and lawsuits that are brought against the District are handled through the same firm that discharges matters related to the desegregation suit at additional cost to the District A staff attorney working directly with The Board and Superintendent would have the responsibility of sorting cases and putting in place a process that would allow the staff attorney to respond to legal issues at the district level where feasible, and have other more complex cases reviewed and reacted to by the firm that represents the district under normal circumstances in those matters. Therefore, it appears to be in the District's best interest to hire an attorney on staff to ensure that the district is working toward good faith compliance of its desegregation obligations and to effectively deal with legal issues that relate to the following: Collective Negotiations - Contracts review\nStudent discipline and suspensions\nFacilities studies\nSpecial Education litigation - and review of Legislation\nLegal implications related to federal and state funding\nAdvise the Board and Superintendent regarding pending legislation that impacts the district fiscally\nDevelop a mechanism to keep track of all the District's desegregation obligations in conjunction with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n29 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 2 Discharge litigation issues related to suits brought against the District\nPrepare District officials for court appearances and proceedings and assist in the development of documents for court submission\nAssist the District in assessing evaluation criteria to measure its progress towards implementing the desegregation plan as well as identifying plan provisions that need modification\nAssess the District's compliance with employee obligations and litigation\nAdvise the District and prepare court documents to modify LRSD's desegregation obligations to further the goals of the plan\nAssist in the development of long-term strategies and procedures for the District to achieve unitary status from the court\nand Provide the District with monthly desegregation status reports. By hiring a staff attorney to deal with the District's desegregation obligations and other legal issues, the District would receive the direction and support it needs to work toward achieving unitary status. Although the budget will be increased by hiring an attorney on staff, providing him or her with clerical assistance, and purchasing needed equipment\nthese costs will be offset by savings the District will realize within the first year from the reduction in outside legal services. A. BACKGROUND Throughout the stages of the District's desegregation litigation, the LRSD has contracted its legal services with local law firms. The Friday Law Firm currently represents the District and in July of 1993, the Friday Firm committed to house one of its legal partners with the LRSD. Given the need to fulfill obligations to longtime clients of the firm, the partner is unable to spend all of his time at the District As the District reevaluates means to reduce its burgeoning budget deficit, the costs of litigating the District's desegregation plan and other legal issues becomes one of the primary targets. The District must find ways to provide quality, accessible education for all of its patrons in addition to finding non-intrusive ways to trim the District's budget 30 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 3 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The District does not have the services of a full-time attorney dedicated to the District's desegregation and other school-related litigations that are inherent in an urban school district The LRSD needs to hire an attorney to ensure that the District is working toward good faith compliance with its desegregation obligations as well other local, state, and federal statues. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue to contract all legal services with the Friday Firm. 2. Hire an attorney to represent the District's desegregation interests and other legal issues. Some of the legal services would include the following: Develop a mechanism to keep track of all the District's desegregation obligations. Ensure that the District identifies and understands all legal directives. Assist the District in developing evaluation criteria to measure its progress towards implementing its desegregation commitments as well as identifying plan provisions that need modification. Assess the District's compliance with its desegregation obligations. Advise the District and prepare all court documents to modify the District's desegregation obligations to further the central goals of the plans. Assist in the development of long-term strategies and procedures for the District to achieve unitary status from the court. Provide the District with monthly desegregation status reports. 31 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 4 D. RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative two is recommended to hire a staff attorney to deal with the District's desegregation and other legal obligations. Timeline: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Present business case to the LRSD Board Advertise position Interview for position Board approval Staff attorney begins employment E. RESOURCE ANALYSES Personnel 5-26-94 5-30-94 - 6-10-94 6-15-94 - 6-17-94 6-27-94 TBA The District would add an attorney to its staff. The District would also provide the attorney with support staff which could be accomplished by hiring additional staff or through reorganization. Financial \u0026amp;penditures Estimated recurring costs of salary at $60,000 and benefits at $6,680. If additional staff support is needed, his or her salary is estimated at $20,000 with benefits at $2,575. Additionally, a one time expense for a computer, printer, and software at approximately $5,000 is needed. Total cost - $94,255. Revenue Source Funding for this position, staff support, and equipment would come from the money saved by reducing the number of hours the District contracts its legal services with the Firm providing legal services. 32 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 5 F. IMP ACT ANALYSIS Negative The budget will be impacted by a recurring staff position\nhowever, this budget increase will be completely offset by the savings the district will realize by reducing the number of hours it contracts outside legal services. Positives 1. The District will save money by reducing the number of hours it contracts its legal services. It is estimated that the District will reduce its legal fees regarding the desegregation case by fifty percent within the first year. 2. The District will have a full-time employee, who will be devoted to assisting the District _to move toward full compliance with its desegregation and other legal obligations associated with an urban school district. 1. The number and complexities of legal issues, (desegregation and non-desegregation) are likely to increase and without full time legal council, we will be unable to respond in a timely and efficient manner. The District must move quickly toward seeking unitary status from the court through compliance with our court approved plan. 2. The risk of implementing this recommendation is criticism for adding another staff position\nhowever, as stated before, the District will actually reduce its legal fees. 33 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation A Business Case Addition .ll_ Modification Deletion June, 1994 34 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case I Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Toe kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Even if transportation is out-sourced, some of the routes and personnel will be retained by the district and require supervision. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day superoision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The recommended solution is to modify the position of Desegregation Facilitator by changing the title to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation and increasing the responsibilities to include student assignments. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Implementing this alternative will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\n3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\n4. Quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though 35 I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 2 registration and assignments are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes oveiwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in positions or costs. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Funding for this position will come from the currently used line item of the bud.gel. The foil owing are milestones for implementing this position modification. Milestone Date Person I. Present Business Case to the Superintendent for aooroval 6/14/94 Mayo 2. Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for aooroval 6/14/94 Williams 3. Discuss this modification with all parties 6/16/94 Williams 4. Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification 6/17/94 Mayo 5. Submit olan modification to the Court for aooroval 6/20/94 Attorneys 5\n Court aooroval .  . -  .. -- ~ - - 6/29/94 Williams 7. Advertise the oosition 7/1/94 Hurley 8. Interview 7/16/94 Mayo 9. Reoort for work 8/15/94 Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation June, 1994 6113194 DIRSAO.OOC 36 Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 3 ! Background I The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. The kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. I Problem Deflnltion The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents while not increasing personnel costs. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions of when to release certain waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district Careful monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing  plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with unhappy parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. This sample of student assignment related responsibilities requires day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the responsibility of the student assignment supervisor and other responsibilities including supervision of Transportation, Communications, VIPS, desegregation. Though housed at the SAO, more often than not he is in meetings elsewhere. Approximately 60% of his time is spent in meetings relating to matters other than student assignment. The day-to-day attention to student assignment is not possible. 37 611 J/9.4 DIRSAO.DOC I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 4 I Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less than adequate attention. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure I below. Many of the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator are covered already by current personnel and procedures. The Deputy Superintendent, Associate to Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart Associate Superintendent Director of Director of student Assignment Transportation and Desegregation Student SAO Assignment Information Coordinator Coordinator (5) Student Assignment Assistants Figure I 38 Director of (2) Recruiters Programmer Community Development Coordinator (VIPS) I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case s the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel do most of the functions of the Desegregation Facilitator. Additional safeguards such as the Program Budget Document and the PERT chart (Tool) were implemented to prevent omissions. Examples of responsibilities of the position are as follows: a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office\nb) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in perf onning responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nc) Assists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nd) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the district's desegregation plan\ne) Assists in ensuring that desegregation assessments, studies, surveys, and evaluation results are used to improve the operations of the schools\n0 Identifies problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\ng) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\nh) Observes the progress of desegregation implementation by reading and writing performance reports relating to implementation\ni) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nj) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\nk) Coordinates monitoring groups such as the Parent Council, Bi-Racial Committee, and others as assigned\nl) Focuses on all aspects of desegregation implementation inducting, but not limited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement\nand, m) Performs other duties as assigned. 6/l:JJ9 DIRSAO DOC 39 Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 6 j Recommendation I Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. Th.is neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. j Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents while not increasing personnel costs. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\n3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\n4. Quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. ! Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the district's desegregation obligations will be compromised. 40 oil 3194 DIRS.t.O.OOC I I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case Positives 7 I. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. 2. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n3. bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\n4. provide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\n5. allow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 6. permit the identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, continuous non-compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image in the area of student assignments. Tuning The sooner we can do this the better. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though registration and assignment are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes overwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. ! Resources Analysis Personnel This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of positions existing. 41 6113194 DIRS\u0026gt;.O.OOC I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 8 Financial No change will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the currently used line item of the budget. ! Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff, Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. Ultimately, this modification will help them meet their obligations under our plan. I General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. Milestone Date Person I. Present Business Case to the Suoerintendent for aooroval 6/14/94 Mayo 2. Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for aooroval 6/14/94 Williams 3. Discuss this modification with all oarties 6/16/94 Williams 4. Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification 6/17/94 Mayo 5. Submit plan modification to the Court for aooroval 6/20/94 Attorneys 6. Court approval -..\n~ _. -- . :~~~-\n-::: -~~~- \n... -~- ----~  6/29/94 Williams\n... , ..... 7. Advertise the oosition 7/1/94 Hurley 8. Interview 7/ 16/94 Mayo 9. Report for work 8/15/94 Aooointee 42 I I\n.,, i3i'94 DIRSAO.OOC Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start 1 Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year. 100% Dec 1 '93 2 Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels. 100% Nov 30 '93 3 Develop budget preparation training material. 100% Nov 18 '93 4 Conduct budget preparation training sessions. 100% Dec 6 '93 5 Budget managers submit 94-95 budget requests. 100% Jan 14 '94 6 Begin budget development. 100% Jan 18 '94 7 Revise financial forecast for coming year 100% Mar 1 '94 8 Submit proposed budget to Board. 100% Mar 24 '94 Page 1 FY95 Scheduled Finish Feb 11 '94 Dec 3 '93 Nov 30 '93 Dec 17 '93 Feb 28 '94 Jan 18 '94 Apr 15 '94 Mar 24 '94 Resource Names Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen 6/20/94 ,.,, \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :::r O~.' co Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Comolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names g Conduct Board work sessions on budget. 100% Mar28 '94 Apr 15 '94 Milhollen 10 Revise budgets, as needed. 75% Mar24 '94 Jul28'94 Milhollen 11 Secure seniority list. 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 14 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 12 Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1994-95 and 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 19 '94 Gadberry.Hurley determine teachers needed. 13 Review master schedules. Note possible cuts based on 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr14 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley low classes. 14 Make detenninalion by subject area (secondary) of 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr19'94 Gadberry.Hurley possible reductions and elementary enrollment. 15 Verification of need, based on manpower report and by 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 19 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley program (program managers and principals). 16 Check results of ID#'s 12-15 against known retirement, 100% Apr20 '94 Apr26 '94 Gadberry.Hurley resignations, and intern positions. Page 2 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 17 Identify teachers for Reduction in Force (RIF), if needed. 100% Apr 20 '94 Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 18 Board approval of RIF, if needed. 100% Apr 28 '94 Apr 28 '94 Gadberry,Hurley 19 Notify certified personnel of possible staff reduction. 100% Apr29'94 Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 20 Prepare modified tentative budget. 100% Apr 25 '94 May 18 '94 Milhollen 21 Board of Directors work session on budget. 100% May 12 '94 May 12 '94 Milhollen,Board 22 Board approval of modified tentative budget. 100% May 2 '94 May 26 '94 Milhollen,Board,Willlams 23 Evaluate early retirement incentive numbers. 100% May 20 '94 May 22 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 24 Recall from RIF, if needed. 50% May 23 '94 Jul 1 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Page 3 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name o/oComolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 25 Review of Outsourcing 90% Feb 17 '94 Jun 23 '94 Williams,Milhollen ,Mayo 26 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction. 0% May 3 '94 Jun 24 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 27 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) cleanup. 10% Jun 15 '94 Jul 15'94 Milhollen 28 Receipt of state-generated revenure numbers (payroll 10% Jun 15'94 Jul 15'94 Milhollen liabilities, adjusted supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perkins, M to M, JTPA, Voe Ed, Sp Ed, Chapters 1 and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC). 29 Prepare proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's 100% Mar29 '94 Apr 28 '94 Wiiliams,Council students. 30 Evaluate final proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's 100% Apr29 '94 May 18 '94 Willlams,Board students. 31 Submit to court (if approved by Board) proposal to 100% May6'94 May 20 '94 Willlams,Board temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 32 Court hearing on proposal to temporarily relocate Stephens 100% Jun 7 '94 Jun 7 '94 Williams Page4 FY95 6/20/94 .p. --..J ID 33 34 @ 36 37 36 39 40 Page 5 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update Name % Comolete Scheduled Start Prepare proposal for second school closing. 100% Apr 25 '94 Evaluate final proposal for second school closing. 99% Jun 1 '94 Submit to Court (if approved by Board) proposal for second 0% Jun 24 '94 school closing. Review philosophy and/or objectives for incentive schools' 100% Apr 25 '94 programs. Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the project. 100% Apr 26 '94 Establish framework for: instructional day\ncurriculum 100% Apr 26 '94 offerings\nservices and support programs\nmaterials/supplies/equipment\nstaffing needs and staff develoment needs. Relate program recommendations to program offerings in 100% May 17 '94 designated area and magnet schools. Develop business case for incentive schools' program 40% Apr 26 '94 modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. FY95 Scheduled Finish Resource Names Jun 1 '94 Williams,Council Jun 23 '94 Williams.Board Jun 24 '94 Williams,Board Apr 26 '94 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Apr 26 '94 Matthis.Curriculum Supervisors May 17'94 Matthls,Curriculum Supervisors May 31 '94 Matthis,Currlculum Supervisors Jan 31 '95 Matthis,Currlculum Supervisors 6/20/94 Little Roel\u0026lt; School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 41 Observation of Great Expectations Schools 100% May31 '94 May 31 '94 Williams,lngram,Board Members.Principals/Teachers 42 Reviewed instructional delivery of Incentive Schools 100% Jun 1 '94 Jun 1 '94 Williams,Matthis,lngram Program 43 Submit to Board a proposal to pilot Great Expectations 100% Jun 14 '94 Jun 14 '94 Williams Schools (Mitchell and Rightsell) 44 Submit to Court (if approved by Board) incentive schools' 50% Jun 14 '94 Jul 5 '94 Williams.Board program modifications (i.e., Great Expectations pilot study, modification of foreign language and Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Technology withdrawn) 45 Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing malled. 100% May 6 '94 May 6 '94 Mayo,Mont9omery 46 Pre-proposal conference on Outsourcing. 100% May 16'94 May 16 '94 Mayo.Montgomery 47 Proposals due on Outsourcing. 100% May 31 '94 May 31 '94 Mayo,Montgomery 48 Board of Directors' decision on Outsourcing. 75% Jun 9 '94 Jun 23 '94 Williams.Board Page 6 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rocle School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name % Comolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 49 Board of Directors' work session on budget 100% Jun 14 '94 Jun 14 '94 Milhollen 50 Court hearing on 1994-95 modified tentative budget. 0% Jun 28 '94 Jun 29 '94 Williams 51 Close-out of 1993-94 accounts: adjust physical inventory, 0% Jul1 '94 Jul20 '94 Milhollen (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, state grants, accruals 52 Compute ending fund balance. 0% Jul 21 '94 Jul 21 '94 Milhollen 53 Adminstrative review of budget. 0% Jul22'94 Jul28'94 Williams,Council 54 Submit to Board 1994-95 Budget. 0% Jul25'94 Jul 25 '94 Williams 55 Court hearing on 1994-95 proposed budgets of LRSD, 0% Jul27 '94 Jul29'94 Williams NLRSD, PCSSD. 56 Board review and adoption of 94-95 Budget. 0% Jul28'94 Jul28'94 Board Page 7 FY95 6/20/94 u, 0 ID 57 58 Page 8 Name Submit 94-95 Budget to Court/Parties. Submit 94-95 Budget to State. Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update % Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 0% Aug 1 '94 Aug 22 '94 Williams 0% Aug 22 '94 Aug 28 '94 Board,Mllhollen FY95 6/20/94 Exhibit 9 SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS JUNE 1994 I. INTRODUCTION This Special Report amends the Special study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District\nPlant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District\nand, Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. The purpose of this Committee was to: 1) review the Special S~udy done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study\n2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof\nand, 3) correlate the needs of the three (3) Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee discussed philosophy with regard to desegregation efforts, programmatic needs and M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two ( 2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. II. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three ( 3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1 51 Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. There is no specific reason why different percentages are used. It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent ( 100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure, i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent ( 80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There is, of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ because of the eighty-five percent (85%) desired capacity and the size of the schools. This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. The following analysis of various subject areas is provided. A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-District Transfers Upon Enrollment: Intra-district transfers within the Districts appear to be relatively stable. Students are assigned by attendance zone ( except Magnet Schools). Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones\nhowever, this need must be taken into consideration with projected Mto- M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2 52 delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in li~e with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are policy changes dealing with the assignment of students or a realignment of attendance zones. B) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of M-to-M Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District: The Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program is voluntary for all participating students. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will include students rolled over from the elementary schools . This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at any of the elementary, junior or senior high schools. Essentially, academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. There are no specific programs called for in the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students at the junior high level. A chart indicating M-to-M transfers is attached as an enclosure. A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level, between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little Rock School District to Pulaski County, North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, North Little Rock, to the Little Rock School District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under the interdistrict, or magnet school, concept. If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3 53 Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. C) . The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity: D) The state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, in all three (3) Districts, is quite similar. There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any district's capacity. Major instructional emphasis will be on improving the quality and delivery of instruction. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. These are not significantly important to justify major construction efforts, but rather the addition, or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' Obligation to Recruit White Private School Students: With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District junior highs and for a similar increase, although in smaller numbers in both Pulaski County and North Little Rock. The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. There are no projected quotas, nor goals established for recruiting junior high students. The ongoing effort will continue and the students will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4 54 E) Lack of Non-Magnet Junior High in East Little Rock: Between the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase in population of approximately 2.6%. This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County area. Little Rock appeared to have lost population primarily in the east, central, and southwest sections of the city. At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of I-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. Also in this area is Mann Magnet Junior High School. For at least the last two ( 2) school years, all junior high students desiring to attend Dunbar have been permitted to do so. With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does not seem justified. Schools follow populations. They rarely lead populations into an area. As the population shifts in the three ( 3) School Districts accommodating these -'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of course, is the construction of new junior highs\nsecondly, the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis\nor three, the realignment of attendance zones to keep junior highs close to existing capacity without construction\nand, four, realigning grades between school levels. The Little Rock School District has made major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and is desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabelvale Junior High. These are needed because -of: ( 1) the shifting population\n(2) the age of the buildings\nand, (3) changes in the academic program over the years which have necessitated more specialized classrooms. Preliminary figures indicate that in the area of eastern Little Rock (east of I-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5 55 F) the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances purposes, and given that the present situation, district-wide, is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least the next seven ( 7) years. Consideration for a new junior high school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. Equitable Distribution of Bussing: The question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall racial composition at the junior high level. In School Year '93-' 94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the junior high schools. For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of the junior high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-fpur percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bus'ed outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-' 93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools for children being bussed within their attendance zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-' 93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. In the case of children being bussed out of the attendance zones, we have an eight percent ( 8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race, as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6 56 G) zone. This is due ( 1) to shifting populations within the School District\nand, . (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attending junior highs within Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the percentage was fifty-five percent ( 55%). This indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. However, this is only a snapshot in time. Periodically, growth trends must be examined, and population cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the population is moving toward or away from existing junior high schools. Within Pulaski County, this problem is far greater. Seven ( 7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input: The Committee generally felt that at this planning stage, community input was not necessarily required. However, input from the Joshua Intervenors was requested. As the Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result in changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of, new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Studv of the Capacities / Analyzation: The study of the capacities and the analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. The desegregation plan is a voluntary plan. The M-to-M Program, which is a principal component of this plan, allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantage of any excess in capacity. When one studie$ the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7 57 students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary ~o the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer students between districts and have, subsequently, included that trend in your capacities and projections. There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced trans fer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, the recommendations made in the attached annexes are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. B) Little Rock School District: The analysis and conclusions as identified in Annex \"A\" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. The localized problems at Mabelvale Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School, however, will persist. Adding classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High and to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. C) Pulaski County Special School District: The analysis on Page Four (4) of Annex \"B\" supports the need in Pulaski County for construction in the northwest quadrant of the county to support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. This, of course, will be tempered by the success of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive  transportation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8 58 D) North Little Rock School District: The analysis and . conclusions on Page Four ( 4) of .Annex \"C\" indicate a relatively stable situation in North Little Rock. From an anticipated peak enrollment in School Year '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1. 2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacity were essentially identical. The support of the Desegregation Plan, the M-to-M Program, the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict schools are all fully understood and supported by the Districts. The general methodology of capacity calculations closely parallel each other and the need to look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition, it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes $uccessful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students, but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason, such as support of our desegregation efforts. DCE/rlh/specrep 9 59 M TOM TRANSFERS (W/O MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) TO FROM TO FROM YEAR PCSSD PCSSD NLR NLR 87/88 76 98 7 5 88/89 145 31 69 6 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 M TOM TRANSFERS (W/O MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD SY NLR NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/range 60 L_I TTL f\n,: .. : I\u0026lt; :3\\: H_Q_,:OL__[Vi TRE S:H ,:\"X Yf\n:AR ~1L9Z u.L9..l ~ ilL.li .9Ufil CAPACITY 6145 6 3 13 6391 6391 6391 ENROLLMENT 6062 6166 6109 ~ 6135 5962 F'EF\nCENTAGE 98.6 9 7. 7 95.6 95.9 93.3 NORTH LIIILI: ROC~ S~HC-QL QiaR SCHQOL YEAF. 91/92 UL.ti. ~ illll _film CAPACITY 2419 2419 2419 2419 2419 ENF:OL LM ENT 2262 2225 2245 2155 2154 PERCEUTAGE 93. 5 91.9 92.8 89.0 89.0 PULA~I\u0026lt;:! CCLINTY SP~CIAL ~-CHOi:1. c\nIi' ,C_J.) ~CHOoJL YEAf\n 9 l /92 lliil ~ ~ ~ CAPAC ITV 5044 5044 S0H S044 5044 ENROLLMENT. 5075 4942 5002 S220 5281 PEF:CEtHAGE 100.6 97.9 99.2 103. 5 104.7 I. SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION: JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH, 1994) This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain considerations in determining capacity. It assessed seating capacity as of school year '92 - '93 given criteria established today does not change, and further establishes that criteria and defines it. the the the it B) It records projected enrollments to the ye':~ 2000 and their impact on the District. II. CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, in reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used. Therefore, capacity in the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot\", at a given 1 62 B) in the junior high is defined as -a \"snapshot\", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at a given facility based on an ~stablished criteria. The criteria is explained below. Capacity Considerations: The following nine (9) areas must be considered when calculating capacity of a secondary facility. (1) Size of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as education is not conducted solely in the classroom. Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2 ) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements: Special class requirements are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\neven though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers: The number of teachers directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2 63 C. ( 7) Number of Periods: The number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. ( 8) Scheduling Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces -- one school may use a regular classroqm for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 persons to be /assigned. Calculation Methodology: The following is the methodology used to calculate capacity: Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two: Add the capacities of each room. The sum total is referred to as \"Total Physical Capacity\". Step Three: Adjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Capacity. Step Four: Multiply the difference by 17%, if Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as \"Prep Time\". a sixIdentify Step Five: Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that number from the Total Physical Capacity. This is referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". Step Six: Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3 64 D. E. Step Seven: Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 80%. This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated errors in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed to the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and the addition of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabelvale Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabelvale Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations are in fact replaced with permanent structures. III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4 65 B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of . 45% differential. This should be considered extremely accurate. Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure as my projections from '93-' 94 through '99-2000. Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three ( 3) -year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis: In 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years, and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. There is a projected slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline over the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary level. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-' 00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5 66 D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. Of utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. Adding classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adequate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, and the subsequent replacement of portable buildings, will add to capacity\nhowever, Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. Unless there are significant changes to core curriculums, added subjects, or increased enrollment through M-to-M transfers or private school student recruitment, capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should point out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 90's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of students, for whatever reason, and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition o~ portable buildings as a temporary measure. Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/capprol 6 67 LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 ( 1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 ( 1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,1,2 5881 NOTES: ( 1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. ( 2) Adiusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the: Enrollment coiurnn. ( Up da\n:ed 16 Mar 1994) 68 SPECIAL STUD! JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JULY. 1993 I  INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in reply to court Orders issued on May l, 1992 and December 30, 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Pulaski County Special School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. rr  CAPacrn: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schoois, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard pet grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained __ or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, in reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change the capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clearly defined. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools, therefore an entirely different definition must be used. Capacity B) in a the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot,\" at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at a specific facility based on established criteria. The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations: must be considered when secondary facility. The following nine (9) calculating capacity areas of a (1) Size 'of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. Since instruction is not conducted sol~ly in the classroom, one must consider administrative, special 69 -2- use, and classroom space when determining capacity. Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number bf general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Horne Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or, up to 150 depending on the function. 1 ( 4) Special Class Requirements: With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than JO\neven though that -ds the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input .6uch as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. ( 5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are established not only by the state of Arkansas, but also by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and self-contained classrooms with maximum capacity of B. ( 6) Number of Teachers: The number of teachers directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. ( 7) Number of Periods: The number of periods ( 7) corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. 70 -3- (a) Scheduling Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces -- one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, another may use a renovated workroom or one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 persons to be assigned. C. Calculation Methodology: The following is the methodology used,to calculate capacity: D. Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. (Refer to PCSSD Capacity Worksheet.) Step Two: Add the capacities of each room~ The sum total is referred to as \"Total Physical Capacity.\" Step Three: Adjust for pullout students, other individualized programs. special rooms classes, programs, used for highly- Step Four: Subtract this total from the Total Physical Capacity. Step Five: Calculate for Multi ply the Total Physical constitutes your Scheduling desired level of efficiency. Desired Capacity.) scheduling efficiency. Capacity by 85%. This Efficiency Capacity, or (Referred to by PCSSD as Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures used in determining the nine ( 9 ) criteria.. Each time any criterion changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. It should be noted that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all tirn7s. 71 -4- III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the Pulaski County Special School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92 - '93 school year. B. Calculations Methodology: Each subsequent three ( 3 )-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level who will be junior high students in a given school year, constitute a projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92 - '93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. c. Analysis: In '90 - '91 through '92 - 1 93 school years, the Pulaski County Special School Distri~t (PCSSD) experienced a decline at the junior high level. This decline parallels the number of students participating in the magnet and M to M programs in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). However, in 192 - '93, the Junior High -population began to increase because of a steady growth which is projected to continue through the '98 - '99 school year. Since all schools are operating near or at Desired Capacity, PCS SD will have to consider Junior High capacity in the near future. As an example, calculations from the North West quadrant of PCSSD (which is the Oak Grove High School attendance area covering more geographic area than either Little Rock or North Little Rock school districts) will reflect that the enrollment of Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School in the '92 - '93 school year was close to desired Capacity possible for the complex (9\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1600","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, appellants' reply brief","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1994-06-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School integration","School management and organization","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, appellants' reply brief"],"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/1600"],"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":["42 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1604","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, appellants' supplemental appendix","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1994-06-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School integration","School management and organization","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, appellants' supplemental appendix"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1604"],"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":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1609","title":"Court filings: District Court, exhibit list","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":["1994-06-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School integration","School management and organization","School board members","Court records","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Garland Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, exhibit list"],"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/1609"],"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":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1592","title":"Court filings concerning court procedures, Stephens and Garland school plans, and School Districts plans and reports","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":["1994-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School integration","Education--Finance","School management and organization","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Garland Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Court records","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning court procedures, Stephens and Garland school plans, and School Districts plans and reports"],"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/1592"],"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":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1589","title":"Court filings concerning Dan Woods v. North Little Rock case, Stephens and Garland schools, School districts budgets and attendance zones, incentive schools funding, and settlement agreement between Joshua intervenors and LRSD","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1994-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education, Elementary","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Garland Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Dan Woods v. North Little Rock case, Stephens and Garland schools, School districts budgets and attendance zones, incentive schools funding, and settlement agreement between Joshua intervenors and LRSD"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1589"],"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":["110 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_578","title":"Principal selection process, interviews","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":["1994-06/1995-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals","School administrators","Parents' and teachers' associations"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, interviews"],"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/578"],"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\nName Item No. 3 of OEM Request PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW TEAMS June, 1994 Position Address Telephone CARVER Dexter Doyne Vai Henry Donna Thrower Linda Ammel Teata Pace Margaret GremiUion Larry Robertson Dennis Glasgow Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator P. O. Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR 5427 Thrush Road 2105 Dorchester 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District n tt n 490-1255 374-5115 565-3012 225-9438 851-0434 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 FRANKLIN Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter Almeda Giles Carolyn Gray Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Kirke Herman Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 1607 Shumate Little Rock School District n N 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) , 821-2113 221-2779 227-5928 324-2124 324-2007 374-3758 MITCHELL Donna Bennett Teresa Lockhart Mildred Walker Mary Ann Hanson Delores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret GremiUion Kirke Herman Parent 1719 Charlotte Circle Parent (did not show) Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) 2108 State 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District 490-1009 374-7054 tt M 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758RIGHTSELL Sherry Pripusich Tommy Dodson Rosalyn Zeigler Jacque Kesler Stacy BlacknaU Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Delois Sykes Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. #1 Dodson Drive, Menifee 1517 Pulaski 47 LeFever Lane #2A Chimney Rock Little Rock School District It It 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Finn) 374-3517 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 GIBBS Willie Jones Zachary Polett Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Wilhemina LeweUan Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Marie McNeal Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 614 North Taylor 9510 Vanderbilt P.O. Box 502, Alexander 1922 Wolfe Little Rock School District tl It 664-9259  227-9870 847-3485 372-5612 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS Brenda Casey Richard Kalkbrenner Charles Moore Ella Mobley Ann Washington Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 4617 Eastwood Road 1716 Beechwood 222 Apple Valley Drive, NLR 11283 Southridge Drive 11919 Pleasantree Drive Little Rock School District It ft n ft ft n 663-1678 834-7216 227-6496 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica Ellis Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5813 Baseline, No. 253 7900 Bumelle Drive P.O. Box 517, Augusta Little Rock School District ft ft ft It 568-4567 565-5813 347-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-2188 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Doris Hendrix Shirley T am Irin Melissa Moody Denise Kornegay Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Dennis Glasgow Parent (did not show) Parent 1806 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 663-6588 Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 11 Riata Court 2109 Romine Little Rock School District 565-0893 H (t M ft 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey James Keown Patsy Reese Ruthie Hiett Robert Palmer Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 10513 Diamond Drive 12 Willow Oak Court #9 Wildberry Place #9 Lisa Court #9 Coral Court Little Rock School District tf tl n 562-4162 373-6471 455-3584 224-1041 225-2435 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST Paulette Blevins Debbie Elder Ron Sterling Bettie Williford Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Alice Stovall Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5912 Pecan Lake 31 Rosemont 10001 Yellow Pine Lane 8425 Labette Drive 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District n ft fl 568-9262 565-1907 455-1785 225-3485 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 003 P02 JUL 14 94 16:03 Name CARVER Dexter Doyne Vai Henry Donna Thrower Linda Ammel Teata Pace Margaret Gremillion vLarry Robertson jbennis Glasgow FRANKLIN^ Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter Almeda Giles Carolyn Gray Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Kirke Herman MITCHELL Donna Bennett Teresa Lockhart Mildred Walker Mary Ann Hanson Delores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Kirke Herman PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW TEAMS June, 1994 !? o Position Address Telephone Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator P. 0, Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR 5427 Thrush Road 2105 Dorchester 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District M M It n 490-1255 374-5115 565-3012 225-9438 851-0434 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 Parent (did not show) 9820 Wilderness Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. Parent 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 1607 Shumate Little Rock School District H 11 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 1719 Charlotte Circle Parent (did not show) 3101 Marshall Teacher Teacher Teacher -Administrator -Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) 2108 State 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 565-2800 ??? 821-2113 12T2779 227-5928 324-2124 324-2007 374-3758 666-0836 ??? 490-1009 374-7054 375-0053 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P03 JUL 14 94 16:04 RIGHTSELL Sherry Pripusich Tommy Dodson Rosalyn Zeigler Jacque Kesler Stacy Blacknail Sterling Ingram Margaret GremiUion Delois Sykes Parent (did not show) 2000 Arch Parent Teacher Teacher Treacher Administrator ^Administrator Joshua Rep. #1 Dodson Drive, Menifee 1517 Pulaski 47 LeFever Lane #2A Chimney Rock Little Rock School District H H 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Finn) ??? 354-1633 374-3517 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 GIBBS Willie Jones Zachary Polett Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Wilhemina Lewellan Margaret GremiUion Larry Robertson Marie McNeal Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 1022 West 11th 614 North Taylor 9510 Vanderbilt P.O. Box 502, Alexander 1922 Wolfe Little Rock School District It II II It 374-2193 664-9259 227-9870 847-3485 372-5612 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS Brenda Casey Richard Kalkbrenner Charles Moore Ella Mobley Ann Washington Margaret GremiUion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher -Administrator Administrator ^Administrator Administrator 4617 Eastwood Road 1716 Beechwood 222 Apple Valley Drive, NLR 11283 Southridge Drive 11919 Pleasantree Drive Little Rock School District It It (I tt H It 227-1945 663-1678 834-7216 227-6496 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica Ellis Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) 5205 Keats Drive Parent (did not show) 10501 Warren Drive Parent Teacher Teacher ^Administrator \\zAdministrator v/Administrator 5813 Baseline, No. 253 7900 Burnelle Drive P.O. Box 517, Augusta Little Rock School District tt tt 568-7268 562-1780 568-4567 565-5813 347-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-2188 oI II II LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P04 JUL 14 94 16:05 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Doris Hendrix Shirley Lamkin Melissa Moody Denise Kornegay Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Dennis Glasgow Parent (did not show) 2223 South Pine Parent 1806 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 12307 Pleasant Forest Teacher Teacher ^Administrator Administrator Administrator 11 Riata Court 2109 Romine Little Rock School District 11 It 11 It 664-0406 663-6588 227-8710 565-0893 224-1922 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J, A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey James Keown Patsy Reese Ruthie Hiett Robert Pahner Dr, Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher ^/Administrator Administrator Administrator 10513 Diamond Drive 12 Willow Oak Court #9 Wildberry Place #9 Lisa Court #9 Coral Court Little Rock School District II n 11 h 562-4162 373-6471 455-3584 224-1041 225-2435 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST Paulette Blevins Debbie Elder Ron Sterling Bettie Williford Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Alice Stovall Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5912 Pecan Lake 31 Rosemont 10001 Yellow Pine Lane 8425 Labette Drive 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District  tt It tl 568-9262 565-1907 455-1785 225-3485 329-6380 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1994 May 26, 1994 Office of DesfegregafKjn M\u0026amp;r.i(WHig TO: FROM: Forest Height Jr. High School Principal Interview 4 ' - C' ommittee Members Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Principal Interviews Thank you for accepting our invitation to participate in the selection process for the principal of Forest Heights Jr. High School for the 1994-95 school year. The interviews will be held in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, on June 8, 1994, from 1 to 4 p.m. Your assistance and cooperation are appreciated.Name Item No. 3 of OEM Request PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW TEAMS June, 1994 Position Address CARVER Dexter Doyne Vai Henry Donna Thrower Linda Ammel Teata Pace Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Dennis Glasgow Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator P. O. Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR 5427 Thrush Road 2105 Dorchester 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District H It n FRANKLIN Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter Almeda Giles Carolyn Gray Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Kirke Herman Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 1607 Shumate Little Rock School District n M 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) MITCHELL Donna Bennett Teresa Lockhart * Mildred Walker Mary Ann Hanson Delores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Kirke Herman Parent 1719 Charlotte Circle Parent (did not show) Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) 2108 State 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District rt rt 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) Telephone 490-1255 374-5115 565-3012 225-9438 851-0434 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 821-2113 221-2779 227-5928 324-2124 324-2007 374-3758 490-1009 374-7054 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 7 RIGHTSELL Sherry Pripusich Tommy Dodson Rosalyn Zeigler Jacque Kesler Stacy BlacknaU Sterling Ingram Margaret GremiUion Delois Sykes Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. #1 Dodson Drive, Menifee 1517 Pulaski 47 LeFever Lane #2A Chimney Rock Little Rock School District n N 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 374-3517 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 GIBBS Willie Jones Zachary Polett Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Wilhemina Lewellan Margaret GremiUion Larry Robertson Marie McNeal Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 614 North Taylor 9510 Vanderbilt P.O. Box 502, Alexander 1922 Wolfe Little Rock School District tt tt tt It 664-9259 227-9870 847-3485 372-5612 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS Brenda Casey Richard Kalkbrenner Charles Moore EUa Mobley Ann Washington Margaret GremiUion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 4617 Eastwood Road 1716 Beechwood 222 Apple VaUey Drive, NLR 11283 Southridge Drive 11919 Pleasantree Drive Little Rock School District tt It tt It tt It 663-1678 834-7216 227-6496 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica ElUs Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5813 Baseline, No. 253 7900 BumeUe Drive P.O. Box 517, Augusta Little Rock School District tl It tt 11 568-4567 565-5813 347-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-2188FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Doris Hendrix Shirley Lamkin Melissa Moody -Denise Kornegay Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Dennis Glasgow Parent (did not show) Parent 1806 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 663-6588 Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 11 Riata Court 2109 Romine Little Rock School District 565-0893 fl fl II 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey James Keown Patsy Reese Ruthie Hiett Robert Palmer Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 10513 Diamond Drive 12 Willow Oak Court #9 Wildberry Place #9 Lisa Court #9 Coral Court Little Rock School District fl tl n tl 562-4162 373-6471 455-3584 224-1041 225-2435 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST Paulette Blevins Debbie Elder Ron Sterling Bettie Williford Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo EsteUe Matthis Alice Stovall Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5912 Pecan Lake 31 Rosemont 10001 Yellow Pine Lane 8425 Labette Drive 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District 568-9262 565-1907 455-1785 225-3485 II ft fl tl 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526Name Item No. 3 of OEM Request PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW TEAMS June, 1994 Position Address Telephone CARVER Bester Boyne--------- ValHcniy-------------- Bonna Thrower------- - Linda-Afflanei---------- Teata-Pace------------ Margaret Gremdlion Larry Robertson Bennis Glasgow Farent---------- Fareat---------- Farent---------- Teacher-------- Teacher-------- Administrator Administrator Administrator F. O. Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR----------------- -543-7-Thrush Road------------------- 2105 Dorchester--------------------- 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District M n II It 490-1255 - 374-5115 - 565-3012 - 225-9438 - 851-0434- 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 FRANKLIN t Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter----- Ahneda Giles - Carolyn Gray----- Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Parent (did not show) Parent Teacher------------- Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 photOc-T so 221-2779 1607 Shumate----------  Little Rock School District fl tt 324-2124 324-2007 MITCHELL Bonna Bennett------- Teresa Lockhart Mildred Walker Mary Ann Hanson Belores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion - Kirke4Ieiman--------- PiircuL 719 Charlotte Cii'cle Parent (did not show) Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) T? 2108 State oF' 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District tt tl 490-1009 nl.p. 374-7054 1723 BToadway (Walker Law Firm) 324-2124 324-2006 ----- -^74=375^ RIGHTSELL \u0026gt;// Sherry Pripusich Toi IHHI ly Dudsuu Parent (did not show) Parent -Teacher #1 Dodson Drive) Menifee 15-17 Pulaski-------------------- 47 LeFever Lane-------------- - Stacy Blacknail-------- Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion - Delois-Syfcea---------- Teacher------- Administrator Administrator   JvTSlztztr Little Rock School District ft It 374-3517- 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758- GIBBS Willie Jones------- Zachary Polctt -Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Parent -Parent  Parent  Teacher Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Administrator Administrator 614 North-Taylor--------- 9510 Vanderbilt--------------- P.O. Box 502,^AiejEander -1922 Wolfe---------------------- Little Rock School District ft ft Marie McNeal. Administrator , , ft ft 664-9259^ -  84! -3485----- -----372-5612 - 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS (Olii VKCKTtexi Uoi/j Brenda Casey---------- Richard Kalkfarenner 'Charles Moore--------- Ella Mobley------------ Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson -----Parent---------- -----Parent---------- -----Parent---------- -----Teacher-------- _______1 __________ rdiviivr Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 4617-Eastwood Road---------------------- 1716 Beechwood---------------------------- 222-Apple Valley Drive, NHt 11283 Southridge Drive------------------- Little Rock School District ft ft ft ft ft ft 663-1678^ 834-72ie 227-6496^ 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica Ellis Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines----- Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) Parent (did not show) Parent----- Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 7900 Bumelle Drive RrGrfiox 517, Augusta Little Rock School District ft ft rt 568-4567- 565-5813 -^7-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-2188FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 'Doris Ileudi'ix  ' Shiriey'Lamfcin Melissa Moody Parent (did not show) Parent 1606 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 663-6588 Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo EsteUe Matthis Dennis Glasgow Teacher-------- T-eacher-------- Administrator Administrator Administrator -11 Riata Court---------------- 2109 Romine------------------ Little Rock School District n It tt 565=089? 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey JamesTfeown - Ruthie Hiett Robert Palmer Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker -Parent------ Parent---------- Parent--------- Teacher^' -Teacher---- Administrator Administrator Administrator 105 IS Diamond Drive #9 Lisa Court-----------------  #9 Coral Court--------------- Little Rock School District tt 11 n tl ------------ 562-4462 ---------- 3T3-6471 ------------ 455-3584- ------------ 224-10-41 - - ---------- 225-2435 - 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST C /l^A, -Debbie Elder  Ron Sterling BettieAViHifor4 -Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Alice Stovall Parent---------- Parent---------- Parent---------- Teacher-------- Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator S912PecanLake-------------------- 31-RosemeHt------------------------- 10001 Yellow Pine Lane--------- 8425 Labette Drive----------------- 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District 568-9262 5654907 455-1785 125=3485- tl tt tt 11 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P02 JUL 14 94 16:03 Name CARVER Dexter Doyne Vai Henry Donna Thrower Linda Ammel Teata Pace Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Dennis Glasgow FRANKLIN Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter Ahneda Giles Carolyn Gray Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Kirke Herman MITCHELL Donna Bennett Teresa Lockhart Mildred Walker Mary Ann Hanson Delores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Kirke Herman PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW TEAMS June, 1994 Position Address Telephone Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator P. 0. Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR 5427 Thrush Road 2105 Dorchester 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District tl It tt (1 490-1255 374-5115 565-3012 225-9438 851-0434 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 Parent (did not show) 9820 Wilderness Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. Parent 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 1607 Shumate Little Rock School District It It 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 1719 Charlotte Circle Parent (did not show) 3101 Marshall Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) 2108 State 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District tl M 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 565-2800 ??? 821-2113 221-2779 227-5928 324-2124 324-2007 374-3758 666-0836 ??? 490-1009 374-7054 375-0053 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P03 JUL 14 94 16:04 RIGHTSELL Sherry Pripusich Tommy Dodson Rosalyn Zeigler Jacque Kesler Stacy Blacknall Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Delois Sykes Parent (did not show) 2000 Arch Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. #1 Dodson Drive, Menifee 1517 Pulaski 47 LeFever Lane #2A Chimney Rock Little Rock School District n tl 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) ??? 354-1633 374-3517 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 GIBBS Willie Jones Zachary Polett Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Wilhemina Lewellan Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Marie McNeal Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 1022 West nth 614 North Taylor 9510 Vanderbilt P.O. Box 502, Alexander 1922 Wolfe Little Rock School District tt II II It 374-2193 664-9259 227-9870 847-3485 372-5612 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS Brenda Casey Richard Kalkbrenner Charles Moore Ella Mobley Ann Washington Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 4617 Eastwood Road 1716 Beechwood 222 Apple Valley Drive, NLR . 11283 Southridge Drive 11919 Pleasantree Drive Little Rock School District 11 II (I tl H H 227-1945 663-1678 834-7216 227-6496 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica Ellis Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) 5205 Keats Drive Parent (did not show) 10501 Warren Drive Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5813 Baseline, No. 253 7900 Burnelle Drive P.O. Box 517, Augusta Little Rock School District tl tt II 11 568-7268 562-1780 568-4567 565-5813 347-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-2188LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P04 JUL 14 94 16:05 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Doris Hendrix Shirley Lamkin Melissa Moody Denise Kornegay Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Dennis Glasgow Parent (did not show) 2223 South Pine Parent 1806 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 12307 Pleasant Forest Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 11 Riata Court 2109 Romine Little Rock School District n It rt rt 664-0406 663-6588 227-8710 565-0893 224-1922 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J, A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey James Keown Patsy Reese Ruthie Hiett Robert Palmer Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 10513 Diamond Drive 12 Willow Oak Court #9 Wildberry Place #9 Lisa Court #9 Coral Court Little Rock School District \u0026gt;1 n H rt 562-4162 373-6471 455-3584 224-1041 225-2435 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST Paulette Blevins Debbie Elder Ron Sterling Bettie Williford  Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Alice Stovall Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5912 Pecan Lake 31 Rosemont 10001 Yellow Pine Lane 8425 Labette Drive 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District rt rt rt n 568-9262 565-1907 455-1785 225-3485 329-6380 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question)ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - When were you selected? - Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - What written or oral instructions did you receive? - When did you receive these instructions?3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant flies - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? - What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process?9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376-6200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parents willing to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? In order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.TO: Ann , Bill, and Horace FROM: Melissa and Margie DATE: 7/15/94 RE: Questions for Interviews with Administrators We met, reviewed the information submitted by LRSD and came up with some suggested questions. Please review them and make any additions/changes you like. We can all meet to discuss final questions next week. Note: Items in () refer to the numbers on LRSD submisions in response to our memo of 6/30/94. Proposed Questions 1. How were you appointed to your interview committee(s)? (#4) 2. What was your role on the committee(s)? (#5) 3. In the absence of a written procedure for the interview process, how did you know how to conduct the interviews? (#5) 4. Why did you use generic job descriptions for each position, rather than a site-specific job description? Who made that decisions? (#7) 5. Who conducted the pre-screening? (#9) 6. Why wasnt Human Resources involved in the process of screening applicants? (#9) 7. We asked for all copies of correspondence from patrons. You furnished one letter. where are the rest?* (#10) * This final question is designed for Estelle and Hank onlyAdministrators to be Interviewed Administrator School(s) Interview Date/Time Mable Donaldson Williams Dennis Glasgow Carver Forest Heights Jr. Margaret Gremillion Carver Mitchell Rightsell Gibbs Williams Sterling Ingram Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Williams Marie McNeal Gibbs Estelle Matthis Cloverdale Jr. Forest Heights Fair Southwest Russ Mayo Cloverdale Jr. Forest Heights Jr. Fair Southwest Gene Parker Fair Larry Robertson Carver Franklin Gibbs Williams Sheryl Rose Cloverdale Jr. Alice Stovall SouthwestLRSD Administrator Interviews (General Form) Respondent: Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time/ Location: 1. How were you appointed to your interview committee(s)? (#4) On how many committees did you serve? 2. What was your role on the committee(s)? (#5) Did your role vary from committee to committee? 3. Describe how parents and teachers were selected to serve on interview committees.4. In the absence of a written procedure for the interview process, what guided the interview process? (#5) 5. Who was responsible for training the interview committee members? Describe the training. When was the training provided? What written information was given each committee member? When did each committee member receive this information?6. What type of questions did the committee ask? A. Pre-written B. Committee developed C. Combination of both Who developed the interview questions? 7. Describe the process used for scoring and ranking candidates. 8. Describe how materials such as applications and resumes were used during the interview process. 9. How satisfied were you with the interview process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement?LRSD Principal Hiring Process: Initial Contact Script Hi. Im with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Have I reached ? Were looking into the processes the Little Rock School District used recently in hiring principals. According to information we received from the district, you were a member of the committee that interviewed principal candidates for school, is that correct? Id like to make arrangements to phone you at a convenient time to ask you a few questions about that interview process. Weve put together a short list of questions that should take about 20 minutes to talk over with you. All of your individual answers will be confidential. 111 mail you a copy of those questions beforehand so you can know what to expect and think over your answers. Will that be OK with you? Were working to gather this information in the next few days. When would be a good time for one of us to call you? (Day and time: .) 111 be mailing a letter with more information and the list of questions to you today. However, Im not asking you to vmte out any answers\nwe will call and ask you to tell us your answers. What mailing address would you like us to use, or would you like us to fax you the information? What phone number should I call on (day, time)? One of my colleagues or 1 will be calling you during that time. Remember that we will eventually be publishing our findings and submitting them to the Court, but we will not use your name in that report. Before we finalize our report, well have a meeting to give feedback to the survey participants and to make sure that weve gotten our information straight. You may attend that meeting if you wish, but you will not be required to come. Also, its possible that the Court will hold a hearing to review the principal selection process, but you would not be required to attend or to testify. However, if you would like to attend, you will be able to do so, and if you wish to be testify, you would have that opportunity. We certainly appreciate your help. If you should think of any questions either before or after you receive our letter, please call me at 376-6200. Thank you very much.LRSD Principal Hiring Process: Initial Contact Script Hi. Im with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Have I reached ? Were looking into the processes the Little Rock School District used recently in hiring principals. According to information we received from the district, you were a member of the committee that interviewed principal candidates for school, is that correct? Id like to make arrangements to phone you at a convenient time to ask you a few questions about that interview process. Weve put together a short list of questions that should take about 20 minutes to talk over with you. All of your individual answers will be confidential. 111 mail you a copy of those questions beforehand so you can know what to expect and think over your answers. Will that be OK with you? Were working to gather this information in the next few days. When would be a good time for one of us to call you? (Day and time: .) Ill be mailing a letter with more information and the list of questions to you today. However, Im not asking you to write out any answers\nwe will call and ask you to tell us your answers. What mailing address would you like us to use, or would you like us to fax you the information? What phone number should I call on (day, time)? One of my colleagues or I will be calling you during that time. Remember that we will eventually be publishing our findings and submitting them to the Court, but we will not use your name in that report. Before we finalize our report, well have a meeting to give feedback to the survey participants and to make sure that weve gotten our information straight. You may attend that meeting if you wish, but you will not be required to come. Also, its possible that the Court will hold a hearing to review the principal selection process, but you would not be required to attend or to testify. However, if you would like to attend, you will be able to do so, and if you wish to be testify, you would have that opportunity. We certainly appreciate your help. If you should think of any questions either before or after you receive our letter, please call me at 376-6200. Thank you very much.Time 8:00 8:30 9:00 4^ \\jCin. Co Friday, July 15 Horace Margie Meiissa Ann PtCFard Kalkbrenner (Wiliams) 372-6175 9:30 Y JJerflse Kornegay (Forest Heights Jr.) 565-0893 ztlnda Ammel (Carver) will call Friday morning. - These people are to call anytime next week: Gibbs 7 !\\,CCvr^ Dexter Doyne Carver Willie Jones Gibbs iifRe Herman Franklin \u0026amp; Mitchell  Shirley Lamkin Forest Heights Jr.Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 Teata Pacs (Carver) 851-0434 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Monday, July 18 Margie Easier Tucker (Gibbs) 340-6650 Wilhemina Lewellan (Gibbs) 324-2006 Vai Henry (Carver) 374-5115 Melissa Robert Palmer (Fair) 225-2435 9:40 Sara Gaines (Clov Jr. 565-5813 Rose Williams (Clov Jr.) 568-4567 Loo Karen Carter (Franklin) 821-2113 Ms Ann Ruthie Hiett (Fair) 224-1041 Vicki Gonterman (Gibbs) 847-3485 Donna Thrower (Carver) 373-4987Time Horace 8:00 8:30 Ella Mobley (Williams) 227-6496 9:00 9:30 10:00 Bettie Williford (Southwest) 225-3485 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Tuesday, July 19 Margie Melissa Ann James Keown (Fair) 373-6471 Rosalyn Zeigler (Rightsell) 374-3517 Stacy Blacknail (Rightseil) 888-4628Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Wednesday, July 20 Margie Melissa Ann Delois Sykes (Rightsell) 372-4811Time Horace 8:00 8:30 Paulette Blevins (Southwest) 568-9262 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Thursday, July 21 Margie Melissa AnnI * LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 008 P01 JUL 14 94 16:03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2146 DATS: 14, \u0026lt;^^4 TO: \\c T \u0026lt;A Wv FROM: SENDER'S PfiQl^Si^\n-O.Q 10 SUBJECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS\nNuKiher of Pages (include cover page J-V Fax Phon Number \"S'Tt- 0 t O'O Speed Dial ___ ________ _ LRSD SUPTS OFFICE U08 P02 JUL 14 94 16:03 Name CARVER Dexter Doyne Vai Henry Donna Thrower Linda . s inmel Teata Pace Margaret Gremillion l.arry Robertson Dennis Glasgow rR?\\NKLIN Sherry Fields Sandra McIntosh Karen Carter Almeda Giles Carolyn Gray Sterling Ingram Larry Robertson Kirke Herman MITCHELL Di n na Bennett If- ssa Lockhart Mhd red Walker Mary Ann Hanson De lores Iverson Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Kirke Herman PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW ILAMS June, 1994 * Position Address Telephone Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator P. O. Box 166, College Station 401 West 4th, NLR 5427 Thrush Road 2105 Dorchester 25027 Highway 365 North, NLR Little Rock School District  (I 11 II 490-1255 374-5115 565-3012 225-9438 851-0434 324-2006 324-2007 324-0518 Parent (did not show) 9820 Wilderness Patent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. Parent 5824 West 14th Street 19118 Denny Road 1770 Barrow Road No. 96 1607 Shumate Little Rock School District u II VlZi Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 1719 Charlotte Circle P?j ent (did not show) 3101 Marshall Teacher feacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep. P.O. Box 524 (72053) 210$ State 1811 Schiller Little Rock School District It H 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) 565-2800 ??? 821-2113 221-2779 227-59.28 324-2124 324-2007 374-3758 4L'L. 374 375-l 4 324-2124 ' 324-2006 374-3758LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 0U8 P03 JUL 14 94 16:04 RIGHISELL Sherry Pripusich Tommy Dodson Rosalyn Zeigler Jacque Kesler Stacy BlacknaU Sterling Ingram Margaret Gremillion Delois Sykes Parent (did not show) 2000 Arch #1 Dodson Drive, Menifee Parent Teacher Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Joshua Rep 1517 Pulaski 47 LeFever Lane #2A Chimney Rock Little Rock School District II n 1723 Broadway (Walker Law Firm) ??? 354-1633 374-3517 664-8650 888-4628 324-2124 324-2006 374-3758 GIBBS Willie Jones Zachary Polett Easter Tucker Vicki Gonterman Wilhemina Lewellan Margaret Gremillion I^rry Robertson Marie McNeal Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 1022 West 11th 614 North Taylor 9510 Vanderbilt P.O. Box 502, Alexander 1922 Wolfe Little Rock School District It M II U 374-2193 664-9259 227-9870 847-34S5 372-5612 324-2006 324-2007 324-0514 WILLIAMS Brenda Casey Richard Kalkbrenner Charles Moore Ella Mobley Ann Washington Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Sterling Ingram Mable Donaldson Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 4617 Eastwood Road 1716 Beechwood 222 Apple Valley Drive, NLR 11283 Southridge Drive 11919 Pleasantree Drive Little Rock School District It It It tl H It 227-1945 663-1678 834-7216 227-6496 225-5254 324-2006 324-2007 324-2124 324-2197 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Monica Ellis Mildred Walker Rose Williams Sara Gaines Samuel Hunt Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matths Sheryl Rose Parent (did not show) 5205 Keats Drive Parent (did not show) 10501 Warren Drive Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5813 Baseline, No. 253 7900 Burnelle Drive P.O. Box 517, Augusta Little Rock School District It tl If h 568-7268 562-1780 568-4567 565-5813 347-2031 324-2271 324-2010 324-213$LRSD SUPTS OFF ICE 800 F'04 JUL 14 94 16:05 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Doris Hendrix Shirley I..amkin Melissa Moody Denise Kornegay Glenn Holloway Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Dennis Glasgow Parent (did not show) 2223 South Pine Parent 1806 South Monroe Parent (did not show) 12307 Pleasant Forest Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 11 Riata Court 2109 Romine Little Rock School District n n 0 664-0406 663-6588 227-8710 565-0893 224-1922 324-2271 324-2010 324-0518 J, A. FAIR HIG SCHOOL Barbara Gilkey James Keown Patsy Reese Ruthie Hiett Robert Palmer Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Gene Parker Parent Parent Parent 'Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 10513 Diamond Drive 12 Willow Oak Court #9 Wildberry Place #9 Lisa Court #9 Coral Court Little Rock School District II tl H II 562-4162 373-6471 455-3584 224-1041 225-2435 324-2271 324-2010 324-0513 SOUTHWEST Paulette Blevins Debbie Elder Ron Sterling Bettie Williford Sherrie Lack Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Alice Stovall Parent Parent Parent Teacher Teacher Administrator Administrator Administrator 5912 Pecan Lake 31 Rosemont 10001 Yellow Pine Lane 8425 Labette Drive 19 Lawrence Road, Greenbrier Little Rock School District 11 It tl II 568-9262 565-1907 455-1785 , 225-3485 329-6380 324-2271 324-2010 324-0526Proposed Plan to Interview LRSD Administrators Interviews will take place in person rather than by phone. We will attempt to carry on as many simultaneous interviews as possible. If scheduling can proceed beginning J uly 20, the interviews may commence on Monday, July 25. It is our objective to complete the interviews by July 29. Interview assignments have been made according to LRSD worksites. Horace (IRC) Margie (Annex) Melissa (Main/Stud. Assign.) Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Mable Donaldson Sheryl Rose Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Russ Mayo Bill Ann/Polly Sterling Ingram Dr. Henry Williams Estelle MatthisQuestions for Interviews with Administrators 1. How were you appointed to your interview committee(s)? (#4) 2. What was your role on the committee(s)? (#5) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. In the absence of a written procedure for the interview process, how did you know how to conduct the interviews? (#5) Why did you use generic job descriptions for each position, rather than a site-specific job description? Who made that decision? (#7) Why wasnt Human Resources involved in the process of screening applicants? (Hank \u0026amp; Estelle) We asked for all copies of correspondence from patrons. You furnished one letter. Where are the rest? (#10) (Estelle \u0026amp; Hank only) What was your criteria for vacating principal positions? (Hank) On what basis would you reject a decision (recommendation) by a school interview team? (Hank) Concerning the \"well-known long-standing past practices of interview protocol.\" How did you decide when to use an interview team and when to make an administrative appointment? (Hank) Who made these decisions? Was these \"well-known long-standing past practices of interview protocol\" used last year? Were the two the same? Is the draft of the \"Selection of Applicants\" the documented \"well-known long-standing practices of interview protocol\"? When was it drafted? Has it been approved by the board? Why doesnt the draft define when you will use a team and when you dont? What kind of interview training were the committee members given? (EEO/ AA/ SH) 12. What do you interpret \"consult the MRC\" to mean in practice? (Hank) Pil^oOtS^ O^d*i2. I (o zJo Cibht^'l --(y'P^ C\u0026gt; F\" b3.fi \u0026gt;a d.ic\n(1, tiitirf,Cs#- AI Ok-/ Ct3/hr\\i /\u0026lt;//o u)/z3 -rs ~Z\u0026gt;. '~{^,\u0026gt; s\u0026gt; VOa^-zO i/\\r4 /^- 6Xt 'ryf'^ O '-y z'Al / X t^te 0Committee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member ^sS^ Date Time 2:^ I*' I C \u0026lt; O\u0026gt;^ /tt /Y/^* aVO d' OQ Ip orCommittee Member's: Name Position y Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number 3- Confirmed address I(o\\{ua City, State Zip Code Staff member Date 1 hi 1^1 Time Committee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School z Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Date Staff member Time Committee Member's: Name o co Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Staff member Date Time '/ys /t)c /tics7 Zip Code Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 Jacque Kesler (Rightsell) 664-8650 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 z Friday, July 22 Margie Melissa Ann Donna Bennett (Mitchell) 666-0836 Stacy Blacknall (Rightsell) 888-4628Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 Brenda Casey (Williams) 227-1945 1:30 2:00 Monday, July 25 Margie Melissa Ann Ann Washington (Williams) 225-5254 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Wednesday, July 27 3:30 Ron Sterling (Southwest) 682-6220Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 Patsy Reese (Fair) 455-0292 or 455-3584 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 Tuesday, July 26 Margie Melissa Charles Moore (Williams) 834-7216 Ann Barbara Gilkey (Fair) 562-4162Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 Ron Sterling (Southwest) 682-6220 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Wednesday, July 27 Margie Melissa Samuel Hunt (Cloverdale Jr.) 347-2031 AnnTime Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Thursday, July 28 Margie Melissa AnnTime Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Friday, July 28 Margie Melissa AnnTime Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 I 12:30 1:00 Brenda Casey (Williams) 227-1945 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Monday, July 25 Margie Melissa Ann Mabel Donaldson 11:45 Dana Chadwick Ann Washingfor?(V^ams) 225-5254 Richard Hurley Russ MayoTime Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 Patsy Reese (Fair) 455-0292 or 455-3584 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 Marcia Harding 1:30 2:00 Oliver Dillingham 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 Tuesday, July 26 Margie Melissa Ann Donna Creer Evelyn Jackson Charles Moore (Williams) 834-7216 Barbara Gilkey (Fair) 562-4162Time Horace 8:00 8:30 Dennis Glasgow 9:00 Marie McNeal 9:30 Gene Parker 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 Ron Sterling (Southwest) 682-6220 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Wednesday, July 27 Margie Melissa Ann Larry Robertson Samuel Hunt (Cloverdale Jr.) 347-2031Time Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Thursday, July 28 Margie Melissa AnnTime Horace 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Thursday, August 4 9:00 a.m. Friday, July 28 Margie Melissa Ann Margaret GremiUionCommittee Member's: Name ye Position School Parent Teacher Administrator Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date Time Committee Member's: Name Position 'll. Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date Time y-'f7 Committee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Date Time Staff member (Di// / o me Committee Member's\nName Position A Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address Staff member Date Time City, State / A / V Zip CodeCommittee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date Time Committee Member's: IS. Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date TimeCommittee Member's: Name Position Parent X Teacher Administrator Date Time School ?/}(// Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Staff member ^:^:5 Zip Code z'^5 'J I S'\" 37 10:*-^ 2^c\u0026lt;r'q \u0026lt;2\u0026gt;e.r)-He. MOT) \u0026lt;CLQOLOere - 4V\u0026gt;e Kcj~)3on'3 ere o oP unit! 4Ae cWco-T Committee Member's\nName Position Parent School Teacher Administrator Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Staff member Date Time A// Zip Code Committee Member's: Name SHEnizy PR I PUS I en Position V (t\u0026gt;iP Nsr Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Sill Date Time )( /hoo Committee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address // City, State Zip Code Staff member Date Time i\no?' pc-1 tSs Do c.niu\u0026gt;erin \"To A-/ 3- r^cuc-lnine . /2\u0026gt; czcJm. bciL Icc^er Committee Member's: Name Position Parent '\u0026lt;7/0 Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date _2M23 Time /['XaCommittee Member's: Name z2z2zG a Position Teacher Administrator School Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address City, State Zip Code Staff member Date TimeCommittee Member's: Name /\u0026gt;/Q\nPosition Parent Teacher Administrator School c:\nInterview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Confirmed address Staff member Date Time City, Slate Zip CodeCommittee Member's: Name Position Parent Teacher Administrator School 6ofxfbaJ Interview Date Interview Time Confirmed phone number Mi? K(q Ccyatodr '^330 Confirmed address --------- City, State Zip Code Staff member Date Time 1/ ' IO7 e# I \\ e\u0026gt;r/ T'eCyt^ /^\"i :s. rX^ z\u0026lt;f^ll '/C\u0026gt; /\\. /// .fi Jf. ::3r/jiroZ/e T ~-P^ i\u0026gt;'S. ir '\"/r) A o ( 08\u0026gt;I 0/1995 15!45 FR OM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 01 JOHN W. WALKER, PJL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS THSM TELEPHONE (601) 374O76S FAX (601) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WAEHINQTON MARKBURNEHE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. FACSIMILE COVER 2 3'^ ('(31 y FROM: B A DATE: SUBJECT: T B PAGES: NOTES: I u Th infonniiUon contalnd in this faeslmlle messago I* anomay prtviiagad and eoofldontiai InformaUon intendod only for tha uoa the IndMdi^ or onttty nomad abovo. If tha raadar of thio moosage ia not tha Intondod rodpiant, at Um omptoyoa or agont rosponaibla to dattvor it to tha intendod recipient, you are horoby notUlod that any dlMominatlon, distribution or copying of this communication te otrletly prohlbttod. If you havo rocoivad thia communication In orror, ptoasa immadbdoiy notify ua by tolaphona, and return tha original tnossaga to ua at tha above addroM via tha U.S. Postal Sorvfoa. Thank you. 08/10/1995 15:45 FROM JOHN U.UfiLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. attorney AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY qtTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72208 telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 if it J. JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON mark BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR- HAND-DELIVERED: PERSONAL \u0026amp; CONFIDENTIAL Ms. Linda Pondexter, President Board of Education of the Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 August 10,1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Ms. Pondexter and Dr. Williams: This letter tois to formally protest principal assignments that havo^n made by The basis for the assignments is two-fold: In tte cases of Dr Williams. The basis for the assignments is wo-tuiu, m preferential secondary principals, persons, whom we hayeprevi^idaritifi^ to^ discriminatory in their treatment of students administration of their present staffs, are being promoted .^Ms. LinJ Brown^ an assistant principal at Horace Mann and Pulaski Heights. C^r preferential treatment to white students and was ,, t e__________I S..Aff\u0026gt; Uanh RAhAOl IS OHG OT gave Gayle Bradford, her record at Cloverdale Jr. High School is one of ^'ing7n U?Xist of constant turmoil involving allegations treXnt students, parents and staff. Those llegat.oonbn^^^ High, according to our monitoring reports and some of staff. We do not believe that these principal assignments should y\n understand that Mr. Victor Anderson, whom wo also oppose^or assistant superintendent of secondary setters, InRueryed fliis If rGdSons as w. ---------------------\u0026lt; ______.. un that is the case we can understand Uto decision better. But we sfaH High School is too important to the students and the community to people who have a record of mistreating black children. Moreover. It should not be a08-'10/1995 15:46 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 i Page Two Ms. Linda Pondexter Dr. Henry Williams August 10,199S school which is left for Mr. Anderson's return by his choice due to collegiality between himself and other staff. In like vein we oppose the assignments of Ms. Ethel Dunbar and Uonel Ward as incentive school principals. First, this continues a pattern of racial assignments to the inSntive schools\nand, second, it was done without following the desegregation plan, i e involvement of Joshua Intervenors in the process before a decision was made. Finallv we oppose the policy of allowing school principals to choose their assistants. In this vein, we note that Mr. Mosby has been tran^erred from Pulaski Heiahts and Mr. Knighten has been transferred from Henderson. Both apparently were principal appeasements. A school district simply cannot operate this way. all due respect to Dr. Williams, there have been more than 36 principal changes in two years. This is not a sign of good administration. We sincerely ask that all these acti^ be the caveat that if they are not rescinded, we would like to appear before the board at its UIV M rw- J _____ rUllWtllCA Of In administration. xt or spod.1. to request the te,\u0026lt;i to oonsitier purchase of his contract. I am also m^ing the same comment with respect to Dr. Russ Mayo because of the fact that many of the changes that he has proposed in the desegi^ation plan, ina TaCl uiai  nany wi uiw ,----u-itr which no one has attempted to discuss with us\nand. because his performance is, in our opinion, very deficient Please share this letter with other board members. In view of the fact m I am raising personnel matters, I would like to be heard in closed session regarding Dr. Williams and Dr. Mayo, in the event that the principal changes are ncn rescind^ immediately and made through appropriate, competent proi^ures with a mirto strengthening our school system rather than weakening it The time has come to recognize that we can have a school system which is in either array or tS^e do not want to be here, as is the case of Dr. Williams, there is a tende^ to ^ate chaos and confusion. That no longer will be tolerated by us arxl we will aggressively pursue this matter in court if necessary, including renewing our motion to hold Dr. Williams and the school district in contempt of court08Z10Z1995 15:47 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl - uMitf Mii^ TO 3710100 P. 04 Page Three Ms. Unda Pondextsr Dr. Henry Williams Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. We ask to be on the agenda If necessary this evening and any other evening when matters of such Import regarding the desegregation plan or Its compliance are in issue. jncsrely, Attorney for Joshua Intervenors JWW-.lp cc: Mr. deny Malone\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_558","title":"Principal selection process, questionnaires","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":["1994-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, questionnaires"],"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/558"],"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\nGIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATlOf MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) interviews. A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Polett  501-376-2423 3tE7/15/94 01:32 PM  3/5 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polen  SO1-376-2423 107/15/94 01:33 PM  4/5 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss, ZaehPolen a 501-376-2423 ^S7/1S/94 01:33 PM D5/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES CARVER - 4 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? The superintendents office secretary called - she had been at the school a long time. Called May 27 (about a weeks notice). Received a written reminder of appointment and that team would be asking candidates questions Does not know why she was selected. Received a note in her box from Ms. Mathis requesting that serve on the committee. No written or oral role descriptions provided prior to the day of the interview. Was told to inform EM if she couldnt serve\nassumed that more than two other staff members would also be serving on the team. Asked the departing principal to allow her to be on the committee. No information provided prior to the interviews. As co-PTA president, he and the other president decided who would represent the parents. Upon discovering that the principal was leaving, the two presidents initiated telephone communication about the replacement process. The only information from the district was that the interview team was to be racially balanced. Committee members were selected around May 10\nfirst interviews were June 6, and re-interviews occurred well into July. During the first round of interviews, the committee did not receive any oral or written role description or what was to occur. They did receive a copy of \"Interview Protocols\" at the second round of interviews. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? The committee would ask questions\neach applicant would be assigned a score on a 0-4 scale. Sheets were tallied and given to M. Gremillion or her appointee. The superintendent would look over the files with the scoring sheets included and personally interview the top 2 or 3 applicants. These instructions were given orally on the day of the interviews. Team members had about 30 minutes to look over the questions and the scoring procedures. Team members divided the questions with each member having 1 or 2 questions. They were allowed to take notes, but no scoring in front of the candidate. After the interview, there was time to think about a score, but there was no discussion among team members. They looked over their notes, went to the next candidate and at the end of the process, turned over the file to MG. Was told that staff would have input, but her role was not explained. No written instructions received. Received oral instructions upon arriving at the school. They were told they would be rating the candidates, asking previously prepared questions, and told that Dr. Williams would make the ultimate decision. She felt he would be there. Team members would be provided with candidates, interview and rate them on a scale of 4-1 and tally the results. Present the superintendent with the top candidates and he would make the decision. Received written questions and oral instructions on the day of the interviews. Did not have any. Called downtown for information but didnt get any. They wanted to know names of applicants and what questions would be asked,but werent told. For the first round of interviews the committee members didnt learn anything until they walked through the door. At that time, they were given oral instructions along with a list of candidates and a list of 10 questions they were required to ask. They also received a score sheet, some resumes, or other background information on each candidate. The committee did not have sufficient time to look over the information, only 20 minutes. The responded did inquire if the committees input would be taken into serious consideration or if they were \"down here playing games.\" M. Gremillion gave them instructions and assured them they were being taken seriously, but Dr. Williams had the final say. Copies of the Interview Protocol was handed out at the second round of interview. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Some parents met prior to the interviews\nthe whole committee never could do so. At the time of the interviews some members had prepared questions. The districts prepared questions were broad and general. Team members could ask some of their own questions in order to go a little deeper or to probe. The team had about 30 minutes before the meeting to get acclimated. The job posting was available for review. The committee didnt prepare questions\nthey didnt know who was on the committee. The staff wasnt truly represented. Information was received late, no opportunity to contact teachers to find out what they wanted in a principal. The counselor was the only staff representative. Teachers had no time to voice concerns or expectations. The team reviewed applicant files just before the interviews. Did not see job description. Met prior to the process and prepared questions and determine the expectations of the type of principal needed. This meeting was with parents. Team members looked at the questions and stated that they wanted to ask their own questions. Doesnt remember if any of the teams questions were asked. Did not look at job description. They met for about one and a half hours and reviewed the job posting\nthey prepared a list of 30 interview questions, and tried to get the names and information on each candidate, but couldnt. They were never told what the selection criteria would be. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. The applicant came in\nteam members introduced themselves and asked the applicant questions. Team members took notes and probed with some of their own questions, then terminated the interview. Each member privately assigned points to each candidate and recorded the points on a scoring sheet. The next candidate would enter and the process would start again. Each candidate had a folder that had been prepared in advance.Team members looked at the files\nread over 10 questions and were asked to decide which ones they would ask. The interview process and the rating scale was explained. Members took notes and rated the candidates between interviews. After the interviews, team was told the results would go back to Ms. Mathis and then to the superintendent. He would review the top three and select from the. A parent asked - 'What if the committee decided to reject all applicants and reopen the interviews.\" The district representative said they could call and the district would facilitate. Team members were told the rules\nthey divided and assigned the 10 prepared questions. Members took notes\ntallied scores and interviewed the next applicant. The district representative tallied all of the results and submitted them to the superintendent. During the first round of interviews, they interviewed five candidate for about 30 minutes or less each. The brief time between interviews did not allow for meaningful discussion. Margaret encouraged them to rate each candidate after each interview. They did not ask additional questions because they were told that all candidates had to be asked the same questions. The rating sheets were handed in with no discussion, and there was no consensus on the best candidate. The respondent felt that the only acceptable candidate (the schools white female assistant principal) would lose out because of E. Mathiss bias against her. Gremillion told them to call the next day for the interview tallies\nthey did, and were told the assistant principal was rated way above the others. After two weeks and no decision, the co-PTA presidents met with Estelle and Dr. Williams and were told that the assistant principal did not have enough building experience. The co-presidents pointed out that she met the requirements outlined in the job posting and should get the job. Estelle stated she wanted the best possible person, and Hank wanted a strong principal. The assistant principal had to reapply for the second round of interviews in J uly. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Was surprised there were only five. No mention made of interviewing more. All of the applicants were at the assistant principal level, except one who had experience as a principal in a rural district. Would have liked to have seen more. Respondent relayed this concern to the interview chairperson. Some members felt the job was advertised. Does not feel that the team reached consensus on the candidate. Yes. The majority of applicants were knowledgeable and provided in-depth answers to the questions. None were adequate. None of the applicants met the respondents standard. The PTA president felt they were adequate, however the respondent feels the candidates were lacking in experience for a school like Carver. The first time only one candidate was acceptable\nthe second time, yes\nthey were given seven candidates (one no show).6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams. M. Gremillion explained how the processed worked. The team would make recommendations, but the superintendent had the final say. Told up front the superintendent would make the final selection. Dr. Williams would be presented with a list and he would make the decision. Dr. Williams would make the final selection based on their input in the form of their top candidates, ranked in order. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Difficult to say\nthe process is not over.... the process is reopened and the team will be interviewing more applicants today. Wondered at first, but apparently the committee had influence since some felt (the respondent didnt) that the pool of applicants wasnt adequate. Felt her input was given weight. During the first round, input was ignored. The second time they were unanimous with the final selection and the administration agreed. (Note: the candidate declined the position and the assistant principal wound up serving as Acting Principal) 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Wished the process was speedier, not dragged out. The school still doesnt have a principal but they will begin again the following Monday. The preparation of the questions by the administrators, the flexibility to probe, and the organization of each applicants file worked well. The timeliness of the process needs work. The team, parent, school personnel process is unsettling. Not very satisfied with the process\nit was rushed and respondent did not understand expectations until the morning of the interviews. Need to have advance notice to the staff and allow time for teachers to provide input to their representatives on the committee. If there are three parents on the committee, there should be three teachers. Cant determine what worked well\nthe district planned well in terms of process\nthey just didnt provide participants with prior knowledge. Complied with the process, but not satisfied with it. Felt that since it was their school, they should have been able to ask their questions. The actual interviews worked well, but overall all none of the process worked well. The questions need improvement\ntheyre vague and not individualized for the situation. Understood that Williams would choose.Not satisfied with anything the first round. Things improved the second time, including the quality of the candidates. None of the process worked well the first time, leaving the committee members frustrated and angry. Improvement would be if the district has a clear definition of the interview process and what happens afterward\ngive the committee time lines for the process and decision\nhave clear understanding of what questions will be posed and be open with information about the candidates so they can research and prepare for the interviews in advance. The district should have specific job qualifications, and candidates on the interview list should meet the qualifications. All members should have equal weight and the full (and same) interview team should participate in all interviews, including reinterviews. Understood that Dr. Williams would reveal his decision, but they had to work to get it and then they had to bug Estelle for information on the second round of interviews. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? No. No. I feel Ive shared everything. Nothing else. Has never participated in principal selection, but has helped interview and select an assistant principal. Felt the first set of interviews were a wasted day, because he had to take off from work not knowing how long the process would take. Didnt get a letter of appreciation, but a verbal thanks from Estelle.ODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: Cloverdale 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Asked as a second choice by Estelle Matthis office - Asked by Dennis Glasgow at a curriculum revision meeting - Asked as VIPS chair - president of the PT A recommended When were you selected? - Two days prior to the interviews Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - No - Letter of confirmation from Estelle Matthis - Received letter from LRSD - role explained at the interview site What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Committee would be able to ask questions based on what we wanted to know. - Didnt have a good understanding when receiving the confirmation letter What written or oral intructions did you receive? When did you receive these instructions? - Estelle Matthis explained orally at the time of the interviews. - Oral instructions on the day of interviews - Oral instructions on the day of the interviews What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Were given questions - no period of planning - did get to add questions - No advance preparation or knowledge of other committee members - Looked at question the morning of the interviews. Prepared interview questions - We used the prepared questions, but were allowed to add more. - Added more at the time - Got to add questionsReview applicant files - No - No - One applicant brought in a resume Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - A) Interviewed candidates. B) Had ranking scale explained C) Ranked the candidates D) Ended up with two top candidates. E) Estelle said that the choices would be passed on to the superintendent to make a final decision. If he wasnt happy with the choices the committee could be called back. - A) Interviewed B) Tallied individually 3) Discussed applicants 4) Voted - had a dead heat between two candidates 5) Submitted the top two, but Estelle told the committee that they could interview other candidates if they desired. - A) Interviews, questions asked in turn as agreed. B) Rating individually after each applicant. C) After the interviews, the committee discussed the candidates and totaled points. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why not? - Yes it was adequate - The one chosen made it adequate. The other four were not. As a restructured school, we need some specific things which most of the candidates lacked. - Yes, the number and qualifications were adequate 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Estelle would take recommendations to the board to make the final decision. - Dr. Williams - Committee would vote and the decision would ultimately be made by the superintendent7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Believe it had a great impact on the decision - Dont think it made that much difference. The one that got the position was so much more qualified, that anyone would have picked her. - I think we got lucky and picked the one he wanted 8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Satisfied - Couldnt think of a better way to do it - Satisfied somewhat What parts worked well? - I liked having teachers and parents there - Liked the prepared questions and the ones the committee generated What needs improvement? - If the process worked like it should have, there should have been better parent representation. Committee should have more weight. - Nothing needs improvement - If parents had more input it would alleviate some problems at school and increase involvement. Parents should be invited to participate 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Appreciated it and would serve if asked again. Mrs. Estelle sent a note of appreciation and coonfirmation that I would serve - We did not want the other principal to leave. About 70-74 teachers signed a petition to keep her - NoODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: JA. Fair 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Participates in PT A - Received a call from Mrs. Matthis office through the school secretary to serve. - No idea how selected. Received a call from Estelle Matthis office. - No idea - a parent called and asked if I would serve - needed racial balance. When were you selected? - Sometime in May - About a week before semester exams - About 5-7 days before the interviews. Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received a confirmation notice - Received a letter of confirmation - Received no written role description, only a letter thanking her for serving and indicating the interview date, time, and place. Letter did not indicate an amount of time the task would require. - No 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Team would ask certain questions, rate according to a given scale, add up ratings, and give the name of the highest ranking candidates. - Just from the confirmation letter, that members would be responsible for nominating a principal for Fair. - Interviewing candidates for principal of J.A Fair and then collaborate and make recommendations. - Had no idea of the process. What written or oral instructions did you receive? When received? - None - Received no written instructions, oral instructions were given at the time of the interviews. - Set of questions and a rating sheet given out the day of the interviews. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview?- Nothing, had no information upon which to act. - As a committee, nothing before the day of the interview. On the day of the interviews, was given a packet of questions, rating sheets, and list of applicants. - Nothing, was late arriving, the committee was already interviewing the first candidate. - Nothing prior to the day of interviews - never met. Prepared interview questions? - LRSD provided pre-selected questions. Had some flexibility to ask other questions following the \"canned\" questions, but had to ask all applicant the same ones. - Divided up questions among the committee. After asking questions on the sheet, were allowed to ask individual questions. Could be spontaneous. - The committee did not meet to formulate questions, but Ruthie developed some she and other staff members thought were important. - The interview team did get to incorporate questions of their own. The teachers were able to contribute questions, but the parents werent prepared to. Reviewed applicant files? - Were given no resumes or other written information about the candidates from Estelle. However, one or two candidates brought vitae and another brought a couple of letters of recommendation. - Did not view applicant files. Some applicants brought in resumes or recommendations. - One applicant had a resume. Estelle said the applications were available for review if they wanted to do so. Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the decision? - No job description - Saw no job description or criteria, nor was there any discussion of criteria - No job description 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - Met downtown. Estelle spent about ten minutes describing the process. One of the teachers spoke at that time about the staffs support for Vernon Smith, the Asst. Principal. Estelle shook her head that the comments were inappropriate. The committee interviewed five candidates, spending approximately 20 min. with each. Estelle did not ask questions, but facilitated the process and filled out rating sheets. After the interviews, Estelle asked each team member their first choice. Next, they went around for a second choice. There was a brief discussion but the group did not reach concensus on rankings or the best person for the job. The team was asked whether they were satisfied with the quality of the applicants. Everyone agreed they were. - On each question, rated applicants from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Tallied scores while waiting for next applicant. After last applicant, discudded the applicants - did anyone feel the need to start over? All felt the applicants were qualified. Same people asked the same questions of each candidate during the process - Ms Matthis acted as chair. Some of the \"canned\" questions were wordy - could have been more specific. - Estelle introduced applicants 2) Started asking previously assigned questions in order. 3) Applicants asked questions or madestatements to the team. 4) Applicant left room 5) Team rated individually, tallied scores and ranked the applicants. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes - Had pretty good candidates and a sufficient number. - Had one person on the list who did not interview (someone within the school district). Heard that she would continue in current position, since that time found out that she was on medical leave. Had six applicants (not including the no-show). - Yes - Yes 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection? - Estelle said Dr. Williams would make the final selection. She said she would give him the committees recommendations. Ruthie understood that Estelle would submit the committees first and second choices in rank order. - Understood that the superintendent would make the final selection from the top three names. - Superintendent would make the final selection. Hopefully he would choose the #1 recommendation. - The superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Had a lot - As a committee - moot question. The person selected was the #1 choice of the committee. - She believes their input didnt carry much weight\nthat the administration had already decided beforehand tha they could name Broadnax, who interviewed well, but was \"too slick\" and did not seem to be a \"good fit\" for J.A. Fair. - The applicant the interviwee chose was already assigned to Mabelvale. She wondered why they were applying at Fair when already assigned. Committee was \"weighted\" by administrators. Interviewee did not know that Estelle would vote - thought she was only running the show and would not vote.8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Not at all satisfied with the process - Process was very good as far as actual objective. - On a scale of 1-10, a 4 1/2 - Other than having administrators there to weight the committee, it was fine. What parts of the process worked well? - Each candidate brought a different perspective to the job. Liked the opportunity for input into the selection. - Adequate number of committee members and good mixture - especially having administrators and parents. - \"Not much\". - Rating score sheet. What needs improvement? - Would liked to have added more questions specific to the needs at Fair. Need prior knowledge of who the applicants are, and other pertinent background information. Allow team members to express opinions on what qualities are important in the principal for the particular school and who the staff believes would make a good principal. Dr. Williams had discouraged writing letters of contacting school board members about preferences. The asst. prin. at Fair felt that Estelle didnt like him and that writing letters of support would ultimately make things worse for him. Need a seating arrangement which assures that the candidate cant see the rating sheets being coompleted by individuals. The interviews need to be longer. The interviews were only 20 min. long with only 5 min. between them. - More information on applicants beforehand. Would like to have had time to get to know other team members better. - Committee could have used more flexibility. Disliked \"canned\" questions. - Teachers felt intimidated by Estelle. The administrators tended to \"weight\" the committee. What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process? - That Estelle would give the rankings to the superintendent with the first and second choices of the committee in rank order. About a month to six weeks later Ruthie received a letter from Hank Williams announcing Broadnax as principal and thanking her for her participation. - Estelle was very clear about who was the 1st, etc. choice and that the superintendent would make the final choice. If the superintendent feels we need more applicants, then certainly more applicants could be taken (if the superintendent was not satisfied with the teams choice).9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Would like another opportunity to participate in the process. - Pleased to see the process including parents and teachers. Could use some refinement, especially allowing committee members prior access to resumes and job descriptions. Would have liked to ttdk to someone who had experience with dealing with the admnistrators in a school. Thought process was good. - In the LRSD, in her opinion, there are a very few people who weild a disproportionate amount of power. If you cross people, you will not get anywhere. She said she was really talking about Estelle Matthis. She mentioned several people who have gotten \"crosswise\" of Estelle and \"thats that\". \"Estelle is keeping a of good people out of jobs for which they are well qualified. Fairs assistant principal is one of them. Ruthie believes that Estelle is costing the district many good people.School: Forest Heights Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Dont know what the selection process was. Contacted by Estelle Matthis by phone - Wondered how he was chosen. Told by Estelle that she was looking for respected, experienced teachers to serve. When were you selected? - Near the end of school Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received no advance information 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - a) Assign questions b) Interview applicants c) Rate applicants d) Rank applicants - Prior to the day of the interviews, had no information. Knew that applicants would be interviewed and that recommendation would probably go to Dr. Williams. What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Only received a confirmation letter - no instructions - Questions, rating sheets When did you receive these instructions? - 15 min. before the interviews were to start 3.What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - a) Received instructions b) Reviewed and assigned questions c) Discussed qualifications - Received rating sheets and a set of 10 questions Prepared interview questions - Received prepared questions from the district person Previewed applicant files - One applicant brought a resume- Committee didnt review applicant files Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - Talked about qualifications, but did not review the job description. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Committee reviewed a list of prepared questions b) Each applicant asked the same questions by the same people, c) After all interviews, each member rated the answers and tallied the scores, d) The committee members revealed their highest ranking applicants, e) Only the top 2 were discussed, f) Committee reached concensus on the top two. f) Two recommendations would be sent to Dr. Williams for final approval. - a) Questions asked of all candidates in round-robin fashion. Candidates could elaborate on an answer b) At the end, candidates could pose question of the committee c) Rated applicants S. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes. Interviewed six, all were qualified - Yes. The applicants represented a broad spectrum. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Before interviews, Estelle informed the group that the supt. would have the final say - could accept choices or send it back to the committee with another pool of applicants. - Dr. Williams 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Personal input was equal to that of others, no one person had more influence on the committee. - Initially, felt that influence was significant as a teacher at the school. However, in the final analysis felt the input was not important after the recommendation was made. 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - At the start, okay - at the conclusion, not well. Listened to six applicants. One applicant was absent, but someone (district spec. ed. person) was there to speak on his behalf. The candidates resume was also passed out to the comittee. The committee was told that this person had interviewed with the superintendent and had been a candidate for the principalship of Central. This applicant was the #1 choice of the other members (not the teachers) of the committee. The Dep. Supt. continually told the committee \"The superintendent is impressed with this person.\" - Well satisfied What parts worked well? - Equal say by all in the process - All parts until the absent candidate was considered What needs improvement? - Committee members should be involved in the preparation of questions - Dont consider absent applicants 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Unhappy that one applicant was not in attendance - Input significant at first, but \"they knew who they wanted all along.\"LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES FRANKLIN - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Was a member of the regular staffing committee. There was no written or oral description of her role. Joshua received a letter from LRSD requesting a representative on the principals selection committee\nMr. Walker sends whoever is available. The request came in well within time to allow him to participate. There were no written or oral instructions. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? Committee members were to ask the questions and choose the best one. Sterling Ingram explained the interview committee Committee members would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD (Good, Excellent, Adequate, etc.). The committee would use a numerical scoring system. Sterling lead the discussions. The committee could decide which questions each member would ask. They were told that the three highest rated people would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the three top choices and make his recommendations to the school board. The questions were written beforehand by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing, no, no, no. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire\nthey could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. When the committee got together we saw the questions provided. Members went through the questions in order\nawarded points\ngot point totals and took the top three. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire\nthey could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yeah. Yes, however he questioned why the applicant from Dunbar who had never been a principal or an assistant principal was referred. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams The superintendent. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Not a bunch. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin,but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed. The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? 50/50 satisfied. The process worked well, cant pinpoint why. They need to improve the questions\nthey were too \"textbook\". Disliked that committee could not add to the questions or change them. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD, starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews\nno problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board.9. Is there any thing else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? I did not realize how important the scoring was. The people from downtown scored people they didnt like rock bottom.. For example the spread between district personnel scores ranged from 15 to 40 (with 40 being a perfect score). The range between the other committee members was between 5-7 points. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think '7 know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school.\" That would be teacher bias. Some may give \"friends\" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Gibbs Responses Information gathered from a total of five interviews with committee members: two teachers, two parents, one observer. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? After Donna Davis decided to retire, she sent a letter to all Gibbs parents, informing them of her decision. The PTA Board knew that parents at other elementary schools had been involved in the principal selection process. In anticipation of the process, the PTA held a school-wide meeting to discuss the hiring process with all the parents and to talk about parent appointees for the interview committee. The Gibbs parents selected five representatives to serve on the interview committee. Zack Pollett, on of the five named to represent the parents, contacted Larry Robertson to express the parents desire to be included in the hiring process. Larry Robertson referred Pollett to Estelle Matthis. The district did not allow all five parents to serve on the interview committee. The LRSD indicated that only three parents would be used on the interview team. The Gibbs parents sent the three allowed and the other two parents attended the interviews as observers. The observers did not vote. Neither of the teachers interviewed were sure how they were selected for the committee. One teacher member actively lobbied for appointment, but she spoke to some many individuals about it that she had no idea \"what worked\". 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None of the parent or teacher members of the committee were not given any advance information. Some parents contacted LRSD administrators (Matthis, Gremillion, and Robertson), but they received nothing. On the day of the interviews, the committee received a brief orientation from Margaret Gremillion and Larry Robertson. Some parents who served on the Gibbs interview team had extensive experience with personnel matters. As the result of their own experience in hiring, these team members expected to be full participants in the hiring process. They wanted to have a list, well in advance of the interviews, of all applicants who requested Gibbs\nto review the applications and resumes filed by each candidate\nto be able to recruit candidates for interviews\nand to have an active role in determining the candidates to be interviewed by the full committee. None of the parents expectations were met. District officials refused to release the names of candidates or any information about them. A Gibbs parent who is an attorney (but not one of the committee members) filed an FOI request in order to obtain the names of the job seekers. The district waited the maximum three days before responding, and then tried to mail the information rather than have it ready for pick-up, as requested. It took the threat of prosecution for Hurley to turn the names over to the parent. The committee then obtained the list of 27-28 names from the author of the FOI request.Despite the problems surrounding information requests regarding the applicants, all the parents had a good understanding of their role in the actual hiring process. They all said that they knew that their committee was to pick three top candidates, based on their numerical ranking. The superintendent would then chose one of the top three as the next principal. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? The parent and teacher representatives met before the interviews to prepare questions, review the applicants names gained through FOI, and make plans to contact individuals who would have knowledge of the various applicants professional work . The parents did not include the administrative members of the committee because they did not know, in advance, who those representatives would be. During the advance meeting, the Gibbs group prepared a list of ten questions they wanted asked at the interviews, and included the list of questions in a memo mailed to Estelle Matthis and Hank Williams on 6/4/94. Also in the 6/4/94 memo, the committee again asked for names of the applicants, and they indicated five candidates they would like to interview. The LRSD selected five candidates to be interviewed for Gibbs\nonly one of the five LRSD selected also appeared among the names the Gibbs patrons requested. The Gibbs group also recommended procedures for the interview process. As part of the list of proposed procedures, the committee made it clear that they would not be prepared to make recommendation for the principal immediately after the interviews. They asked for another meeting to evaluate the candidates and make recommendations. The procedures section of the memo also stated that the parents had talked with Estelle Matthis and she assured them that the position would remain open for some time. After Estelles assurances, the parents clearly stated (in their memo) that they expected the district to keep seeking new candidates. 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As committee members arrived for the interviews, each received a packet of materials that contained the names of all committee members, the interview questions, the rating sheets, and the names of the candidates to be interviewed. Despite the fact that the Gibbs committee members sent a copy of their ten questions to Estelle and Hank, the questions contained in the packet had been developed by LRSD administrators without parent input. Margaret Gremillion, who seemed to coordinate the Gibbs interview, seemed unfamiliar with the earlier correspondence and questions sent by the Gibbs patrons. After some discussion, the committee incorporated four of their original questions into the LRSD questions. While the Gibbs questions were added to the preset items, the scoring sheets did not include any items except those written by the administration. After the committee interviewed all candidates, They began to discuss the various applicants and the consensus was that none of those interviewed had the right qualifications for Gibbs. All the teacher and parent representatives were in agreement that they would like to interview more applicants. Margaret Gremillion asked the committee members to go ahead and fill out the districts rating forms to document that they had completed the interviews. Margaret stated that she understood that the committee was making no recommendation and she agreed to schedule more interviews. It was agreed that Zack Pollett would contact Margaret at home to find out about the additional interviews. One committee member (Easter Tucker) agreed to complete the rating form only after she was assured the scores would not be construed as a recommendation. When Zack Pollett contacted Margaret Gremillion about the additional interviews, she told him that the superintendent had decided that no more interviews would be conducted. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for you consideration adequate? No! Most of the candidates had limited experience. Only Ed Jackson was an experienced principal. Committee members were also concerned because they were told that all five persons they interviewed had expressed an interest in Gibbs. Committee members later learned that at least two of the five interviewed had not asked for Gibbs, and several individuals who applied for Gibbs were not given interviews. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? We understood that the committee would submit the top three ranked candidates and the superintendent would nominate one of those individuals for the position. The LRSD Board of Directors would then approve or disapprove the decision. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given? None of the Gibbs parents, teachers, or observers believed that they had any meaningful involvement in the principal selection process. The following quotations represent the depth of their frustration. \"0.\" \"None. It was a fake. They wasted our time.\" \"We understand it was all (the principal decision) preordained. Parent involvement was superficial.\" 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Generally the Gibbs group was not satisfied with any of the districts actions. Some parents had praise for the method the Gibbs PTA used to select parent representatives. The schoolwide meeting that the PT A held to select parent representatives was, by far, the most inclusive method of selection used at any school. Some suggestions offered were: Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training\nProvide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each\nAllow the committee to submit names of individuals they would like to interview\nBegin the process earlier in the year to avoid a time crunch and loss of good candidates to other jobs\nAllow more time for interviews\nthirty minutes is not enough. Never again schedule interviews on the final day of the school year. The teachers members missed most of their last day with their classes, and applicants who are currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well. 9) .. Anything else? After the Gibbs committee learned that they would not be given any more candidates to interview, they scheduled an appointment with Dr. Williams to discuss the process. About fifteen parents from Gibbs attended the meeting, during which the superintendent indicated that although he had not yet interviewed any applicants he had someone in mind for the job. During the meeting the superintendent said that he had the rankings that the committee developed. The parents took issue with that and explained that they had made no recommendations, and they wanted to interview more people. Dr. Williams clearly stated that they would interview no more candidates. Later in the moth. Dr. Williams selected Ed Jackson as the next principal of Gibbs. Many Gibbs parents attended the Board meeting that month and several spoke in protest, explaining their perception of the process. After the Board voted to support of Dr. Williams, the Gibbs parents continued to meet and work to reopen the process. The parents secured over 50 signatures on a petition calling for a special meeting of the Board of Directors. The meeting was held on July 7,1994. At the special meeting, the superintendent announced that the district planned to reopen the interviews for the Gibbs principal. As a result, Ed Jackson remains unassigned. At the beginning of this same meeting, the superintendent made a statement regarding the importance of parent involvement. He offered this statement to contradict the impression left by the media when they \"misquoted\" his earlier statement about numerous studies showing that schools worked very well without parent involvement. The original statement caused much consternation at the meeting with Gibbs parents, and caused a mini-furor when it was later reported in the local newspaper. The second round of interviews is set to begin on July 25, 1994. Some Gibbs parents have expressed concern because so many potential candidates have been placed in other positions. They fear that no one will be left to hire. On July 13 or 14, 1994 the district placed Ed Jackson at Gibbs to \"open the school year\". Many parents were upset because he immediately began to walk, talk, and act like the Gibbs principal. Some parents and teachers reported that he discussed major changes in the schools curricular focus, saga continues .. . The 7/29/94 Late breaking update: Marjorie Bassa of PRE selected as Gibbs principal.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES MITCHELL - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Not real sure\nI try to be involved with my kids school activities. Was selected approximately two weeks before the actual interviews. There were no oral or written descriptions. Received a confirmation letter. Notified by letter from the LRSD\nthinks it came from Hank or Sterling - not sure. Joshua sends whoever is available at the time. The letter requesting Joshuas presence can well in time to allow Joshua to participate in the interviews, descriptions. There were no written or oral 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None,. Was told she would be a part of the interviewing committee to select a principal. Received oral instructions on the day of the interviews. The committee would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD. Numbered ratings would represent good, excellent, adequate, etc. Sterling lead the discussion. He let the committee decide on which questions they would ask. Committee was told that the three highest ranked candidates would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the top three and make his recommendation to the school board. The questions were prepared by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing while she was there. The school secretary (who served as a parent representative) got there just as the interviews were starting. The committee members selected the questions they would ask. She asked one of ten questions. Each applicant was asked the same question each time. Committee was told they could ask follow-up or clarification questions. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other\nlooked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question\ncould do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews\nno real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As the process went on, the respondent could not determine what the questions were designed to discover. The questions contained too much educational jargon and the applicants used language unfamiliar to the lay-person. It also seemed that some of the applicants did not understand the questions. After the first few applicants completed their interviews the survey participant said she felt more familiar and could look the applicants in the eye. Committee members tallied responses by points. Members could make comments concerning selection of an applicant. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other\nlooked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question\ncould do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews\nno real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yes, some seemed too qualified. Yes. Had no problem, except wondered why on one school interview a candidate from Dunbar was allowed to apply since she had never been a principal or an assistant principal. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent would make the final decision. The committee submitted their top three choices. The recommendations would be considered but not necessarily chosen. The superintendent would interview the committees top three candidates and make his recommendation to the school board. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Some - since the superintendent chose one of the committees top three. Satisfied with the choice. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin and Mitchell, but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed (by the superintendent). The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Satisfied with the process because she did not have to develop the questions. Did not feel qualified to design questions for a principal. Would have liked more time prior to the interviews to review the questions - understand the terminology - understand what the questions were designed to elicit from the applicants. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews: no problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Was interesting - glad to have done it. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think \"I know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school.\" That would be teacher bias. Some may give \"friends\" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Rightsell Responses Information from interviews with five committee members: three teachers, one parent, and one representative of Joshua. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview conunittee? For the most part, the Rightsell committee consisted of the same individuals who serve on the schools regular staffing committee. One teacher, a white female, said that she was not a member of the staffing committee and she assumed her appointment to the interview to resulted from a need for racial diversity on the committee. None of the committee members received written or oral information on their role prior to the interviews. Committee members received written notice of their appointment about a week prior to the interviews. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All candidates reported that they received oral instructions about the interview process just prior to conducting the interviews. Margaret Gremillion and Sterling Ingram both provided instructions during the orientation. During the orientation Sterling emphasized that all candidates must be asked the same questions (each committee member interviewed at any school emphasized this requirement). After the orientation, all committee members reported understanding that they would interview the candidates and select the top three contenders. Committee members understood that their choices would be forwarded to the superintendent, who would make the final selection. 3) What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interviews? The Rightsell committee was able to add some clarifying questions to those prepared by the LRSD. Committee members did not meet in advance, nor did they review any applicant files or job descriptions. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The interview session began with the orientation. During that time, the committee divided the interview questions among the members. Each candidate also received an orientation and then was interviewed in turn. Committee members took turns asking their assigned interview questions. Each individual developed his/her own system for ranking the candidates. Some scored candidates after each interview. Others waited until the end of all the interviews and then assigned scores to the various candidates, the participants used a 0-4 point rating scale. After committee members completed their scoring, they spent some time discussing the merits of various candidates.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? Four of the five committee members interviewed responded, \"Yes.\" The fifth team member, a parent, said that he was not sure that the number was adequate. In his opinion two of the five interviewees were \"just tossed in\", and were not interested in the job. This parent characterized the process as simply \"going through the motions.\" 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Four of the five respondents believed that their input received adequate weight in the final selection. The fifth said that the district administrators \"scored the people they wanted high and they werent the ones the committee wanted.\" The individual who reported this went on to say that he did not believe that the committees input had any bearing on the final selection. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Four of the five committee members were quite satisfied with the process and made no recommendations for process changes. The fifth member reported dissatisfaction with the general process, but did feel that the interview questions had merit. Some suggestions were: Have earlier team input into individuals to be interviewed Hold the interviews in a more relaxed area (they were held in the LRSD Board room) Suggest adding a question or two regarding how the principal would select other staff members 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? All the team members interviewed said that they enjoyed their experience. Several commented about the friendly and cordial relations between committee members. One committee member said that he would be happy to serve on such committee if he knew that his input was meaningful. This respondent said that he did not want to waste his time, if a decision had already been made. At the time of the interview, the district had not provided feedback to the committee members regarding the ultimate decision.School: Southwest Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - School secretary told her that the superintendents office called and asked if she would serve on the committee - The preseident of the PTA called since she and her husband were active in PTA - Active in PTA - Estelles office called When were you selected? - End of the school year - Last week in May. The interviews were June 9 - About oe week before the actual meeting Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Got a confirmation from Matthis - No written or oral - No. Received a written note thanking me for being on the committee - no \"how to\" 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? -No understanding - Didnt know anything - Interview and rank candidates and supt. would make the final selection What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Oral instructions regarding the selection process - and received written questions - None - None When did you receive these instructions? - On the day of the interviews - Just before starting on the day of the interviews 3.What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Nothing prior - Nothing - Introduced to each otherPrepared interview questions - Reviewed and assigned questions - no additional questions added - Looked at questions Previewed applicant files - No - Didnt review files. Some applicant brought resumes Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Leader introduced everyone b) Questions assigned c) Interviews d) Each member chose top 3 in order of preference e) Form used to rank order the candidates - a) Dr. Mayo reviewed questions b) Asked volunteers to ask questions c) Clarified that all applicants must be asked the same quetions, although you could ask a followup or clarification question - a) Gadberry (actually Mayo) gave instruction on how the process would go b) Questions were already prepared c) Each interviewer was asked to ask 1-2 questions d) Had to rank from highest to lowest and score each candidate, e) At the end, told to rank f) Went around the table to rank 1,23- g) Told the supt. would pick from these three. The administrators rushed the process - told the committee that they had to go to a board meeting. Done so fast, the team couldnt understand how it was done. The committee never rached concensus on candidates or ranking - not done by scale at all. Committee told that they couldnt keep the scoring or ranking papers - that they may be pulled for court. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? - Only one person brought in a resume. There wasno prepared or written information on the candidates. One candidate did not show up because of miscommunication. (The committee member talked later to this candidate, who is a friend of hers) The candidate said that she did not receive an invitation to be interviewed - although Estelle Matthis said she did. - More than adequate - Dont know. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?- Superintendent - Dr. Williams - Superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Selected their #1 choice. Would like to think he put faith in their selection. Really think he chose who he wanted - Apparently a lot - the committees choice was also the superintendents - No earthly idea 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - Not satisfied at all with final ranking and scoring. - Satisfied with the process Not very What parts worked well? - Interviews - Having questions prepared. THe process itself worked well - Diversity of the committee. Asking set questions of all candidates. Selection of candidates. What needs improvement? - Would like to have been informed of how the rankings would be done - that caused some confusion - Would like to preview applicants and check qualifications. Would like to have screened applicants for interviews. More time. Would like to have developed te questions. - Scoring process should be clarified beforehand 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - It was different - not saying it was good or bad. -No - appreciate the opportunity to participate - No - Dr. Mayo said the committee would be informed of the selection before it was published. Found out first in the newspaper and received written notification from the district a week later.Summary of Williams Responses The following summary is based on interviews with four committee members: three parents, and one teacher. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? As usual, the teacher representative had no idea how she was chosen to participate, and the PTA leadership selected the parent members of the committee. All committee members reported receiving a written confirmation of their appointment from the LRSD about a week before the interviews were scheduled. None of the participants received a written description of his/her role. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All interview team members reported receiving and oral orientation given by Sterling Ingram immediately before the interviews began. Until the time of this orientation, participants knew little other than that they would be interviewing candidates for the principals job. The orientation took about five minutes, during which the committee members received their interview packets which included the prepared questions. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? In response to this question, most parents explained the orientation period provided at the beginning of the interview session. Other than that preparation, on the day of the interview, the committee undertook no advance work of any type. One committee member, who is an attorney, wrote to Estelle requesting copies of the applications and resumes for the Williams applicants. Estelle responded that the information requested was confidential and that it was not the practice of the district to share this information. The packet the district provided to the Williams committee included: the names for each candidate with the time of his/her interview, the list of questions to be asked, the ratings forms, and a list of the committee members. The list of pre-written questions was amended to include a couple of question parents were concerned about adding. The committee did not receive written information about any applicants, nor did they see a job description. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The session began with the aforementioned orientation, during which the committee members finalized their questions and divided them among the members. That accomplished the first applicant entered the room, was introduced by Margaret Gremillion, and then interviewed according to the standard process. Committee members used their own system to keep up with a candidates scores. Some members ranked each individual as he/she completed the interview\nother took notes during the interviews and completed their ranking after all interviews were finished. After each individual completed his/her personal evaluation of the candidates Sterling Ingram and Mabel Donaldson totaled the scores for each candidate. None of the committee members voice any dissent with the top three at the time of the interviews. One of the LRSD administrators thanked the members for their participation, and then their work was done. Members reported receiving a thank you note from the superintendent. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicant provided for your consideration adequate? Two of the four respondents replied that both the number and quality of applicants was adequate or better. The other two respondents felt that the number of applicants was sufficient, but that several of the interviewees did not have adequate knowledge of magnet schools. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent with the Boards approval. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Most participants agreed it was given some weight. Some parents expressed the opinion that parental input was not given that much weight due to an earlier meeting the parents had with Dr. Williams regarding Ed Jacksons removal. Dr. Williams made it clear that no amount of parent support would change his mind that Jackson needed to be reassigned. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Responses to this question varied widely from the opinion expressed by one parent who seemed truly pleased with every aspect of the process and would use the same procedures in the future to the opinion expressed by others that felt that the process was superficial and parent involvement was not meaningful. Some suggested improvements were: Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection Provide more advance preparation. Committee members need more time to look at resumes of like material and time to become familiar with the questions and develop their own questions.Improve the advance planning for the interviews. Some parents felt that the district contacted them at the last minute to serve on the interview team in an effort to placate vocal parent groups. 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? One parent closed with two question he said he had been trying to get answered since the change in principals assignments began. These questions were: 1. What school district goal is met by mass reassignment of the principals? 2. What desegregation goal is served by these reassignments? The parent asking these questions stated that parents fear nothing more than instability and upheaval. He fears that the instability caused by the reassignment of so many principals will scare some parents away from LRSD. This parent also commented that if the district wanted to give the parents opinion serious weight, the parents should have been involved in screening the applicants and deciding who to interview for their school.4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. The majority of parent and teacher respondents described an interview process which consisted of the following components: Orientation: According to all respondents, at each school the districts designated committee leader provided a brief orientation on the day of the interviews minutes prior to beginning the first interview. Respondents described these sessions as having been 10-15 minutes long. The leaders began orientations by having committee members introduce themselves. Committee members then received packets containing prepared questions and rating sheets. Question Review: Committee leaders gave parent and teacher representatives an opportunity to read the districts prepared questions. At some schools, participants were permitted to discuss and add questions to the list. Each committee member chose the question(s) they wanted to ask the interviewees. Survey results indicate that the district representatives at all of the schools strongly advised the committee members to ask the same questions of all candidates in the same way. Interviews: Survey results indicate that individual interviews ranged in time from 20 to 30 minutes. Candidates were introduced to the interview committee by the district administrator coordinating the process. Each committee member in turn asked previously assigned questions of the candidate. Respondents from each school indicated that individual committee members could ask followup questions. Although candidate information such as applications and resumes were not viewed by the committees prior to the interviews, candidates at several schools brought and distributed resumes to the committees during their interviews. At each school, at the end of the interview the committee gave each candidate the opportunity to ask questions or provide additional pertinent information. Rating and Ranking: Most survey respondents generally mentioned using a zero to four point scale to rate candidates on each question. Parent respondents from one school stated that although the district allowed them to develop and ask additional questions, the only ones candidates were rated on were the ones provided by the district. Survey responses indicate that individual committee members used varied methods in rating candidates. For example, some committee members provided point ratings as they listened to responses to the questions during the interviews. Other committee members made notes during the interviews and provided point totals for responses after each individual interview or after all interviews were completed. Upon completion of the interviews, varied methods of ranking were described to the monitors by parents and teachers. At some schools, point totals were taken by the process coordinator and a straight ranking by points determined the top three candidates in order. Another option described involved the committee members individually ranking candidates based on their point totals, followed by determining the number of firsts, second, and third place rankings of each candidate.Survey responses indicate that committee discussions after the interviews generally dealt with not only determining the top three candidates, but also whether the committee was satisfied with their choices and the range of applicants they had interviewed. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? Most parents and teachers on school committees expressed general satisfaction with the district hiring process, although they also admitted that there were areas needing improvement. More specifically, although some respondents had no problems with the process, they felt that their participation represented no more than a feint of parental involvement by the district. It was these individuals, who more often felt that some hiring decisions had already been made by the district prior to the interviews. The following aspects of the district hiring process were most frequently identified by parents and teachers as having worked well.  The size and diversity of the interview committees  Having questions prepared in advance  Having parent, teacher and administrator representation on the interview committees  The methods individual PTA groups used to recruit and choose parents for the interview committees. The following suggestions represent a composite of the ones most frequently offered by parents and teachers to improve the district hiring process. The suggestions are categorized according to aspects of the interview process. Parent Recruitment and Contact  Improve advance preparation as it relates to contacting parents to participate. Many committee members were contacted on extremely short notice. This lead to some parents expressing the opinion that their involvement was only \"window dressing\" to placate vocal parent groups. Screening  Have earlier team input into choosing the individuals to be interviewed.Timing of Interviews  Avoid holding interviews during the last week(s) of the school year. Some teachers on the committee missed the last day of classes, and applicants currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well.  Begin the entire process earlier in the year to avoid crunch time and the loss of good candidates to other jobs. Setting  Hold interviews in a more relaxed setting rather the LRSD Board Room. Orientation  Provide more specific instructions to committee members regarding the goals of the process and what they should be looking for in a candidate.  Provide more advance preparation such as reviewing resumes, becoming more familiar with the prepared questions, and developing additional ones.  Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training. Information About Applicants  Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection.  Provide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each. Interview Questions  Add questions regarding how the potential principal would select other staff members  Allow the committee more time to develop additional questions which are more specific to the individual school. Actual Interviews  The interview committees should not consider candidates who fail to show up for the interview.  Individual interviews need to be longer\nthirty minutes is not enough. The period of time provided the committee between individual interviewees should also be lengthened.Rating and Ranking  A better job needs to be done of explaining the rating and ranking process prior to the interviews. A lack of understanding brought about confusion.  Evaluate the weighting of the rating system. Extremely low ratings by a district administrator on the committee could completely offset high ratings by other committee members and cause a candidate to receive an overall lower final rank.SURVEY RESPONSES Q 5, 6, 7 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate: If not, why? A vast majority of the respondents felt that an adequate number of applicants interviewed for the positions, the exceptions being Gibbs and Carver, where most of the interview team members expressed dissatisfaction with the number of applicants provided. On the other hand, results were mixed with regard to the quality of the applicants. Some committee members expressed dissatisfaction with applicants who did not have experience as principals or who had no experience with magnet schools or programs. Candidate interviews were limited in time and scope and not all candidates provided resumes. For the most part, interview teams did not object to the number of applicants. However, several team members felt that the administration \"stacked the deck\" by referring unqualified or poorly qualified applicants along with one candidate who was clearly better qualified professionally, but who was not necessarily temperamentally suitable for the school in question. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the Unai selection of the principal? Responses fell into two main categories. One body of respondents understood that Dr. Williams would make the final selection based upon the committeess top three choices, and while the superintendent may not select their top choice, he would select one of the top three choices. Another group of respondents recognized that Dr. Williams would give their recommendations serious consideration, it was possible that he would not accept any of their recommendations. Additionally, there were a few respondents among both groups who understood that the Board of Directors had the ultimate say in the selection process. Perhaps because LRSD officials did not have an inservice for the selection committees, there was some misunderstanding of the final selection process. Many committee members expressed frustration with the short orientation period provided just before the interviews began. It is easy to see that a lack of adequate preparation time leaves room for miscommunication or poor communication. There was no time for district personnel to get an adequate reading of the committee members understanding of the selection process. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given? Responses ranged from \"none\" to \"a lot\", depending on whether the respondents candidate was selected or not. Several committee members expressed a belief that the superintendent had preselected who he wanted and the interview process was a sham. The administrators were permitted to vote on the candidates also, which lead some of the committee members to feel that the administrators actually determined the top candidate. Some of the members revealed that administrators scored some candidates far too high and others were scored far too low.For the most part committee members did not believe that really selected their principal. Their responses reveal a pattern of accepting that although they provided input during the selection process, unless they selected the person that the superintendent wanted, it made no difference who they wanted for the job. Despite believing that they had no actual control over the selection process, many of the interview team members said they enjoyed being a part of the team.Trends Noted in Responses to ODM Survey of Parents and Teachers 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? At the incentive schools, the interview committees consisted of the same people who serve on the schools regular staffing committees. In some cases, an additional person might have been added to the committee for racial balance purposes. At the other schools, the PTAs were the agents responsible for appointing the parent members to the committees. Despite the PTA involvement, monitors noted that quite a few of the parents who served on committees were also LRSD employees. None of the teacher members knew how they were selected to serve on a committee, but selection of the teachers did not involve the LRCTA. Nearly all the committee members reported being selected about a week before the interviews and receiving a letter of confirmation from the district that also gave the date and time of the interviews. SfTmnT7|-ynnfl Conclusions: While the process used to appoint committee members was not written, it was pretty consistent from school to school. The incentive schools were the anomaly, since they used the regular staffing committees. The incentive school staffing committees included a Joshua representative, but the district sought no participation from Joshua on any of the magnet, area, or secondary school committees. It seems particularly inconsistent to exclude Joshua from the magnet school committees, since a Joshua representative serves on the MRC, just a representative of each of the districts serves on that body. It also seems odd that the district went to the PTA leadership to appoint the parent members, but bypassed the LRCTA membership in the appointment of teachers to the committees. In the past, the union has been asked to provide the names of the teacher appointees to interview committees. A sizable portion of the parent representatives who served on the interview committees were also LRSD employees. While district employees have a great deal of knowledge about how schools operate, the presence of so many teachers and support staff members among the ranks of the parents looks suspect. Individuals who are employed by the district may be more reticent to speak out or question the process followed by the LRSD, than a \"civilian\" would be. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? While many committee members reported a pretty fair understanding of the process, most explained that this was the understanding they had based upon the orientation delivered by LRSD administrators, just minutes before they began to interview candidates. This orientation constituted the sum total of information imparted to committee members. According to the respondents, the district did not furnish any written description of the role of committee members, nor did the district provide any advance written or oral information regarding the candidates identities or qualifications. The Gibbs committee did obtain some information about candidates identities through a FOI request lodged by a parent from outside the committees membership. Many individuals who served on committees said they had no idea what their role would be until they showed up and heard the orientation. In some other instances, notably Gibbs, parents had some awareness of the process because they talked to other parents who had served on interview committees in earlier years. Some of these previous committees had been very active and recruited candidates for interviews. As a result of the consultations with members of prior committees and personnel experience with hiring decisions, some committee members developed very high expectations for meaningful involvement in the process. inclusions: It seems clear that a lot of the misunderstandings and hard feelings generated by the principal hiring process could have been avoided if the LRSD had clearly defined the role of the interview committees at the start. Luckily for the district, many committee members seemed to construe their notification of appointment to an interview committee as no more than a nice opportunity to serve the district and their childs school. These people were content to wait until the day of the interviews for further instructions. A significant minority of the participants took their charge much more seriously. This second group of individuals expected to be full partners in the hirings and took a great deal of time and trouble to prepare questions, conduct background checks, and generally try to become well-informed, active committee members. This dedication to task caused certain parents to expend a great deal of effort as they tried to fulfill their role, as they imagined it should be. If the district had made its intentions clear from the beginning, perhaps the parents would not have felt that they had been mislead and taken advantage of. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? With the exception of the Gibbs committee and one member of the Williams committee, none of the school committees did anything in advance to prepare for the interviews. The parents and teachers who served on the Gibbs committee met in advance and spent a great deal of time developing interview questions and defining what they expected from the process. The Gibbs group forwarded the material they generated to both the superintendent and the deputy superintendent. According to respondents from Gibbs, none of the administrators serving on their committee seemed to have any knowledge of the information previously provided to the LRSD leadership. The members of the Williams interview committee did not meet in advance of the interviews, but one member of the committee reported engaging in correspondence with Estelle Matthis, in an attempt to gain some information to help him prepare for the interviews. This individual and some others reported developing interview questions that they wanted included in the process. While the district used pre-determined questions at every interview, most committee members reported that the committee was able to amend the districts questions, to a certain extent. . JjUUUlUM^^St Conclusions: Advance preparation was nonexistent. If the district had engaged in more advance planning for the interviews, there would have been adequate time to conduct an orientation well in advance of the interview dates. Such advance preparation could have headed off some of the misunderstandings that cropped up at several schools. The commitment of time and effort required to properly train the committee members would be one indication that the district truly valued the committees efforts, and wanted to make the process meaningful. The minimal orientation prior to the interviews may have helped create the widespread impression that much of the process was a front for predetermined decisions.\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_1598","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, reply brief of appellants","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1994-05-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School integration","School management and organization","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, reply brief of appellants"],"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/1598"],"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":["69 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_220","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Third Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs","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":["1994-05-13"],"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 statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Third Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs"],"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/220"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THIRD QUARTER STATUS REPORT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET DOCUMENT FOR NON-DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT May 13, 1994 EXHIBIT 4 SEQUENCE tt Preface Mission Statement Goals District Financial Summary Definitions Organization of the Report Cluster Budget Documents CURRICULUM CLUSTER (PINK) 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 4 Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Kindergarten Special Education Vocational Educational Adult Education Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Curriculum Services TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 15 17 23 27 30 35 37 SEQUENCE # SCHOOL OPERATIONS CLUSTER (BUFF) 209 210 211 212 Elementary Junior High School High School Athletics SCHOOL SUPPORT CLUSTER (BLUE) 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Guidance Services Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services Curriculum Services/VIPS Educational Media Services Board of Education Services Executive Administrative Services Support Service Management Fiscal Services Plant Services Pupil Transport Services Purchasing Services Safety \u0026amp; Security Services Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Services Communication Services Human Resource Services Labor Relations Data Processing Services Family Life/New Futures Indebtedness Contingencies PAGE # 57 60 62 64 73 78 85 90 100 103 107 112 115 117 119 124 129 132 148 154 158 162 166 170 173PREFACE The mission statement and goals of the Little Rock School District serve as guides for all decision-making. The information gained from the Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs will provide direction for quality, interim decision-making as well as summative decision-making. The report enhances the districts ability to monitor and report achievements and expenditures relative to programs which are not a part of the districts Court-Approved Desegregation Plan obligations. The fourth quater report of non-desegregation programs will contain further refinements since this report constitutes the districts first formal report on its non-desegregation programs. Among other things, specific quarterly expenditure information will be provided in addition to the YTD (Year-to-Date) Expenditure information. The Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Non-Desegregation Programs contains the following: (1) The Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District\n(2) The Goals of Little Rock School District\n(3) LRSD YTD (Year-to-Date) Non-Desegregation Expenses Summary\n(4) Definitions and Data Elements\n(5) Organization of the Report\n(6) Non-Desegregation Program Budget Documents, Grouped by Clusters\nand, (7) The LRSD Organizational Chart. 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 35/6/94 Little Rcx\nk School District Year-To-Date Non-Desegregation Expenses Program Seq. No. 201 202 209 210 211 212 203 204 205 206 207 213 215 208 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 232 233 231 Program Name FOUR YEAR OLD/HIPPY KINDERGARTEN_________________ ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH____________________ HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS______________________ SPECIAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ADULT EDUCATION______________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED GUIDANCE SERVICES____________ HEALTH SERVICES_______________ CURRICULUM SERVICES__________ EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERVICES BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVICES EXECUTIVE ADMIN SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICE MGMT________ FISCAL SERVICES________________ PLANT SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORT SERVICES PURCHASING SERVICES__________ SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY SERVICES PLANNING \u0026amp; EVAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES LABOR RELATIONS_______________ DATA PROCESSING SERVICES INDEBTEDNESS_________________ CONTINGENCIES FAMILY UFE/NEW FUTURES_______ TOTAL Btidgrt 93-94 197,600.57 3,261,957.72 20,801,455.73 10,037,956.63 10,081,463.38 255,021.92 6,442,364.21 5,217,443.54 753,499.46 1,119,707.27 1,106,358.49 2,821,387.51 759,421.38 1,959,459.27 2,157,025.96 705,851.08 200,221.49 285,048.02 375,521.82 9,884,857.01 5,704,598.46 1,221,697.63 536,247.72 371,527.05 182,767.29 1,719,479.12 98,865.00 886,895.99 8,870,123.40 700,000.00 530,400.00 99,246,224.12 FTE's 1.00 92.00 732.00 284.00 272.00 0.00 181.00 120.00 25.00 37.00 42.00 78.00 40.00 45.00 61.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 251.00 347.00 16.00 0.00 7.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 2,677.00 YTD Expense _______106,842.82 1,858,568.00 12,350,100.83 6,014,468.69 5,823,632.27 233,241.52 3,942,217.51 3,436,904.84 ______477,378.46 644,149.95 ______663,084.05 1,786,775.75 ______476,731.82 1,395,236.75 1,491,905.22 701,315.92 148,090.39 ______227,453.55 318,422.24 7,005,188.54 4,000,743.37 819,364.25 478,106.37 160,540.24 _______87,684.45 1,285,029.56 _______73,638.77 660,353.67 6,207,712.68 ____________0.00 276,582.49 65,151,464.97 % Budget Spent 54.07% 56.98% 59.37% 59.92% 57.77% 91.46% 61.19% 65.87% 63.35% 57.53% 59.93% 63.33% 62.78% 71.21% 69.16% 99.36% 73.96% 79.79% 84.79% 70.87% 70.13% 67.07% 89.16% 43.21% 47.98% 74.73% 74.48% 74.46% 92.53% 0.00% 52.15% 65.65% 4DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS The following are definitions of terms and data elements used in the Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for NonDesegregation Programs. Program: A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are canied out to serve a specific area of identified need. Program Description: A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participants/beneficiaries related to the respective program. Program Goal: A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. Objectives: Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. Strategies: Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. Achievements: Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy, and evaluation criteria establish measurable and observable levels of performance of the product. Page: Each Program Budget Document uses one or two formatted pages. Program Sequence # (Seq.#): The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. Revision Date: This date is the actual date the program document was first documented or last changed. Program Name: To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. 3DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS Page 2 Primary Leader: The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. Secondary Leader: The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e., the Program Manager, the Principal, and/or the Assistant Superintendent). District Goal Support: Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. Beginning Date: This is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following format: MM/DD/YY (03/31/04). Completion Date: This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (04/01/94). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (50%) should be entered in the Completion Date column. Responsibility: This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. 6ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This section provides guiding information about the text of the Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for NonDesegregation Programs. Pagination: Every page in the text is numbered using Arabic numerals. Pages are consecutively numbered (i.e., 1,2,3,...) throughout the report at the bottom of the page beginning with the \"Preface. The \"Table of Contents\" is on page i. Clusters. Programs have been sorted into broad categories called clusters. Clusters include programs or schools grouped together because of similar and related operational functions. For convenience and management of this report, similar programs have been grouped into three color-coded clusters: Curriculum, School Operations, School Support. To locate a program, determine the relative cluster of the program by using the \"Table of Contents and then refer to the program sequence number (Seq #) or page number for facilitating program reference in the report. Organizational Level. The School Operations Cluster employs only four programs. In addition to Athletics, the School Operations Cluster classifies the fifty schools according to three school organizational leveled programs: Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High. Organizational Chart. An organizational chart has been included to provide reference information matching designated responsible persons with desegregation and non-desegregation programs. 7CLUSTER BUDGET DOCUMENTS 8Curriculum Cluster  4 Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program  Kindergarten  Special Education  Vocational Education  Adult Education  Compensatory Education  Gifted and Talented  Curriculum Services 9Program Sag 201 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program/HIPPY Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Pag\n1 Revision Date: May 10. 1994 The purpose of the program is Io meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the Elementety schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning In all developmental areas - physical social emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high ooncentralion of low income students and in schools that are difficult to desegregate \u0026amp;al #1 - Implement Integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing riisnaritieft in anhiAUAmant Hnal anH atatt is u.sii __ a_i___. .................... . .. ....  1  W --------------f-----------1----........................................ sniiis aiiM AVOUOIIIIV viiiivilllieTIl Willie (, disparities achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that well-trained and motivated. Goal #3  The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate ......... -------- ---------- ~ V.. oiaii, catlu 9iuuaiii will UOfIlUIISlIaid lO their day to day behavior that they accept each diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 2l8t Panflirw f^zsal JtA . CaI!/U* ane4 SA/viea Cnaeeeeial aeve4 eUw.a w.. __________a- .11________________________________ -. r r . -. * --------------------------------'. .........W,..., O..W loi.uii van uiaw as wo pi opal e lUI Hie  I SI Century. Goal #4 - Solicit and secure finanaal and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is mnriuciuA tn laarninn tnr all etiiHante rV\\al JtR . Cnanra ..ii __________________..___ conducive to learning for students. Goal #6  Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. $197,600.57 $106,842.82 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 10 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: 1Program Seq #: 201 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Secondary Leader: Beginning Date Completion Date Pat Price Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Implement early childhood education programs that provide experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental levels. July 1. 1993 June 30, 1994 Dep. Supt., Asst. Supt., Supervisor, Principals, Teachers, Instructional Aides 1. (Annual review of assessment data beginning at the end of the kindergarten year of each child participating in the program. EPSF Post Assessments) (Comparisons of the progress of children who did and did not participate in the program.)  (Standardize achievement tests will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the Early Childhood Program as an intervention strategy.) 1.1 Identify sites for program implementations. July 1, 1993 June 30, 1994 Dep. Supt., Asst. Supt., Supervisor, Plant Services, Principals 1.1 Sites established for program implementations. A. Recommendations turned in to Associate Superintendent. 12/13/93 50% 1.2 Assisted in recruiting teachers and aides as needed. July 1, 1993 June 30, 1994 Human Resource Dept., Principals, Asst. Supt., Supervisor 1.2 Employment of teachers and aides for new and open positions. A. Teachers and aides hired for every classroom. 07/09/93 08/16/93 11Page: 3 Program Seq #: 201 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.3 Obtain materials, supplies and equipment for all new programs. A. Orders sent to vendors for materials, supplies, and equipment. 1.4 Provide inservice and technical assistance for principals, teachers, and instructional assistants. A. Inservice provided\nJuly 28 and 29, 1993 August 17, 1993 September 30, 1993 October 15 and 16, 1993  November 4 and 5, 1993 December 6, 1993 July 1. 1993 07/01/93 July 1. 1993 07/28/93 June 30, 1994 07/01/93 June 30, 1994 85% Supervisor, Purchasing Dept. Supervisor, Staff Development At the end of each year in HIPPY, 80% of the children served will exhibit readiness skills for kindergarten. 1. To provote the HIPPY program |To compose and mail public service announcements to local radio and television stations channel 14 \u0026amp; 16 and flyers) 2. To select HIPPY aides (Interview and select aides\ninitial training of aides and staff\nto enroll families into the program) 12 July 1993 August 1993 July 1993 Sept. 1993 Supervisor Staff 1.3 Materials, supplies, and equipment will be in place to meet LRSD curriculum and licensing requirements. 1.4 Agendas and documentation of inservice evaluations. The Early Prevention of School Failure screening instrument will be used for pre \u0026amp; post assessment for the children upon entering kindergarten to provide data that shows readiness. If students are not proficient in two or more areas, they are identified as \"not ready\". Teacher surveys will be conducted annually to provide information relating to readiness skills.Page: 4 Program Seq #: 201 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3. Arrange logistics with state for the initial training Comment: This is done through HIPPY State Regional Office (Initial training of aides and staff) 4. Conduct home interview and enroll families into program (To enroll families into the program) 5. To recruit families (Compose and mail correspondence to recruit families \u0026amp; intructional aide trainees) 6. Identify families to be served by each coordinator (To determine service of coordinators) 7. Identify families to be served by each aide (To assign families to be serviced by aides) 8. To organize instructional material 9. Conduct three (3) day workshop (To familiarize aides of the HIPPY implementation of LRSD) 10. Obtain material for program {Order material) 11. To orientate enrolled families to the HIPPY program (Conduct orientation meeting) 12. Identify meeting sites of group meetings (Secure meeting sites for group meetings\nmail out notification of meeting sites) 13. To schedule implementation of HIPPY curriculum (Schedule aides weekly home visits: schedule area group meetings, print flyers, schedule weekly service for aides\nschedule aides first teaching with own child. 13 August 1993 Sept. 1993 Aug. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Oct. 1993 Oct. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Oct. 1993 Oct. 1993 Oct. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Sept. 1993 Nov. 1993 Nov. 1993 Supervisor Supervisor/Coordi nator Staff Supervisor Coordinator Secretary Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor/Coordi nator Coordinator Supervisor/Coordi nator A standarized achievement test will be given to each child at the end of the thrid grade as a comparison between the HIPPY students and a control group.Page: 5 Program Seq #: 201 Revision Date: May 5. 1994 Program Name: Four-Year-Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To establish and maintain developmentally appropriate Early Childhood programs for pre-school children. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 14. To provide parents with information that will assist them with their own children (Schedule workshop for parents \u0026amp; aides, mail out \u0026amp; print materials) 15. To evaluate aide traineese mid-point 15th week. (To evaluate each aide trainee) 16. Conduct survey of parents-print materials (To determine program success) 17. Implement second part of HIPPY curriculum. A. print material B. print flyers (Begin second part of program implementation) 18. Evaluation of aides 19. Obtain a site and speaker and schedule a lecture for parents (provide parents with information to be successful with their children) 20. Build the aides and children's self esteem (Activities) 21. Graduation of HIPPY children and aides reception (Staff will organize) 22. Evaluate aides (Schedule final evaluation of traineees in program) 23. To begin implementation of HIPPY program (Staff in place) 24. Maintain regular staff (Secretary) 25. Aides made home visit (To assist in traveling expense) 14 Nov. 1993 Dec. 1993 Jan. 1994 Feb. 1994 March 1994 March 1994 April 1994 June 1994 June 1994 June 1994 July 1994 July 1994 Nov. 1993 Dec. 1993 Jan. 1994 May 1994 March 1994 March 1994 April 1994 June 1994 June 1994 June 1994 June 1995 June 1995 SupervisorZCoordi nator Coordinator Supervisor SupervisorZCoordi nator Coordinator Supervisor Staff Staff Coordinator Supervisor Supervisor StaffLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: 202 Page: 1 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Kindergarten Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Description: In accordance with state standards the Little Rock School District maintains a full day kindergarten program that renders an environment which provides a variety of experiences appropriate to the child's developmental stage. Services are provided to these students by certified teachers. District Goal Support: Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal #2  Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3  The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will  ----- -------- ----------1--------I..Ml i.u.xwM uiiu Miwiivaicu. uuai  Ilie t-iiiie nuLR oi,iiuui Dudiu, duiiiiiiisiraiiori, siarr, ana siuoenis win demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Goa! #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal #6  Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: To provide appropriate instructional services to all kindergarten students. I Plan References: 1 FY Program Budget: $3,261,957.72 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend\nFTE 92 YTD Expenditures: $1,858,568.00 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\n[ Related Function Codes: 1 15Program Seq #: 202 Program Name: Kindergarten Program Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nPage: 2 Revision Date\nMay 5, 1994 Pat Price To provide appropriate instructional services to all kindergarten students. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Implement kindergarten programs in accordance with state standards and district guidelines. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Asst. Supt., Supervisors, Principals, Teachers 1. Programs will be in place to meet state standards and district guidelines. 1.1 Assist in recruiting certified teachers as needed. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Human Resource Dept., Principals, Asst. Supt., Supervisor 1.1 Employment of teachers for new and open positions. A. All teachers hired. 07/01/93 08/23/93 1.2 Obtain materials, supplies, and equipment for all new programs. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Supervisor, Purchasing Dept. 1.2 Materials, supplies, and equipment will be in place to meet L.R.S.D. curriculum and state standards. A. Equipment and supplies ordered and disseminated. 07/01/93 09/10/93 1.3 Provide inservice and technical assistance for teachers. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Supervisors, Staff Development, Principals 1.3 Agendasand documentation of inservice evaluations. A. Inservice provided for all Kindergarten teachers. 08/16/93 85% 1.4 Ensure proper documentation and evaluation of student progress. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Asst. Supt., Supervisor, Principals Annual reviews of data pre and post EPSF assessments. A. Pre-EPSF testing completed. 08/23/93 09/10/93 1.5 Provide inservice and technical assistance for principals, teachers, and instructional assistants. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Supervisor, Staff Development' 1.5 Agendasand documentation of inservice evaluations A. Inservice provided for all kindergarten staff and principals. 08/16/93 85% 16Progran Seq *: 203 Progm Neae: Special Education Progran Code: Prinary Leader: Progran Description: District Goal Support: Progran Goal: [ Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Psge: 1 Revision Date: May 10, 1994 Purpose Special education is specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, conchjcted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings\nand instruction in physical education. services ore provided in accordance with each child's Individual Education Program (lEP). A student is determined eligible for special education services'uhen disability is present as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that results in an adverse effect on educational performance and the corresponding need for special education services. A full continuun of services is provided which includes multiple options for placement. Students served through special education services have been identified as having disabilities defined by the IDEA.  ' ------------- district's population or 2,D26 students received special education services (Dec. 1, 1992 count). This includes instruction Scope and Content Special education a Participants/beneficiaries During the 1992-93 school year, 8.13X of the Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Little Rock school Board, adainistration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation con draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. ' '  and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. '  .... ...................................... Goal #6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Goal #5 * Provide a safe The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least restrictive environment. 1 $6,442,364.21 $3,942,217.51 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 181 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: Related Function Codes: 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1290, 1292, 2142 17Program Seq *: 203 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Nimber NA LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Patty Kohler The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least restrictive environment. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Coi^letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide itinerant instruction to eligible students in accordance with each child's lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process. 1.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/93 08/16/93 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors 1.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. All teachers hired 07/01/93 08/16/93 1.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials ordered, disseminated 1.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered, received B. New forms ordered, delivered C. All folders monitored 1.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool inservice B. Functional vision inservice C. AAMR inservice attended by 2 examiners/4 supervisors D. Memo to Romine re: inservice needs E. Hearing Impairment Inservice F. Paraprofessionals Inservice G. Elementary Resource Inservice 18 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/01/93 10/06/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 12/17/93 12/17/93 06/30/94 12/17/93 01/05/94 12/02/93 06/30/94 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers Director, Supervisors 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pi lot projects where new materials are used will be identified 1.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 1.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be providedProgram Seq f: 203 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Nuiber Objectives 2.  Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 3 Revision Date: Patty Kohler Provide Resource instruction to April 21, 1994 ' appropriate special education and related services in each child's least Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria H. I. J. K. Speech Therapists Inservice Secondary Resource Inservice Elementary Self-Contained Inservice Secondary Self-Contained Inservice 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 eligible students in accordance with each child's lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 2.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/93 08/16/93 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors 2.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. All teachers hired 07/01/93 08/16/93 2.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials ordered, disseminated 2.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered, received B. New forms ordered, delivered C. All folders monitored 2.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool inservice B. Functional visual inservice C. AAMR inservice attended by 2 examiners/4 supervisors D. Hemo to Romine re: inservice needs 19 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/01/93 10/06/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 12/17/93 12/17/93 06/30/94 12/17/93 01/05/94 12/02/93 06/30/94 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers Director, Supervisors 2.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identified 2.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 2.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be providedPage: 4 Program Seq *: 203 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least restrictive environment. Plan Reference Page Nuntier Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Con^letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria E. Hearing Impairment Inservice 10/20/93 10/20/93 G. H. I. J. K. 3. Provide special class instruction to eligible students in accordance with each child's lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 3.1 Paraprofessionals Inservice Elementary Resource Inservice Speech Therapists Inservice Secondary Resource Inservice Elementary Self-Contained Inservice Secondary Self-Contained Inservice Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students A. All teachers hired 3.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials ordered, disseminated 3.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered, received B. New forms ordered, delivered C. All folders monitored 3.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 20 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/01/93 10/06/93 07/01/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 08/16/93 08/16/93 12/17/93 12/17/93 06/30/94 12/17/93 01/05/94 12/02/93 06/30/94 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers Director, Supervisors 3.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided 3.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be Iisted. Pilot projects where new materials are used will be identified 3.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 3.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be providedPage: 5 Program Seq *: 203 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: The goal of the special education program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least restrictive environment. Plan Reference Page Nudoer Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Con^letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Preschool inservice 08/17/93 08/17/93 B. Functional vision inservice 09/13/93 09/13/93 C. AAMR inservice attended by 2 examiners/4 supervisors D. Hemo to Romine re: inservice needs E. Hearing Impairment Inservice Paraprofessionals Inservice G. Elementary Resource Inservice H. Speech Therapists Inservice Secondary Resource Inservice J. Elementary Self-Contained Inservice K, Secondary Self-Contained Inservice 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 4. Provide homebound and hospital instruction to eligible students in accordance with each child's lEP, to be reviewed on an annual basis through federally mandated review process 4.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/93 08/16/93 Director, Human Resources, Supervisors 4.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. All teachers hired 07/01/93 08/16/93 4.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students A. Materials ordered, disseminated 4.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates A. Test materials ordered, reviewed B. New forms ordered, delivered 21 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/01/93 12/17/93 12/17/93 06/30/94 12/17/93 01/05/94 Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers 4.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pi lot projects where new materials are used will be identified 4.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandatesPage: 6 Program Seq *: 203 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Special Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Patty Kohler Program Goal: restrictive enviro^nt program is to provide all eligible students with disabilities appropriate special education and related services in each child's least Plan Reference Page Nuiber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Conpletion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria C. All folders monitored 4.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately A. Preschool inservice B. Functional vision inservice C. AAMR inservice attended by 2 exaininers/4 supervisors D. Memo to Romine re: inservice E. Hearing Impairment Inservice F. Paraprofessionals Inservice G. Elemenatry Resource Inservice H. Speech Therapists Inservice I. Secondary Resource Inservice J. Elementary Self-Contained Inservice K. Secondary Self-Contained Inservice 5. Provide extended year services to eligible students in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 5.1 Identify and employ certified, qualified teachers to deliver services to students 5.2 Identify equipment, material and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students 5.3 Ensure completion of appropriate evaluations and documentation for each student in accordance with State and Federal Mandates 5.4 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 22 10/06/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 07/01/93 12/02/93 06/30/94 08/17/93 09/13/93 08/11/93 09/22/93 10/20/93 10/22/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/09/93 11/16/93 11/16/93 06/30/94 Director, Supervisors Director, Human Resources, Supervisors Director, Teachers, Supervisors Supervisors, Examiners, Principals, Teachers Directors, Supervisors 4.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided 5.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided 5.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed. Pi lot projects where new materials are used will be identified 5.3 Monitoring reports will indicate increased levels of compliance with applicable law and mandates 5.4 Inservice participants, dates, and topics will be provided nLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Prograa Seq *: 204 Page\n1 Prograa Maae : Vocational Education Prograa Code: Priaary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Carol Green Revision Date: May 10, 1994 Prograa Description: Vocational education is designed to provide a program of learning experiences to develop skilled and adaptable workers who are prepared to pursue additional learning opportunities that will result in more productivity. enhancing family, civic, and personal responsibilities. Vocational education also develops abilities, attitudes, and appreciations that contribute to a satisfying life Education is vocational when it provides instruction in the why and \"how\" to students, rather than instruction ''about\" things. It is concerned with the development of the individual student in five areas: (1) personal skills and attitudes, (2) conmunication, (3) employability skills, (4) broad and specific occupational skills and knowledge, and (5) a foundation for career planning and lifelong learning. The content of the vocational curriculun includes any and every source which will add specifically to the students proficiency in a chosen occupation. Such a course of study may include related physics, English (applied communications), applied math, applied biology and chemistry, or other subject matter or information needed to make the learner a more efficient worker. Course offerings in vocational education are available in all secondary schools and include the following programs: (1) Business and Marketing, (2) Nome Economics, and (3) Trade and Industrial Technology. On the junior high level, vocational courses include: Technology Education I and II. Specialized courses are offered at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center. Career Orientation, Keyboarding, Computer Technology and Exploring Industrial Vocational education instruction is offered to all students who need, desire and can profit from it. background, or handicapping conditions are included within the scope of vocational education. All youth, regardless of race, gender, economic or social District Goal Si^iport: (1) Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a staff that is well trained and motivated. (3) The Little Rock School Board adninistration staff and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contribution to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st century. (4) Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan (5) Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operation. Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan References: FY Program Budget: $5,217,443.54 1st Otr Expend: 3rd Otr Expend: FTE 120 YTD Expenditures: $3,436,904.84 2nd Otr Expend: 4th Otr Expend: I Related Fmction Codes: 1321, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1341, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1362, 1371, 1392, 1360, 1362, 2410 ] 23LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq *: 204 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Associate Superintendent for Curriculum Secondary Leader: Director of Vocational Education Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanoino societv and technological workplace. Plan Reference Page Nimber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Coaf\u0026gt;letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide quality instruction to all students enrolled in vocational courses. 1.1 Identify and employed certified teachers to deliver quality learning experiences and skilled training to students. 07/01/93 08/10/93 Director, Assistant Director, Principals, Human Resources Director and Teacher Recruiter 1.1 A list of certified teachers or applicants will be provided. A. Teachers have been identified through an audit and information disseminated regarding planned inservice. 07/01/93 54X have completed this training 1.2 Identify equipment, materials and supplies needed. 07/01/93 04/15/94 Director, Assistant Director, Teachers 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed and prioritized A. Teacher requested purchase orders approved upon submission if proper forms. B. Task Force reconmendation submitted to the Review Board for approval. 1.3 Provide inservice training for teachers as needed to deliver quality instruction to students. 07/01/93 06/01/94 Director, Assistant Director, Staff Development Director 1.3 A listing of inservice dates, topics, and participants wi11 be provided. A. Pre-school inservices held August 4 and August 11. B. Race Relations Inservice October 18, 1993 1.4 Provide an opportunity for teachers to keep abreast of changing technological needs and training in the workplace. 24 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 08/11/93 10/18/93 06/30/94 Director, Assistant Director 1.4 A list of professional meetings and conferences teachers have attended will be provided.Page: 3 Program Seq *: 204 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Associate Superintendent for Curriculum Secondary Leader: Director of Vocational Education Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop workplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanging society and technological workplace. Plan Reference Page Nuriser Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Coaf)letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. Review, update, or revise course offerings to reflect the needs and trends of the 21st century. 3. Maintain all equipment used in skilled training labs. 4. Awareness activities to promote vocational education will be made available to all students. 2.1 A vocational task force will be organized to address issues of the course offerings. A. Task Force meetings held December 9, January 5, and January 20. 3.1 Identify equipment in need of repair or replacement in the vocational skilled training labs. A. Requests for equipment repair submitted as needed to the Vocational Office. 4.1 Recruitment activities through advertisement, flyers, videos, and student presentation will be made available to all students. A. recruitment flyers and course offerings flyers developed for teacher recruitment. B. Vocational teachers begin student recruitment for 94-95. 4.2 Tech Prep conmittee awareness campaign to inform parents about Tech Prep and it's benefits. A. Vocational Director addressed PTA Council on Tech Prep 25 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 01/05/94 03/01/94 07/01/93 12/14/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 03/01/94 35X complete 04/15/94 100X complete Director, Assistant Director Director, Assistant Director, Principals, vocational teachers. Vocational teachers. Director, Task Force, and Advisory Conmittees. Director, Assistant Director, Tech Prep Coordinator 2.1 Recommendations made by the task force will be identified and completed. 3.1 All ski I led lab equipment will be identified for needed repair and maintenance. 4.1 a) Surveys will be conducted to determine how students became aware of vocational education (b) Monitoring of student enrollment will determine the success of the awareness sessions. 4.2 List of all awareness sessions and Public Relations Activities will be compiled.Page: 4 Program Seq f: 204 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Vocational Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Associate Superintendent for Curriculum Secondary Leader: Director of Vocational Education Program Goal: To provide the opportunity for all students to develop uorkplace skills, problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills necessary for success in an everchanqinq society and technological workplace. Plan Reference Page Nuiijer Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Vocational Director briefly explained Tech Prep to televised LRSD Board Meeting audience C. Vocational Director spoke to parents at Cloverdale Junior High's College Night about Tech Prep. D. Tech Prep brochures developed, printed and distributed at junior high levels. E. Vocational counselor and Tech Prep Coordinator visited Pulaski Heights Junior High to talk with ninth grades about Tech Prep. 26 01/20/94 01/25/94 02/01/94 03/07/94 100% complete 100% complete 03/18/94 25% completeProgram Seq 205 Program Name: Adult Education Program Code\nPrimary Leader: LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: Revision Date: May 10, 1994 Paulette H. Martin 1 Program Description: Adult Education is specially designed instruction at no cost to students to upgrade their educational level and or to help them obtain a high school equivalency (GED) diploma. This includes instruction at the Adult Education Center and its satellite programs in businesses, industries, various community and state agencies and chores. Scope and content Adult Education services are provided in accordance with each student's needs and goals. A student Is eligible for Adult Education services if he/she is at least sixteen years of age or older and has been released from regular public school by the superintendent or his/her designee or is eighteen years of age and has withdrawn or dropped out of public school. Partlclpants/beneficiarles Students served in Adult Education are identified as having withdrawn or dropped out of public school. During the 1992-93 school year, 3076 students received Adult Education serves. District Goal Support: Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that willl ensure that all students grow academically, socially, and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment whille closing disparties in achievement. Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to full support our schools. Goal # 5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal # 6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: The goat of the Adult Education Program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of adults and to assist adults in obtaining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma. I Plan References: FY Program Budget: $753,499.46 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend\nFTE 26 YTO Expenditures: $477,378.46 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\nI Related Function Codes: 1410, 1420, 1445, 1490 27Program Seq 205 Program Name\nAdult Education Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number NA LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nPage: 2 Revision Date\nApril 21, 1994 Paulette H. Martin The goal of the Adult Education program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of adult and/or to assist adults in obtaining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide instruction to eligible students in Basic Literacy. General Adult Education, and Computer Literacy using the annual Effective arxl Efficient Criteria as mandated by the State Department of Education for review of programs. 1.1 Identify and employ qualified teachers to deliver services to students 07/01/93 06/30/94 Director, Human Resources\nDirector, Adult Education 1.1 A list of certified teachers will be provided A. All teachers hired 08/02/93 08/16/93 1.2 Identify equipment, materials, and supplies needed in order to deliver services to students 07/01/93 06/30/94 Director, Ass't Director, Teacher, examiners 1.2 Equipment, materials and supplies will be listed A. Materials Ordered 08/02/93 08/17/93 B. Materials disseminated 08/02/93 09/20/93 1.3 Provide Inservice training for teachers as needed to ensure that students are served appropriately 07/01/93 06/30/94 Director 1.3 Inservice participants, dates and topics will be provided A. Preschool Inservice 08/17/93 08/18/93 B. Safety \u0026amp; Security 09.23/93 09/23/93 1.4 Promote the Adult Education Program A. Recruiter distributes posters/brochures to grocery stores, barber/beauty shops, medical clinics, public health units, churches B. Tapes made and running on local TV and radio stations C. Assistant Director speaks to Incentive School parents about services offered 26 07/01/93 08/02/93 11/15/93 10/18/93 06/30/94 50% 50% 10/18/93 Director, Ass't Director, Recruiter, teacher 1.4 Copies of tapes, brochures, and posters will be provided as well as a schedule of places visited by the recruiter.Page: 3 Program Seq #: 205 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Adult Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Paulette H. Martin Program Goal: The goal of the Adult Education program is to upgrade the basic literacy skills of adult and/or to assist adults in obtaining their high school equivalency (GED) diploma. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.5 Submit Proposals and secure financial resources that are necessary to support the Adult Education Program A. Direct arxl Equitable proposal B. Correctional/Institutionalized C. Adult Basic Education, General Adult Education 1.6 Set up additional satellite Adult Education classes when requested A. McClellan Community School 6. Tomberlin Church of God In Christ C. Word of Outreach Christian Church D. Crystal Hill Baptist Church E. University of Arkansas Medical Services F. Old Martin Luther King G. Sysco Foods, Inc. H. Salvation Army 29 07/01/93 01/06/94 03/04/94 07/01/93 11/08/93 10/04/93 01/10/94 01/03/94 02/08/94 09/08/93 02/07/94 03/07/94 06/30/94 01/11/94 03/08/94 06/30/94 05/12/94 05/26/94 05/26/94 05/26/94 03/15/94 06/07/94 04/20/94 06/05/94 Director Director 1.5 Copies of proposal will be provided 1.6 List of satellite classes will be providedLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Saq *: 206 Page\n1 Revision Dale: May 10, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Stovall/Trowell/Parker Program Description: Compensatory Education funded programs are designed to improve the quality of LRSD's academic programs. Activities include supplemental instruction for students, resource materials, inservice education for teachers, and support for parental involvement. District Goal Support: (1) Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Program Goal: Disparity reduction \u0026gt; to assist low-achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. I Plan References: I FY Program Budget: $1,119,707.27 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 37 YTD Expenditures: $644,149.95 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\nI Related Function Codes\n1560, 1570, 1595 30Program Seq 206 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page\n2 Revision Date\nMay 5, 1994 Adams/Stovall/Trowell/Parker To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To use an integrated shared reading/writing approach of instruction to promote student independence as readers, writers, and learners, (fourteen schools, K-3) 03/01/94 06/03/94 Principals and Teachers 1. The teacher assessment component provides: 1) quantitative data on thinking skills, listening, talking, reading, and writing and 2} cumulative literacy profile on student progress in the classroom and at home. 1.1 Purchase and distribute materials and supplies to schools. A. Materials distributed with coding instructions to participating schools. 1.2 Provide additional time for instruction using the Shared Reading/Writing Approach through thematic units utilizing these materials. A. Fourteen on-site visits by reading specialists reflect additional time provided for instruction utilizing these materials. 1.3 Provide whole group instruction for all K-1 students and additional small group and individual instruction as needed. 1.4 Provide second and third grade students with instruction using the Shared Reading/Writing Approach. A. Reading teachers schedules reflect the additional instructional time for identified students. 31 02/16/94 02/25/94 03/01/94 03/07/94 03/01/94 03/01/94 03/07/94 02/25/94 02/25/94 06/03/94 04/21/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 04/21/94 Director of Reading and IRC Reading Specialists Principals, First Grade Teachers, and Reading Specialists Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals, Classroom Teachers, and Reading Specialists 1.1 Documentation of purchase orders. 1.2 The number of developed thematic units will comprise the evaluation. 1.3 Record of classroom observation and schedules. 1.4 Schedules and list of students.Page: 3 Program Seq #: 206 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Stovall/Trowell/Parker Program Goal: To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.5 Provide participating teachers and administrators with a minimum of nine hours staff development. A. Shared Reading/Writing Workshop {6 hours) B. Shared Reading/Writing Workshop {6 hours) C. Shared Reading/Writing Workshop (3 hours) 1.6 Provide summer scholarships to train the trainers. A. Eight teachers are scheduled to attend training in July, 1994. 11/02/93 11 /02/93 11/03/93 04/06/94 06/30/94 04/20/94 06/03/94 11/02/93 11/03/93 04/06/94 08/01/94 08/01/94 Director of Reading and Rigby Consultants Director of Reading and Rigby Consultants 1.5 List of participants with evaluations. 1.6 List of trainers. 2. To improve students' abilities to analyze, explain, and summarize materials from books and tapes utilizing the reading styles approach, (two schools) 03/01/94 06/03/94 2. The evaluation criteria includes the recognition of the sound of letters in isolation and in words, and in how to blend sounds together. 2.1 Diagnose students' reading styles in four areas\ntactic, visual, kinesthetic, auditory. A. Thirty-three reading style inventories were completed at Chicot. 2.2 Structure students' work around identified reading styles. A. Reading styles inventories have been completed by 173 students. 2.3 Actively involve students in learning activities. A. Thirty-three individual learning plans have been completed, placing the learning styles inventory into group instruction and individuals. 32 03/01/94 01/14/94 03/01/94 01/05/94 03/01/94 01/14/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 03/24/94 Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers 2.1 The number of Reading Styles Inventories completed. 2.2 Students' Individual Learning Plan. 2.3 Students' Individual Learning Plan.Page: 4 Program Seq #: 206 Revision Date\nMay 5, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader\nEstelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Stovall/Trowell/Parker Program Goal: To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3. To improve students' vocabulary and comprehension skills through phonics related reading, (one school) 4. To promote communications between home and school. 2.4 Send home appropriate books and corresponding tape recordings for the reading styles of targeted students. A. Four purchases have been completed and 3,185 items have been received and catagorized. 3.1 Use the Direct Instruction Program in phonics to teach students. 3.2 Provide target students with presentation books, story books, homework, and materials. 4.1 Inform parents regarding instructional approaches. A. Organized instructional setting  24 hours of training. B. Three workshops have provided thirteen hours of staff training in Corbo's Reading Sy\\tyles Based Instruction. 4.2 Conduct conferences with parents on student progress. 33 03/01/94 01/14/94 03/01/94 03/01/94 03/01/94 03/01/94 03/01/94 08-12-93 01/05/94 03/01/94 06/03/94 03/24/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 08/23/94 03/16/94 06/03/94 Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Classroom Teachers Principals and Teachers Principals and Teachers 2.4 The number of purchases and record of usage. 3. The criteria consists of: a) reference data in reading\nb) amount of peer tutoring\nc) number of discipline problems\nd) parental communication\ne) number of identified reading styles. 3.1 Activities contained in the daily lesson plan will comprise the evaluation. 3.2 Record of books students read annually. 4. Record of take-home materials. 4.1 Documentation of communications. 4.2 Documentation of conferences.Page: 5 Program Seq #: 206 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Program Name: Compensatory Education Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Adams/Stovall/Trowell/Parker Program Goal: To assist low achieving students to make accelerated progress and catch up. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.3 Provide take-home books and materials for parents. 03/01/94 06/03/94 Principals and Teachers 4.3 Record of send-home materials. 5. To reduce education deficit in reading of target students in grades seven through twelve by reinforcing the regular education program with Language Arts Plus. 08/23/93 06/03/94 Language Arts Supervisor 5. Criteria consists of Pre and Post Norm Referenced data in Reading/Language Arts for participating students. 5.1 Reduce language arts class size and add an enrichment class to the schedule. 5.2 Provide tutorial and remedial learning experience in the enrichment class. 5.3 Employ a variety of instructional strategies which permit teachers to clarify, enhance or remediate in the academic setting. 07/01/93 08/23/93 08/23/93 08/23/94 06/03/94 06/03/94 Principal Principal/ Classroom Teacher Principals and Language Arts Teachers 5.1 Class size at each school site and schedules will comprise the evaluation. 5.2 The number of students, tutor and schedule of session will comprise the evaluation. 5.3 Daily lesson plans will comprise the evaluation. 6. To prevent school failure and dropout with additional assistance from tutors in reading and mathematics. 08/23/93 06/03/94 6.1 The Little Rock School District will purchase the following tutoring services from the Cornerstone Project: A) Ten certified tutors who has special training in working with remedial students\nB) Tutors will work with students through one-on-one situation or in groups not to exceed four students\nC) Students will receive one hour of instruction in reading and one hour in mathematics\nD) Review individual student performance with parents\nE) Cornerstone Project's Parent Action Committee will provide a forum for communication among parents, tutors and staff\nP) Parent education seminars will be offered for parents awareness\nG) The service wilt be Monday through Thursday for nine months or 180 days. 34 Director of Federal Programs 6.1 Students' progress will be monitored by receiving school report, quarterly grade reports, contact with school counselors, and progress with tutoring materials.LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: 207 Page: 1 Revieion Date: May 10, 1994 Program Name: Gifted Programs Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Mable Donaldson Program Description: The Little Rock School District's Gifted Program offers to its students through a design that consists of observation and enrichment for all students in grades K-2. Resource rooms and indirect services are provided for grades 3-6 and special classes for students in grades 7-12 . The program operates in compliance with the Arkansas Depart of Education's Gifted and Talented Approval Standards. The Standards provide the framework for establishing equitable criteria for the Identification of gifted and talented students. Services are provided to these students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credit in gifted educabon. District Goal Support: Goal #1 - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal # 2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal # 3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21$t Century. Goal # 4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal # 5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conductive to learning for all students. Goal # 6 \u0026gt; Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: To provide appropriate instructional services to all identified students. I Plan References: ] FY Program Budget: $1,106,356.49 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 42 YTD Expenditures: $663,084.05 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: I Related Function Codes: 1 35LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq 207 Revision Date: May 5, 1994 Program Name: Gifted Programs Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Mable Donaldson Program Goal: To provide appropriate instructional services to alt identified gifted students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Provide resource room and indirect instructional services to identified students according to district and state curriculum guidelines 07/01/93 06/30/94 G/T Supervisor, Coordinator, Teachers 1.1 Identify certified teacher(s) (specialists) to provide needed services at each school. A. Specialist positions filled at all schools. 1.2 Aid schools in providing materials, supplies, external laboratory experiences and participation in local, state and national activities. A. Invoices and requests received from schools. 1.3 Ensure proper documentation and evaluation of student records (placement) according to district and state guidelines. A. Monitoring of school records scheduled 1.4 Provide inservice training for teachers (specialists) to ensure that students are receiving appropriate instructional services 36 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 09/17/93 06/30/94 50% 06/30/94 25% 06/30/94 Supervisor, Coordinator, Human Resources Dept. Supervisor, Coordinator, Principals Supervisor, Coordinator, Principals, Specialists Supervisor, Coordinator, Staff Development, Curriculum Supervisors List of certified teachers serving each school. Invoices, copies of requests and memberships and/or participation in various activities. Copies of monitoring report and school visitation logs Agendas, participation roster, inservice evaluationsLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq 208 Pag: 1 Revision Dale\nMay 10, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Description\nThe Little Rock School District's Division of Curriculum Services seeks to improve curriculum design and delivery K-12 that is consistent with state guidelines and national recommendations. This division works to ensure alignment between the written, taught, and tested curriculum as determined by student assessment. Rnally, efforts are made to ensure that instructional delivery is based on sound teaching principles and grounded in educational research. To accomplish these ends, this division strives to identify, develop, and provide educational resources, staff development, and technical assistance to the schools. District Goal Support: Goal #1 Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal #6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. I Plan References: FY Program Budget: $1,959,459.27 1st Qtr Expsnd: 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE 45 YTD Expenditures: $1,395,236.75 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: I Related Function Codes: 1190, 1193. 2211, 2212, 2490, 3800, 4900, 2219 37LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Develop a coordinated and articulated curriculum that is comprehensive and demonstrates congruence between what is written, taught, and tested. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals 1.0 Revised curriculum is in place that responds to the recommendations curriculum audit. of the Comprehensive review process is in place. 1.1 Development of curriculum guides through the assistance of district-wide committees 07/01/93 80% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Certified Teachers, Principals 1.1 Curriculum guides are in place and are aligned with District objectives A. Curriculum guides were revised in all areas in July, 1992 B. Business case was prepared to revise the science curriculum guide during the 94-95 school year C. Additions made to G/T K-6 Resource Guides to provide additional support in K-2 area D. Revision of Special Education Appraisal Guide 1.2 Provide inservice training for teachers to assist in effective delivery of the curriculum A. Inservices provided for G/T specialists and facilitators B. Inservice training provided in social studies and multicultural education with an emphasis on integrating the curriculum 38 09/01/91 02/01/94 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/92 03/09/94 09/15/93 90% 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals 1.2 Documentation of inservice activities are available 1.2 Test scores will demonstrate improvementPage: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 3 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria C. Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science and math provide inservice for individual teachers and groups of teachers regarding strategies and techniques for delivering the curriculum D. Approximately seventy-five (75) inservices and/or minicourses were conducted to assist in effective delivery of the core curriculum areas E. Inservice provided to all special education staff 1.3 Provide technical assistance as needed for individual school sites and/or individual teachers A. Technical assistance is provided as needed or requested in all curricular areas B. Special education supervisors are assigned to and visit all schools regularly 1.4 Assist schools in the selection of appropriate materials and resources for delivering the curriculum effectively to students A. Assistance provided to twenty-four (24) schools in the selection, purchase, and delivery of materials and resources for all K-1 B. Assistance as requested was made to schools in the area of multicultural materials C. Replacement \"hands-on\" science supplies are provided for schools to help in the impiemenucion of the curriculum 39 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 08/07/93 07/01/93 08/16/93 08/01/93 08/16/93 06/30/94 03/25/94 01/04/94 75% 06/30/94 75% 75% 10/01/93 06/30/94 06/01/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Staff Development 1.3 Weekly visitation logs reflect visits for technical assistance 1.3 Test scores will demonstrate improvement 1.4 Materials and resources are in place 1.4 Requisitions for materials are on filePage: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 4 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. Appropriate GZT materials ordered for all programs E. Assistance provided to equip new King school with appropriate G/T materials for students and curriculum development F. Special education supervisors assist in selection/provision of materials 1.5 Analyze standardized test results together with Abacus and/or other appropriate data to revise and/or modify curriculum as needed 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/01/93 08/16/93 80% 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, Teachers 1.5 School improvement plans reflect emphasis on identified areas of need A. Results of tests and other data were used to identify target schools for assistance by Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science 07/01/93 09/01/93 2.0 Identify and secure resources, both material and human, to support the program of studies offered by the District 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Director of Procurement, Principals 2.0 The courses in the program of studies have resources available for full implementation 2.1 Identify and order equipment and supplies needed by schools to implement their instructional program 07/01/93 70% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Teachers, Principals, Director of Procurement 2.1 Requisitions/purchase orders reflect the equipment and supplies ordered by/for the schools to implement their instructional program A. Science equipment and supplies requested by schools to help implement their science program were ordered and provided 40 07/01/93 03/24/94Page: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 5 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Social Studies instructional materials identified and ordered for all schools to implement the curriculum C. Materials identified and ordered for G/T program D. Equipment needs for children with disabilities have been addressed through lEPs 2.2 Provide direct services to schools through the deployment of curriculum and technical specialists to help implement the schools' instructional program A. Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science and math provide technical assistance to elementary schools B. Supervisory staff made over 250 on-site visits for technical assistance to schools C. Technical assistance provided to schools by G/T Supervisor and Coordinator D. Technology provided for students with disabilities through lEPs 2.3 Maintain a library of audio-visual materials, staff development materials, and other specialized materials for Ioan to schools 41 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 03/24/94 03/24/94 80% 50% 06/30/94 03/24/94 06/30/94 80% 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators. Curriculum and Technical Specialists, Principals Director of Staff Development. Coordinator of Library Services, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 2.2 Weekly visitation logs document the direct services to schools provided by curriculum and technical specialists 2.3 An audio-visual catalog and staff development library catalog will document the materials available for loan to schools\ncheck-out logs will document the loan of other specialized materials to the schoolsPage: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 6 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. G/T library established in G/T office. Materials available for checkout upon demand and sent to schools to provide curriculum support 08/17/93 06/30/94 B. Specialized reading, language arts, E.S.L. and math materials are available through checkout at the reading/English/math offices C. Instructional social studies multicultural materials loaned to schools periodically D. Library of audio-visual materials is maintained at the IRC and circulated to the schools E. Library of Scottish Rites and related materials established in Special Education office 2.4 Interview prospective candidates for teaching positions as well as other certified and noncertified positions to assure the best qualified applicants are selected for employment A. Forty-three (43) teacher candidates were interviewed in the areas of reading, language arts, E.S.L.,and math B. Prospective G/T Specialists were interviewed and hired to fill vacancies C. Curriculum staff members interview prospective teachers in their area of expertise D. Special education supervisors monitor placement of all special education staff 42 07/01/93 06/30/94 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/15/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 90% 85% 03/24/94 09/01/93 06/30/94 90% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Human Resources, Principals 2.4 Appointment books and feedback information will record the applicants who were interviewed by the curriculum supervisorsPage: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curricuium Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 7 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.5 Print District documents for dissemination to teachers, principals, students, and/or parents 07/01/93 90% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Administrative Assistant to the Manager of Support Services, Printer at printshop 2.5 Teachers and principals have copies of applicable curriculum guides\nsign-off lists document the distribution of parent home study guides to parents\nstudent/parent records document that students and parents received \"Rights and Responsibilities Handbook\" A. Revised curriculum guides distributed in August, 1992 B. Curriculum guides provided for newly assigned teachers and specialists in all areas C. Regular corresponderKC regarding special education updates are mailed to all schools 2.6 Prepare instructional activities and materials for teachers and explain/demonstrate their use A. IRC staff prepares and explains materials and activities for teachers at monthly IRC open houses B. Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science prepare model materials and equipment and demonstrate its use during demonstration lessons and teach teaching C. Copies of reading/language arts/mathematics/E.S.L/ foreign language materials and activities are on file D. Editorial cartooning materials developed by G/T and Social Studies Departments 43 09/01/91 08/15/92 08/16/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 10/07/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 01/06/94 09/01/93 80% 50% 03/03/94 06/01/94 06/30/94 03/24/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinaton, and Specialists at IRC 2.6 Monthly IRC Thursday Night Workshops are held to share instructional activities and materials with teachers\ncopies of other activities and materials prepared for teachers are on file at the IRCProgram Seq #: 208 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Sterling Ingram 8 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria E. Thematic units developed monthly for Early Childhood 09/01/93 06/01/94 F. Special education supervisors work with individual teachers/students through lEPs 07/01/93 80% 3.0 Provide technical assistance to principals, teachers, and other personnel to facilitate the effective implementation of District programs 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 3.0 District programs in the area of curriculum operate smoothly, without undue breakdowns of equipment, lack of training of personnel, or lack of information by district personnel 3.1 Assist the schools through the services of roving computer technicians to keep computer labs and equipment up and running 07/01/93 50% Coordinators of Technology, Computer Technicians, Principals 3.1 Computer labs provide good service and have little \"down time A. Computer specialists and technicians maintain regular schedule of school visits to monitor lab operation 08/17/93 06/30/94 3.2 Assist teachers with self-identified or principal- identified needs to improve the teaching/leaming process through content specific training as well as training in using various instructional strategies 07/01/93 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Staff Development, Principals 3.2 Weekly visitation logs and visitation reports document technical assistance provided to teachers A. Supervisory staff made over 250 on-site visits for technical assistance to schools B. Assistance provided by G/T Supervisor and Coordinator C. Provided assistance to principals/identified science teachers at high schools D. Special education supervisors work with individual teachers/students through lEPs 44 08/17/93 08/17/93 02/01/94 07/01/93 03/24/94 06/30/94 03/25/94 80%Page: Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram 9 Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.3 Help schools identify staff development needs and plan inservice to address those needs 07/01/93 70% Director of Staff Development, Principals, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 3.3 The Staff Development Catalog contains training that meets the needs identified in the schools School Improvement Plan A. All schools were provided assistance in identification delivery and/or resources needed for staff development B. Each school has an assigned staff development specialist to provide ongoing assistance as needed or requested C. Inservice has been conducted for all groups working with students with disabilities 3.4 Monitor program implementation through classroom visitations A. Over 350 on-site visits were made to schools by supervisory staff to monitor classrooms for program implementation B. Monitoring of G/T program ongoing by Supervisor and Coordinator C. Monitoring of Early Childhood programs ongoing by Supervisor D. Special education supervisors visit schools regularly 3.5 Provide information to appropriate school personnel concerning academic events, training opportunities, funding sources, content-related questions, and special programs to enhance the instructional program 45 07/15/93 07/15/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 80% 50% 03/24/94 06/10/94 06/10/94 80% 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisor and Coordinators Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 3.4 Weekly visitation logs document program monitoring 3.S Memos, council agendas, and other written correspondence containing pertinent information is on file in each curriculum areaPage: 10 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Multicultural and social smdies related events/activities and opportunities to enhance the Districts instructional program has been disseminated to all schools periodically B. Twenty mailings per month are distributed district-wide through reading, language arts, and math departments C. Supervisory staff provide information to teachers and other staff through council meetings and mail-outs about special events and opportunities D. Information on academic events, opportunities, etc. provided to schools by G/T Supervisor and Coordinator E. Inclusion grant received/implemented 3.6 Assist schools with special needs students to address the identified needs to improve the learning process A. G/T Supervisor and Coordinator provide assistance for schools in providing needed services to idenafied gifted students B. Academic support programs and E.S.L. programs are in place at alt schools C. Early Childhood Coordinator worked through Division of Exceptional Children to meet the needs of identified children D. Special education supervisors work with individual teachers/students through lEPs 46 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 08/17/93 08/23/93 09/15/93 07/01/93 03/24/94 03/24/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 50% 50% 06/15/94 03/24/94 03/15/94 80% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals 3.6 Programs to address special needs students are in placePage: 11 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4. Provide staff development experiences for the effective implementation of the curriculum 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development 4.0 Inservice programs offered are in response to identified needs district-wide as well as local school sites 4.1 Provide inservice training through district-wide minicourses, training courses as well as schoolbased workshops to maximize the delivery of the curriculum 07/01/93 70% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development 4.1 Catalogue reflects inservice opportunities 4.1 Computer generated record reflects all inservice topics, dates, participants 4.1 Evaluations are on file A. Twenty-six (26) training courses were offered district-wide to assist teachers in effective instruction and classroom management B. Fifteen (15) follow-up training sessions for Abacus were offered district-wide C. Fifty (50) minicourses designed to assist teachers with hands-on delivery of the curriculum were offered district-wide D. Forty-two (42) school-based inservice programs with emphasis on content methodology were presented E. Approximately fifteen (15) inservices were provided to teachers and/or instructional aides who work in the Early Childhood Program F. Inservice provided to all special education staff 4.2 Maintain professional materials and supplies that can be accessed by local school sites for identified needs and/or professional development 47 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 03/24/94 03/24/94 03/24/94 03/24/94 03/24/94 80% 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development Specialists 4.2 Record of available materials is on file as well as documentation of materials that have been checked out for local schoolsPage: 12 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Science office maintains a library of professional science tradebooks for use by teachers who desire assistance B, Professional materials incorporated into G/T office library. Materials available for checkout C. Specialized reading, language arts, E.S.L.,and math materials are available through checkout at the reading/English/math offices 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 D. Materials kept in central office for checkout by special education staff 07/01/93 80% 4.3 Provide technical assistance to individual schools/teachers through demonstration lessons, team-teaching as well as individual/group planning at the local school 07/01/93 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development Specialists 4.3 Copies of weekly visitation logs as well as staff development plans are available A. Eisenhower Staff Development Specialists in science and math conduct demonstration lessons, team teaching, and small group inservice sessions at the local school level B. Individual/group planning of G/T curriculum provided by G/T Supervisor and Coordinator C. Supervisory staff made over 250 on-site visits for technical assistance to schools D. On-site assistance provided by special education supervisors 4.4 Provide opportunities for teachers to work at the IRC to design and create their own activities 48 08/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 10/07/93 06/15/94 06/15/94 03/24/94 80% 05/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development 4.4 List of available dates and participants is availablePage: 13 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. G/T inservices held to provide opportunities for teachers to develop materials B. Copies of reading/language arts/mathematics/E. S. L. /foreign materials and activities are on file language C. Monthly IRC open houses provide teachers opportunity to design and create instructional materials an 4.5 Provide specialists and technicians to assist local schools in the implementation of the Abacus Instructional Management Program A. Three (3) specialists and five (5) technicians provide bi-weekly visits to schools as well as any requests for additional assistance as needed B. Abacus training provided to all elementary special education resource teachers 08/17/93 08/17/93 10/07/93 07/12/93 08/17/93 02/01/94 03/24/94 06/30/94 03/03/94 50% 06/15/94 03/01/94 Staff Development, Computer Central 4.5 Weekly visitation logs document direct services to the schools 4.5 Increased use of the Abacus system 5.0 Develop and evaluate programs to meet needs established by the district in the curriculum area 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Planning Research and Evaluation 5.0 Programs are developed to meet needs established by the District\nthe program budgeting process and Fast-track' evaluations are used to evaluate new and existing programs 49Program Seq #: 208 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 14 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.1 Plan programs for magnet, interdistrict, incentive, and other schools established by the District to incorporate selected themes 07/01/93 80% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 5.1 Schools with special themes have programs in place that infuse the theme throughout the curriculum A. Assistance by Department of Instructional Technology provided to three (3) Incentive Schools with theme implementation B. Supervisory staff helps plan programs for schools with identified themes or areas of emphasis C. Supervisory staff reviewed and revised the Incentive Schools brochures 5.2 Develop District-wide programs to meet the special needs of identified populations of students A. Academic Support Programs and E.S.L. programs are in place at all schools B. Programming for identified gifted students available at all schools C. Special education supervisors work with individual teachers/students through lEPs 50 01/03/94 07/01/93 02/01/94 07/01/93 08/23/93 08/17/93 07/01/93 03/24/94 06/30/94 03/25/94 70% 03/24/94 03/25/94 80% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, Director of Federal Programs 5.2 Student populations with special needs identified by the District in the curriculum area have programs in place to address their needsPage: 15 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader\nSterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.3 Assess the effectiveness of District programs in the curriculum area 07/01/93 50% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Director of Planning Research and Evaluation 5.3 Utilization of manpower and resources in the curriculum area will reflect the use of program assessment results A. Program evaluation of gifted program conducted each spring B. Standardized test results. Abacus results, and various types of alternative assessment results are used to assess curriculum program C. High school and junior high school science fairs were held in February and provided a measure of the science programs effectiveness 5.4 Seek funding for District programs that qualify for grants from external funding sources A. Submitted application for artd received funding from Dwight D. Eisenhower Math and Science program B. Researched and prepared grant application Title VII Compensatory Ed Act 453 C. The Early Childhood Department applied for and received $35,000.00 for an Enhancement Improvement Grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission for developmentally appropriate playgrounds for four-year-old children 51 03/01/94 07/01/93 02/01/94 07/01/93 07/01/93 11/01/93 09/01/93 09/01/93 07/01/93 06/01/94 06/30/94 02/28/94 80% 01/15/94 11/19/93 12/07/93 04/15/94 08/31/93 Director of Federal Programs, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 5.4 Grant applications are on file in the Office of Federal ProgramsPage: 16 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is ro plan, direcr, and coordinare improved curriculum design and delivery as well as Io ensure curricular articulation and cooniination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. The Early Childhood Department and the HIPPY program applied for and received $233,992.00 from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission for a Continuance Grant for the Early Childhood Programs E. The Early Childhood Department has applied for and received $3,128.70 from the Early Childhood Commission for a Child Care Training Grant F. The Early Childhood Department, U.A.L.Rand Rockefeller school has applied for and received $7,500.00 from the Arkansas State Department of Education for a Parent Involvement Grant. G. Inclusion grant received/implemented 5.5 Plan programs of study for students that meet local, state, and national standards 07/01/93 04/13/94 12/15/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 04/16/94 06/30/94 50% 80% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals 5.5 Curriculum and program of studies reflect state curriculum frameworks, and program of studies meets local and state requirements and reflects national recommendations and trends A. New graduation policy and regulations approved by the Board reflect local, state, and national standards 07/01/93 03/24/94 B. Foreign language framework pilot program - mathematics/reading/language i correlations with state framework arts curriculum 09/01/93 06/30/94 C. State special education standards provided to all schools 07/01/93 12/01/93 5Page: 17 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.6 Identify or develop alterative means of assessing student achievement of curricular objectives A. Fifty (50) workshops on portfolio assessment were conducted to facilitate the use of alternative assessment B. Portfolio workshops held for GZT specialists C. Portfolio notebook developed for G/T program D. Portfolio pilot program for third grade identified smdents E. Social Studies test items in Abacus have been revised to better address the districts curriculum F. Elementary and kindergarten report cards were revised for the 93-94 school year G. Completed through lEPs 07/01/93 08/17/93 09/14/93 09/29/93 07/01/93 07/12/93 07/15/93 07/01/93 80% 03/24/94 01/25/94 01/23/94 06/30/94 09/15/93 12/15/93 80% 6.0 Develop and expand a cooperative relationship between home and school that will encourage positive home learning 07/01/93 06/30/94 6.1 Develop and print parent home study guides for distribution that can be used throughout the year to reinforce positive learning 53 07/01/93 09/15/93 Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators, Assistant Superintendents, Principals Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals. Teachers Curriculum Directors. Supervisors and Coordinators 5.6 Criterion referenced test items will be cleaned-up/revised in Abacus test item bank for use by pilot schools\nkindergarten and elementary report cards will be revised\nportfolio assessment workshops will be held for groups of teachers 6.0 Home and school cooperation and parental involvement will increase as reported on survey of parents and VIPs records 6.1 Guides are availableProgram Seq #: 208 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 18 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Parent Home Study Guides were developed, training at PTA meetings was provided, and the guides were distributed to parents of students in grades K-6 07/01.93 10/01/93 6.2 Prepare information for dissemination to public regarding curriculum and parent home smdy guides 08/15/93 09/15/93 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 6.2 Results of surveys from parents reflect their use A. An informational video on the Parent Home Snidy Guides was produced for use on cable TV B. Special education parent meetings held monthly 6.3 Provide inservice training for local school personnel and identified parents in the appropriate use of the study guide 07/01/93 08/01/93 08/15/93 09/01/93 90% 09/15/93 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Staff Development, Principals, Teachers, Parents 6.3 Record of inservices and attendees is available A. Principals, teachers, and parents were provided training on the Parent Home Study Guides 07/01/93 10/15/93 6.4 Participate in recruitment activities for parents and students, particularly for newly developed programs 07/01/93 06/30/94 Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators 6.4 Record of activities 6.4 Increase in number of smdents recruited for new programs A. Staff Development Director served on Recruitment Planning Committee B. Early Childhood Coordinator participated in recruitment activities for Fair Park and Forest Park 54 01/15/94 01/15/94 02/01/94 03/01/94Page: 19 Program Seq #: 208 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Curriculum Services Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Sterling Ingram Program Goal: The purpose of curriculum services is to plan, direct, and coordinate improved curriculum design and delivery as well as to ensure curricular articulation and coordination K-12. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6.5 Share information with parents about trends in the area of curriculum and about features of LRSD instructional programs 07/01/93 70% Curriculum Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, Principals, PTA Council 6.5 Agendas or records of information that is shared with parents A. A curriculum staff member has presented each month at the PTA council meetings about a trend or feature of a LRSD instructional program B. Parent meetings are held in the fall and spring to inform parents of G/T programs and opportunities available in the district C. Three (3) local PTA meetings have requested curriculum specialists to share aspects of instructional program with parents 55 07/01/93 09/15/93 09/15/93 06/30/94 11/15/93 03/24/94School Operations Cluster  Elementary  Junior High School  High School  Athletics 5^\nProgram Seq *: 209 Program Name: Elementary Schools Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Deecription: District Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: FY Program Budget\nYTD Expenditurea\nLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremitlion Secondary Leader\nPage: 1 Reviaion Date\nMay 10. 1994 Elementary School Principals The elementary school program seeks to provide integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students In a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for elementary school students. 1 $20,801,455.73 1at Qtr Expend\n3rd Qtr Expend\nFTE 732 $12,350,100.83 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend\nI Related Function Codes\n1120,2410,2590,1120 57LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Page: 2 Program Seq #: 209 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Program Name: Elementary Schools Program Code: Primary Leader: Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion Secondary Leader: Elementary School Principals Program Goal: To provide a quality integrated education for elementary school students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Principals, Assistant Superintendents 1.1 Develop annual school budgets 07/01/93 06/30/94 Principals, Assistant Superintendents 1.1 Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. A. Assist prirKipals in the monitoring of their schools budgets. B. Review and update budget with building principals. C. Monitor budget expenditure through purchase request. 1.2 Recommend appropriate persormel to deliver the educational program. A. Assist in the assignment of appropriate personnel for the schools vacancies in the staff. B. Provide technical assistance to principals in the evaluation process of individual staff members. C. Assist in the scheduling of hours for support staff in under to achieve maximum building coverage. 1.3 Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 03/31/94 03/31/94 03/31/94 06/30/94 03/31/94 03/31/94 03/31/94 06/30/94 Principals, Assistant Superintendents 1.2 Annual staff report Principals, Assistant Superintendents 1.3 Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant Superintendents 58Page: 3 Program Seq #: 209 Revision Date: May 3. 1994 Program Name: Elementary Schools Program Code: Primary Leader: Larry Robertson, Margaret Gremillion Secondary Leader: Elementary School Principals Program Goal: To provide a quality integrated education for elementary school students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Assist the principal in identifying needed materials and equipment for specific programs in his program. 07/01/93 03/31/94 1. (contd) B. Approve requisitions based on appropriate need within the budget. 07/01/93 03/31/94 C. Monitor the schools to ensure that materials, supplies and equipment are being used equitably. 07/01/93 03/31/94 59Program Seq #: 210 Program Name: Junior High Schools Program Coda: Primary Laadar: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Plan References\nFY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Ml OM an  LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Victor Anderson Secondary Leader: Page: 1 Revision Data\nMay 10, 1994 Junior High School Principals The junior high school program seeks to provide integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for junior high school students. ] $10,037,956.63 $6,014,468.69 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expand\n3rd Qtr Expand: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 284 Related Function Codes: 1130,1132.2410.2590 GOProgram Seq ft: 210 Program Name: Junior High Schools Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Victor Anderson Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Jr. High School Principals To provide equality integrated education for junior high school students. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 Develop annual school budgets A. Budgets developed B. Conduct monthly budget review 1.2 Recommend appropriate personnel to deliver the educational program. A. Employed personnel 1.3 Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. A. Purchased materials, supplies and equipment. 61 07/01/93 08/01/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 08/01/93   06/30/94 08/31/93 45% 06/30/94 75% 06/30/94 45% Et Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent l.I 1.2 1.3 Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. Annual staff report Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant SuperintendentProgram Seq #: 211 Program Name: Senior High Schools Program Code: Primary Leader: Program Deecription: Dietrict Goal Support: Program Goal: I Plan References: PY Program Budget: YTD Expendituree: LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Victor Anderson Secondary Leader: Page: 1 Revieion Date: May 10. 1994 Senior High School Principals The senior high school program seeks to provide integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of ail LRSD students In a desegregated setting. Central Office staff and principals collaborate to ensure quality educational planning for all students with the support of local school staff, parents, and patrons. To provide a quality integrated education for senior high school students. ] $10,081,463.38 $5,823,632.27 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: FTE 272 [ Related Function Codes: 1140, 2410, 2590, 1140 62Program Seq 211 Program Name: Senior High Schools Program Code: Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Victor Anderson Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: May 3, 1994 Senior High School Principals To provide a quality integrated education for senior high school students. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Provide sufficient support to achieve a quality integrated education for all students. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 Develop annual school budgets A. Budgets developed B. Conduct monthly budget review 1.2 Recommend appropriate personnel to deliver the educational program. A. Employed personnel 1.3 Requisition materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to deliver the educational program. A. Purchased materials, supplies, and equipment r3 07/01/93 08/01/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 08/01/93 06/30/94 08/31/93 45% 06/30/94 75% 06/30/94 45% Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent Principals, Assistant Superintendent 1.1 1.2 1.3 Completed and approved budget document detailing how funds will be expended. Annual staff report Educational Equity Monitoring reports, regular site visits by the Assistant SuperintendentLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Saq #: 212 Page: 1 Revision Data: May 10, 1994 Program Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Program Description: The Athletics program provides the opportunity for students to develop skills in competitive team and individual sports activities. District Goal Support: To ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operation. Program Goal\nTo provide a quality athletics program. Plan References: ] FY Program Budget: $255,021.21 1st Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: FTE YTD Expenditures: $233,241,.52 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: I Related Function Codes: 1151, 1152, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158  G4Prograa Seq f: 212 Prograa Name: Athletics Prograa Code: Prograa Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Priaary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Plan Reference Page Niaber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.0 To conduct junior high athletics program for boys and girls. (Football, basketball, track, soccer, golf volleyball, and tennis) 07/01/93 06/30/94 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 1.0 An athletics program for junior high girls and boys is implemented as designed and approved by the LRSD Board of Directors. 1.1 Conduct general office tasks. A. Order tickets for all sports for the school year. B. Provide Parent Consent and Health forms for all athletes. C. Prepare athletic game schedules. D. Distribute passes to all full time employees of the District. E. Assign and contract game officials. 65 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 04/01/93 08/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 07/01/93 08/03/93 08/15/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 1.1 Office duties are conducted within specified timeframes.Page: 3 Program Seq *: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, ________Ouida Carter Program Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Nunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Ccnf}letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria F. Payment of membership fees to AAA for all secondary schools. 08/31/93 08/31/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter G. Payment of Catastrophic Insurance coverage for junior high schools. 08/31/93 08/31/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 1.2 Order uniforms and supplies A. Receive and distribute uniforms and supplies for all sports as received. B. Football uniforms (fill-in uniforms only) ordered for: Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, Mabelvale, Mann Magnet, and Southwest C. Football supplies ordered for all schools 0. Boys Basketball uniforms (complete sets) ordered for: Cloverdale - 7th and 8th grade\nSouthwest (warm-up tops only) E. Girls Basketball uniforms (2 sets tops and 1 set shorts) ordered for Mann Basketball supplies ordered for all schools 66 07/01/93 08/01/93 03/01/93 07/01/93 03/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 10/01/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Second ry, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 1.2 Uniforms and supplies are available for use for each designated sports activity.Page: 4 Program Seq f: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Program Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Niefcer Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Coifiletion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria G. Girls Volleyball uniforms (complete sets) ordered for: Cloverdale and Forest Heights 03/01/93 09/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter H. Volleyball supplies ordered for all schools 08/01/93 09/01/93 2.0 To conduct senior high athletics program for boys and girls. (Football, basketball, track, soccer, tennis, golf, swinming, volleyball, and baseball) 1.3 Conduct game operations tasks. A. B. C. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 1.3 All game operations (officials, security, ticket takers and sellers, and ambulance service) are conducted in specified time frame. Arrange for medical personnel to attend junior high school football games. Requisition and set-up game payrolls for all sports and deliver to schools. Check all game reports and make deposits after each game. 67 07/01/93 07/01/93 09/01/93 07/01/93 08/31/93 02/28/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 2.0 An athletics program for senior high girls and boys is implemented as designed and approved by the LRSD Board of DirectorsPage: 5 Progran Seq f: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Progran Nane: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Progran Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Nudser Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Coapletion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.1 Conduct general office duties. A. Order tickets for all sports for the school year. B. Provide Parent Consent and Health forms for all athletes. C. Prepare athletic game schedules. D. Prepare contracts for school and game officials. E. Distribute passes to full time employees of the district. F. Distribute passes to visiting schools for football and basketball. G. Payment of membership fees to AAA for all secondary schools. G8 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 04/01/93 08/01/93 08/01/93 08/01/93 08/31/93 06/30/94 07/01/93 08/03/93 08/15/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 10/30/93 08/31/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter 2.1 Office duties are conducted within specified time frames.Page: 6 PrograM Seq f: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Progran Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Program Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Nuttier Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.2 Order uniforms and supplies. A. Receive and distribute uniforms and supplies for all sports as received. B. Football uniforms (fill- ins uniforms only) ordered for\nCentral, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview C. Football supplies ordered for all schools D. Boys Basketball uniforms (two complete sets) ordered for Hall. I uniforms ordered for Central and Fair. Reversable practice jerseys ordered for HcClelIan. Fill-in E. Girls Basketball uniforms (one new set and warm-up tops) ordered for McClellan. Fill-in uniforms ordered for Central. One new set and sweat suits ordered for Fair. Basketball supplies ordered for all schools. 69 07/01/93 08/01/93 03/01/93 08/01/93 03/01/93 03/01/93 08/01/93 06/30/94 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 2.2 Uniforms and supplies are available for use for each designated sports activity.Page: 7 Program Seq #: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, ________Ouida Carter_________ Program Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Nuiber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria G. Girls Volleyball uniforms (two sets-tops only) ordered for Parkview. Fill-in uniforms only ordered for Hall and McClellan. 03/01/93 10/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter H. Volleyball supplies ordered for all schools. 08/01/93 10/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter I. One set Baseball uniforms ordered for Hall. uniforms ordered for McClellan. Fill-in 03/01/93 10/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter J. Baseball supplies ordered for all schools. Central and Parkview not district funded. 08/01/93 10/01/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary, 0. Carter 2.3 Conduct game operations tasks. A. Requisition and set up game payrolls for all sports and deliver to schools. B. Arrange for stand-by ambulance service at football games. 70 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 02/15/94 08/15/93 Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter 2.3 All game operations (officials, security, ticket takers and sellers, and ambulance service) are conducted in specified time frame.Page: 8 Program Seq f: 212 Revision Date: April 21, 1994 Program Name: Athletics Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools, Ouida Carter Program Goal: To provide a quality athletics program. Plan Reference Page Nuiber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Caiif\u0026gt;letion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria C. Check all game reports and make deposits after each game. 08/01/93 06/30/94 Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter 2.4 Arrange for transportation with outside vendors for all sports. 07/01/93 02/15/94 Assistant Supt., Secondary 0. Carter 2.4 Transportation for events occurring outside the 50 mile radius of Little Rock is completed as scheduled. 71School Support Cluster  Gui\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_215","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Third Quarter Status Report, Volume II, part 1","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":["1994-05-13"],"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 statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Third Quarter Status Report, Volume II, part 1"],"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/215"],"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\nVOLUME II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THIRD QUARTER STATUS REPORT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET DOCUMENT FOR DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT May 13, 1994 SEQUENCE tt Preface Mission Statement Goals District Financial Summary Definitions Organization of the Report Cluster Budget Documents SCHOOL SUPPORT CLUSTER (BLUE) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Unassigned Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Staff Development Library/Media Computerized Transportation Data Processing Safety and Security Teacher Recruitment Educational Equity Monitoring Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership Summer School (Interdistrict) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 33 57 68 71 80 88 99 108 115 SEQUENCE # 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Summer Learning Program - JTPA Contingency Unassigned Facilities Guidance/Counseling Program Leadership Employment Practices Bidding Practices (Procurement) RECRUITMENT CLUSTER (PURPLE) 37 38 39 40 Parent Involvement - Recruitment VIPS-Recruitment Public Relations Unassigned INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CLUSTER (YELLOW) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Office of Incentive Schools Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Foreign Language Program Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Unassigned Transportation Unassigned Unassigned PAGE tt 124 135 137 144 155 157 164 182 207 (CONTD) 232 242 245 249 253 257 260 274 287 1SEQUENCE tt PAGE # SEQUENCE # PAGE # 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Instructional Aides Extended Year Incentive/Recognition Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeifer Monitoring Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Staffing Required Staff Development Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 Days Qther Incentive Schools Academic Programs  Peer Tutors/Retired Teacher mentors  Themes  Kindergarten  Reading Across the Curriculum  Qral Expression Across Curriculum  Learning Styles Inventory  Semi-Departmental  Instructional Tech  Study/Test-Taking  Parent Home Smdy  Computer Managed Instruction  Student Education Plans  Specialized Programs  Incentive Programs  Homework  Criterion-Referenced Test  Heterogeneous Grouping  Effective Schools  African/American History 290 293 298 307 310 324 337 360 363 ii 65 66 67 68 69 70 Social Skills  Family Folklore  Positive Imaging  Interpersonal Skills  Rites of Passage  Mentoring Program Special Activities  Peer Tutoring Program  Academic Reinforcement Clubs  Special Interest Clubs Latin Enrichment Program Unassigned Career Skills Development 382 391 397 405 Incentive Schools Qperations  Support Services 414  Community Access/Field Trip  Community Involvement  Special Skills Program  Special Training  Parental Involvement  Learning Time Schedule  Home/School Community  Extracurricular Program  Attendance and Behavior  Subject Related ExtracurriculumSEQUENCE tt PAGE # 71 Counseling/Social Work  Community Services Access  College/Post Graduate Awareness  Study Skills  Home/Neighborhood Meet  Wellness Program 421 72 73 School Policies and Procedures - Other Unassigned 452 74 Unassigned STUDENT CHOICES/OPTIONS CLUSTER (GREEN) 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Student Choices/Options King Interdistrict School Stephens Interdistrict School Romine Interdistrict School Rockefeller Early Childhood Original Magnets Unassigned M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central, Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) 463 468 476 482 486 491 503 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (WHITE) 505 iiiPREFACE The mission statement and goals for Little Rock School District are the guides for all decision-making. The information gained from the Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs provides additional direction for quality, interim decision-making for the district. Specifically, programs with poor performance or expenditure problems are addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. The report enhances the districts ability to monitor and report achievements and expenditures relative to the programs identified in the Desegregation Plan for the most efficient and functional program planning on a quarterly basis. Several modifications are inherent in the reporting for the third quarter. First, the third quarters report requires an additional volume for desegregation program reporting so that the growth and accumulation of the many achievements reported by schools and programs during the fiscal year of 1993-94 (FY 93-94) are accommodated. Consequently, the third quarters report for desegregation programs consists of Volume I (Seq #s 1-18) and Volume II (Seq #s 19-82). An additional modification in the desegregation report includes a change in the reporting of the School Operations Program. Principals and Central Office Administrators will report achievements. 09A is the designated sequence number for reporting by Principals, and 09B is the sequence number relative to Central Office Administrators reporting. The desegregation audit has been completed. Additional desegregation obligations are reflected in the program budget documents of the third quarter report. A continued refinement and adjustment period throughout the fiscal year 1994-95 (FY 94-95) will be necessary for language clarification of the additional desegregation obligations. The Little Rock School District hopes to make the language more consistent and uniformed with the spirit and intent of the various obligations. The Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs contains the following: (1) The Mission Statement of Little Rock School District\n(2) The Goals of Little Rock School District\n(3) LRSD Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Summary\n(4) Definitions and Data Elements\n(5) Organization of the Report\n(6) Program Budget Documents Grouped by Clusters\nand, (7) The LRSD Organizational Chart. 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. 21. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. The Little Rock Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 35/4/94 Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 1 Program Code 01 02 05 06 07 08 09 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 51 52 Program Name HIPPY 4YEAR OLD PROGRAM______________ STUDENT HEARING OFFICER _______ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION__________ EXTRA-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION TEACHER RECRUITER_________________ STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS_________ ACADEMIC INC GRANTS/FOCUSED ACT ORIGINAL MAGNETS SPECIAL EDUCATION @ WASHINGTON SECURITY D/P SYSTEM STUDENT INFORMATION M-TO-M MAGNET SCHOOLS_________ EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING COMPUTERIZED TRANSP SYSTEM ROMINE INTERDISTRICT THEME McClellan community school IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION JOB FAIR_____________________________ TESTING ASSISTANCE________________ LIBRARY SERVICES___________________ PARENT RECRUITING_________________ VIPS RECRUITING PREJUDICE REDUCTION______________ CONTINGENCY FUND OFFICE OF INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WRITING TO READ Budget 93-94 266,763.02 1,523,742.24 94,381.61 433,102.41 5,000.51 35,188.38 465,627.29 1,815,582.10 197,446.69 352,294.55 3,914,000.00 55,695.66 756,878.66 792,523.74 2,254,912.66 387,378.66 ________8,000.00 _______69,680.82 170,112.24' 850,408.55 1,092.82 5,066.96 479,954.32 40,000.00 34,671.18 5,000.00 300,000.00 1,749.42 6,000.00 PTEs 21 67 2 10 1 7 70 1 38 4 74 4 2 25 30 2 YTD Expense 178,151.00 897,821.25 73,599.33 319,624.60 4,962.82 26,670.86 231,134.88 1,066,712.78 65,859.05 73,725.77 0.00 34,378.65 530,492.64 753,015.23 1,195,948.00 492,331.29 7,420.00 53,893.60 149,283.48 471,756.72 688.96 2,934.40 264,476.35 5,693.95 20,803.57 0.00 0.00 830.08 0.00 1st Quarter 31,286.27 138,599.40 22,646.74 100,300.49 4,962.82 9,695.18 69,080.94 158,246.87 19,443.65 26,486.11 _________0.00 8,178.16 91,086.44 593,453.22 287,665.69 149,459.45 0.00 0.00 82,090.64 70,413.69 153.38 75.16 61,580.87 10.26 5,857.49 0.00 0.00 76.77 0.00 2nd Quarter 69,819.02 387,557.20 27,973.85 111,334.76 _________0.00 10,475.07 81,164.99 499,040.09 23,307.68 3,860.21 _________0.00 12,566.50 213,556.49 122,425.14 451,600.64 167,904.22 0.00 0.00 38,451.48 195,153.72 212.33 1,643.82 110,920.97 2,012.50 8,585.07 0.00 0.00 _________0^ 0.00 3rd Quarter 77,045.71 371,664.65 22,978.74 107,989.35 _________0.00 6,500.61 80,888.95 409,425.82 23,107.72 43,379.45 _________0.00 13,633.99 225,849.71 37,136.87 456,681.67 174,967.62 7,420.00 53,893.60 28,741.36 ___206,189.31 _______323.25 1,215.42 91,974.51 3,671,19 6,361.01 _________0.00 _________0.00 _______75273 0.00 % Budget Spent 66,78% 58.92% 77.98% 73.80% 99.25% 75.79% 49.64% 58.75% 33.36% 20.93% 0.00% 61.73% 70.09% 95.01% 53.04% 127.09% 92.75% 77.34% 87.76% 55.47% 63.04% 57.91% 55.10% 14.23% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47.45% 0.00% I5/4/94 Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 2 Program Code 53 54 56 57 59 61 64 65 66 72 73 74 75 Program Name SCIENCE LABS_______________________ COMPUTER LABS COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM EXTENDED DAY______________________ FIELD TRIPS TRANSPORTATION (ADDL) INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES EXTENDED YEAR INCENTIVE/RECOGNITION RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIRED STAFF DEVELOPMENT TEACHER STIPENDS/INSERVICe OTHER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACTIVITIES TOTAL\nBudget 93-94 12,000.00 6,000.00 2,500.00 747,247.70 33,000.00 15,000.00 496,451.04 99,938.45 14,581.91 808,481.42 52,878.29 72,725.98 51,088.13 17,734,147.41 PTEs 42 31 431 YTD Expense 0.00 0.00 0.00 457,030.80 20,678.75 14,960.92 261,026.98 33,179.48 8,887.95 452,336.89 22,767.65 34,270.74 45,058.25 8,272,407^67 1st Quarter 0.00 _________0.00 0.00 25,550.48 3,210.95 0.00 38,306.87 31,884.03 1,428.45 58,107.81 1,459.85 24,542.02 20,724.59 2.136,664 74 2nd Quarter 0.00 __________0.00 0.00 192,460.04 7,404.63 14,960.92 114,714.15 1,295.45 3,093.35 190,828.11 16,290.74 5,393.24 11,775.22 3,09/i782.18 3rd Quarter 0.00 _________0.00 0.00 239,020.28 10,063.17 0.00 108,005.96 _________0.00 4,366.15 203,400.97 5,017.06 4,335.48 12,558.44 3,038,56675 % Budget Spent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 61.16% 62.66% 99.74% 52.58% 33.20% 60.95% 55.95% 43.06% 47.12% 88.20% 46,65%DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS The following are definitions of terms and data elements used in the Program Budget Documents. Program: A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. Program Description: A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participants/beneficiaries related to the respective program. Program Goal: A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. Objectives: Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. Strategies: Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. Achievements: Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy and establish measurable and observable levels of performance of the product. Page: Each Program Budget Document uses one of two formatted pages. Program Sequence # (Seq. #): The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. Revision Date: This date is the actual date the program document was first documented or last changed. Program Name: To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. Program Code: This is a unique accounting code assigned by Financial Services which links budget and expenditure information to the associated program. cDefinitions and Data Elements (cont.) Primary Leader: The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. Secondary Leader: The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e. the Program Manager or the Principal). District Goal Support: Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. Plan Reference: Specific plan and page references will directly cite one of the following desegregation documents: L = LRSD Desegregation Plan\nI = Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\nS = Settlement Agreement\nC = Court Orders\nT = Transcripts\nP = Pleadings\nM = Monitoring Reports. The format should be L23 or 113-20, for example. This element has been left blank if the program is not directly cited in one of the desegregation documents. Plan Reference Page Number: Source references listed for each objective and strategy have been used. If the objective or strategy is desegregation document related, the specific desegregation document and page upon which this objective or strategy has been found should be listed. If the objective or strategy is not related to a desegregation document, then whatever source was used has been listed. This element is contained on page 2 and succeeding pages. Beginning Date: This is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following manner: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). Completion Date. This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/93). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (75%) should be entered. Responsibility: This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. 7ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This section provides guiding information about the text of the Third Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs. Pagination. Every page in the text is numbered using Arabic numerals. Pages are consecutively numbered (e.g.,1,2,3, ..) throughout the report at the bottom of the page beginning with the \"Preface.\" The \"Table of Contents\" is on page i, page ii, and page iii. Print. The report employs two kinds of print density. Bold Print denotes original language of the desegregation document(s). Lighter print enclosed in parentheses (parenthetical statements) identifies language that is not literal in the desegregation document(s). The parenthetical statements of lighter print have been integrated throughout the program budget documents for clarification of original language in the desegregation document(s) and/or for providing information generalized from the original language of the desegregation document(s). Parenthetical information should not be construed to mean new legal obligations nor expansion of the obligations under the desegregation document(s). Underlined Print. Underlined Print denotes additional desegregation obligations language which has been inserted verbatim in the third quarter report of FY 93-94. Clusters. Programs have been sorted into broad categories called clusters. Clusters include programs or schools grouped together because of similar and related operational functions. For convenience and management of the report, similar programs have been grouped into six color-coded clusters. To locate a program, determine the relative cluster of the program by using the \"Table of Contents\" and then refer to the program sequence number (Seq #) or page number for facilitating program reference in the report. School Operations Program (09A and 09B). Beginning the third reporting quarter for FY 93-94, the stams report for desegregation programs reveals several changes in the reporting of the School Operations Program. First, the School Operations program description warrants that both Principals and Central Office Administrators provide quality planning for students. Therefore, the School Operations Program is divided hereafter into two sections for reporting achievements by both Principals and Central Office Administrators. The sequence number for reporting by Principals (i.e., schools) is 09A, and the sequence number for reporting by Central Office Administrators is 09B. Secondly, for the third reporting period, the inclusionary dates cited in the \"Beginning Date\" column and \"Completion Date\" column are 01/03/94 and 03/31/94, respectively. These inclusionary dates represent the boundaries for the third quarter. The generic dates of 01/03/94 and 03/31/94 are used to uniform and conform reporting in the School Operations program budget documents. Specific date information relative to the achievements of Central Office Administrators follows each documented achievement.Organization of the Report (continued) As a final note, the School Operations Program (09A) classifies the area, interdistrict, and magnet schools into three organizational levels: elementary, junior high, and senior high. Incentive Schools. The Incentive Schools cluster provides program reporting information for the following schools\nFranklin, Garland, Rockefeller, Mitchell, Stephens and Rightsell. Non-Monetary Tracking. No entry on page one in the fiscal year program budget field and/or the quarter expenditure field of a Program Budget Document means desegregation money has not been tracked to the respective program. Organizational Chart. An organizational chart is provided. 9CLUSTER BUDGET DOCUMENTS IGSchool Support Cluster * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Staff Development Library/Media Computerized Transportation Data Processing Safety and Security Teacher Recruitment Educational Equity Monitoring Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership Summer School (Interdistrict) Summer Learning Program - JTPA Contingency Facilities Guidance/Counseling Program Leadership Employment Practices Bidding Practices (Procurement) 11LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: 20 Page: 1 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo, Jr. Secondary Leader: Program Description: The Office of Desegregation is charged with monitoring the implementation of the Desegregation Plan which includes the appropriate assignment of students to schools. The capacities of the elementary area schools are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards which have the following limits: Grade: Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 25 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 The overall racial composition of the elementary area schools and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominately black. It is expected that at least 600 black LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. District Goal Support: Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan [ Plan References: L 139 1 FY Program Budget: $433,102.41 1st Qtr Expend: $100,300.49 3rd Qtr Expend: $107,989.35 FTE 10 YTD Expenditures: $319,624.60 2nd Qtr Expend: $111,334.76 4th Qtr Expend: Related Function Codes: 1 12Program Seq #: 20 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number L 139 LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Objectives Strategies Page: 2 Revision Date\nMay 11, 1994 Secondary Leader: Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria {1.0 To implement magnet school assigments) (2.0 To implement interdistrict school assignments) (3.0 To implement elementary area school assignments). The total capacity of the elementary area schools is 9,678. 07/01/93 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 1.0 Assignments are consistent with the Desegregation Plan as evidenced by an annual review of assignment data 1.1 Magnet Schools - The assignment process to (original) magnet schools will not change under this Plan. A. Assignment process reviewed to verify need for change. Completed 100% 9/30/93 2.1 Interdistrict Schools - LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish interdistrict schools as described in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. A. Five of the six interdistrict schools have been established. Completed 83% 9/30/93 13 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 2.0 Assignments are consistent with the Desegregation Plan as evidenced by an annual review of assignment data 3.0 Assignments are consistent with the Desegregation Plan as evidenced by an annual review of assignment dataPage: 3 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.1 Students will be assigned to the elementary area schools by attendance zones. A. Elementary area school students assigned. Completed 98% 9/30/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 B. Parents receive notification of assignment. Completed 98% 9/30/93 3.2 The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools, but no school shall have a racial composition of greater that 60 percent white. A. Attendance zones reviewed prior to and after student assignments. 6. Racial balance monitored prior to and after student assignments. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 3.3 Students presently assigned to elementary area schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). A. Targeted students were notified of options. 3.4 After grandfathered students have been assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the elementary area schools. A. Students are assigned and notified of assignments to attendance zone school. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 14 07/01/93 08/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 3.3 Student requests to remain in area schools are granted. 3.4 Attendance zone students are assigned based on available seats.Page: 4 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number L 139 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (4.0 To implement incentive school assignments). The capacity of the incentive schools is 2,558. 3.5 if there is no space available at a student's zoned school or if assignment of the student to the school would put the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements, the student will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. A. Students are reassigned and notified. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 3.6 The elementary school zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary students going to junior high school students going to high school. A. Completed 100% 3.7 Students in elementary area school zones will be given the option to select an incentive school. A. Parents were notified of options. Completed 100% 3/31/94 4.1 Each incentive school will have an attendance zone that encompasses the neighborhood around the school (primary attendance zone). A. Completed 100%. 4.2 Students presently assigned to incentive schools will be given the option to remain In these schools (grandfathered). A. Students were advised of options. Completed 100% 3/31/94 15 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 3.5 Students are reassigned in accordance with Deseg. Plan. 3.6 A feeder pattern is established for the organizational levels. 3.7 Options were granted in accordance to assignment plan. 4.0 Incentive School Assignments are made in accordance with the Desegregation Plan requirements.Page: 5 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.3 After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the incentive schools. A. Students were assigned as space was available. 4.4 Ail incentive school students will have the option to be assigned to an elementary area school to be selected by LRSD in accordance with desegregation considerations. Completed 80% 3/31/94 4.5 In order to assist in meeting the desegregation requirements, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class. The seats reserved for white children shall not remain permanently vacant if unfilled. Sufficient time should be allowed for timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts before filling these seats. A. Seats are reserved. B. Assignments are monitored to ensure acceptable racial balance. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 4.6 The incentive schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. 16 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt.for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 4.5 Reserved seats are available by race for prekindergarten and kindergarten students.Program Seq tt'. 20 Page: 6 Revision Date: May 11,1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.7 There may be more than 20 students per classroom, however, there will be an aide in each class and possible a second teacher in those classes. 4.8 Assign students with sensitivity to the relationship between placement stability and academic progress as well as the need to measure the impact of incentive programs or student achievement. 4.9 Student assignment process must be the result of carefully coordinated decision-making. The incentive school staffs and the LRSD departments responsible for desegregation, student recruitment and assignment, and planning and evaluation must assess the short- and long-term academic and social impact of any anticipated student reassignments. 4.10 The district must be able to demonstrate that the investment has paid the expected dividends for children, if not, changes must be made quickly before children are lost along with the settlement money. 17 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94Page: Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May n. 1994 7 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.11 When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. The district is bound to keep its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or as long as the school maintains an enrollment above 80% black. District must also keep in mind that the incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed in the desegregation lawsuit. Ensure that a portion of the incentive school funding fulfills the plan's commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities.\" 4,12 The District is obligated to reserve 40 to 50% of seats in the incentive schools at the kindergarten level for white students. 16 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 6/30/94Program Seq #: 20 Page: Revision Date: May 11. 1994 8 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Or. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4.13 With regard to reserved seating at incentive schools, the court indicated that the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit required that a target racial balance at incentive schools be 50% of each race, at least in the prekindergarten and kindergarten levels. It stated that this proportion is to guide the District in the number of seats which are initially reserved for prekindergarten and kindergarten students. The court \"reluctantly\" allowed seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children were unsuccessful. The court stated that recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the District to the extent that the court can determine that the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before releasing any reserved seats. The court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that would aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. With regard to pupil-teacher ratio, the court ordered the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools would be as follows: 18 students in four-year old classes, as agreed by the parties: 20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades 1 through 3: 25 students in grades 4 through 6, In addition, the court ordered that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 20 students. 19Page: 9 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number L 140 L 140 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (5.0 To implement Desegregation Transfers) 5.1 Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The minimum black percentage is 25 percent below the districtwide percentage of blacks in grades 7-12. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (for acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirements in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12 1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the districtwide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). Completed 80% 3/31/94 5.2 Elementary students may transfer to an incentive school only if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. Desegregation transfers will be granted to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate. A. Requests for transfers were reviewed/approved in accordance with criteria. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 20 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 5.1 Racial composition of student enrollments are within acceptable ranges. 5.2 Transfers reflect an improvement in racial balance.Page: 10 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (6.0 To implement Sibling Transfers) 5.3 A student may make two desegregation transfers at each organizational level (primary, intermediate, junior or senior high school). The purpose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to return to his or her previous school assignment. A. Requests for desegregation transfers are reviewed to ensure compliance. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 5.4 Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year (Secondary Schools only). A. Completed 80% 3/31/94 5.5 LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. A. Requests for transportation are forwarded to transportation department. (Desegregation Transfer Students assigned to existing bus routes.) Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 6.1 Sibling transfers do not apply to magnet schools. (NOTE: Siblings are brothers/sisters, or half'brothers/sisters, residing at the same address with brothers/sisters, or half- brothers/sisters, who are enrolled in the LRSD. A. Patrons/schools advised of constraints. Completed 100% 3/31/94 21 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 5.3 Desegregation transfer reports reflect appropriate utilization by students. 5.4 Desegregation transfer reports reflect appropriate use by students. 5.5 Maintain records of number of students transported using desegregation transfers. 6.1 Publish/distribute procedures regarding sibling transfers.Page: 11 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date\nMay 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (7 To implement Transfer of Children of Employees Assignments) 6.2 A student entering the LRSD after the 1991- 92 school year will not be allowed to make a sibling preference transfer to a school outside the student's attendance zone. 6.3 Any student who makes a sibling preference transfer before the 1991-92 school year may remain at the school to which the student transferred until graduation to the next organizational level. 6.4 Sibling preference transfers will be granted if a seat is available and the transfer will allow both the sending and receiving schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Completed 80% 6.5 Sibling transfer applicants must have a sibling current enrolled in LRSD. Sibling transfers will be granted only to siblings of grandfathered students. 7.1 LRSD employees may enroll their children at the schools where they work. A. LRSD employees advised of options via printed materials. Completed 80% 2/3/94 7.2 This provision is not intended to authorize interdistrict transfers (transfers to NLRSD or PCSSD) other than those authorized by the court-approved desegregation plan. Completed 100% 22 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Human Resources Director Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 6.2 Publish/distribute procedures regarding sibling transfers. 6.3 Student transfers reflect acceptance/ rejection of transfer options. 6.4 Documentation of sibling transfers meet desegregation requirements. 6.5 Sibling transfer requirements are in accordance with established requirements. 7.1 Employees' children are enrolled in schools requested in accordance with established requirements. 7.2 All interdistrict transfers are court approved.Page: 12 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (8 To implement the Reassignment Process) 7.3 The transfer of the children of employees is subject to desegregation requirements and the capacity of the particular school. Completed 80% 7.4 LRSD is not obligated to provide transportation. 7.5 This provision Does not apply to magnet schools. A. In compliance 100%. 7.6 The order of preference for assigning the children of employees is listed below: A. Incompliance 100% 7.6.1 First preference: attendance zone students with siblings 7.6.2 Second preference: attendance zone students without siblings 7.6.3 Third preference: children of employees 7.6.4 Fourth preference: desegregation transfers 7.6.5 Fifth preference: M-to-M transfers 7.6.6 Sixth preference: Act 609, Act 624, and legal transfers. 23 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 7.3 Student transfers are consistent with capacities and desegregation requirements. 7.4 Transportation is provide by patrons of employees. 7.6 Documentation of assignments. 8.0 The assignment process is consistent with the desegregation requirements.Program Seq 20 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Page: 13 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader\nProgram Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 8.1 Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. Only if a building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in the student's feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. A. Requests for portables are reviewed. Alternate assignments made in compliance with capacity requirements and court mandates. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 8. Waiting lists compiled for area schools. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 8.2 The minimum black percentage for each elementary area school is 40 percent black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be assigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. A. Alternate assignments made in compliance with desegregation requirements. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/94 24 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 8.1 Portables are installed in accordance with Deseg. Plan 8.2 Rosters reflect student assignment percentages are within acceptable racial balance.Page: 14 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria (9 To establish effective and efficient student assignment procedures) 07/01/93 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 9.0 Assignment procedures are effective and consistent with the desegregation requirements. 9.1 The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary schools (data entry tasks decentralized 1992-93 school year)\nprocess interdistrict M-to-M transfers and magnet assignments\nreassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements\nconsider appeals\nconduct recruitment efforts (transferred to recruitment program)\nprocess desegregation transfer\nassign all early childhood and incentive school students: and process all special transfers (Act 609, Act 624, etc.). A. Assignments are reviewed to ensure racial balance. Completed 97% 9/30/93 Completed 98% 12/31/93 Completed 99% 3/31/93 B. Appeals committee reviews/approves/rejects assignment appeals. Completed 25% 9/30/93 Completed 50% 12/31/93 Completed 80% 3/31/93 9.2 New students to the District who enroll after May 17, 1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 25 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/93 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation 9.1 The student assignment process will be effective in assigning students and process special transfers to assist with racial balance. B. Roster of committee members Agendas from meetings 9.2 Each area school will have the ability to assign students with their attendance zone.Program Seq #: 20 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Page: 15 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria {10 To monitor all aspects of the Desegregation Plan) 9.3 The Student Assignment Handbook includes the timeline and procedures used by the schools and the Student Assignment Office to assign students. The Student Assignment Handbook will be revised each year, as necessary, to reflect any changes in the procedures for assigning students. Changes will be made as needed to include new deadlines and to improve the implementation of the court-approved student assignment plan. The handbook will be developed by the Student Assignment Office and distributed to the schools and the parties each year. A. Edit and update Student Assignment Handbook. Completed 50% 12/31/93 Completed 100% 2/10/94 10.1 Review Program Budget Documents to identify potential problems. A. Completed 80% 3/31/94 10.2 Conduct site visits as necessary. A. 50% of necessary sites are visited. B. Completed 60% 3/31/94 26 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation Assoc. Supt.for Desegregation, Desegregation Facilitator Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation, Desegregation Facilitator Revised Student Assignment Handbook is published and distributed. 10.0 Identification of implementation and effectiveness problems as evidence by the Program Budget Document 10.1 Budget Documents are reviewed and problems are listed. 10.2 Site visits are documented.Page: 16 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: M May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.3 Develop and implement improvement plans as needed. A. Improvement plans are developed at Building Level and implemented by principals and staff. Plans are reviewed by Desegregation office. Completed 80% 3/31/94 10.4 Monitor implementation of improvement plans. A. Recruitment plans are monitored. Improvement plans are monitored by Assistant Superintendents. Completed 80% 3/31/94 10.5 LRSD will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. 10.6 LRSD, if applying for approval of new construction or major school expansion shall provide a desegregation impact statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect (Submission to ADE). 10.7 Loan proceeds from State shall be used for desegregation purposes and will not be utilized or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates. 10.8 A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building principals. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs, for desegregation related concerns. 27 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 07/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation, Desegregation Facilitator Assoc. Supt. for Desegregation, Desegregation Facilitator 10.3 Improvement Plans are developed and implemented. 10.4 Scheduled observations of Improvement Plans are documented.Page: 17 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.9 The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. 10.10 The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. 10.11 LRSD shall make quarterly reports to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 10.11 At the end of each year a determination of the effectiveness of the District's implementation of the desegregation plans shall be conducted by the District subject to the Court's review, LRSD's monitors will be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided that requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive.Page: 18 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date\nMay 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.12 Where disparities in programs and activities exist, LRSD will identify, analyze for cause and share with the appropriate monitoring authorities, A recommended course of action in remediation will then be implemented, LRSD shall give special attention to any imbalance and placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advance placement classes, extra curricular activities, expulsions and suspensions, and reward and punishment systems. An objective of this appraisal shall be to eliminate negative stereotyping based upon race or socioeconomic status. 10.13 Long-term goals and desegregation goals have to be incorporated into the study of junior high capacity. 10.14 The court wants a plan to address junior high capacity, relieving busing burden on blacks and recruiting white students into junior high schools. 10.15 This order concerns LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School on the ground that the survey process approved by the court indicated that only 82 students wish to attend Ish, The court granted the motion. The court notes that its approval of LRSD's motion to close Ish does not excuse LRSD from its obligation to recruit white students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools. The court states that it will closely watch all proposed school closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens. 29 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94Page: 19 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies  Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.16 Court grants in part a motion of LRSD for approval of various construction projects. The court approves construction of a cafeteria at Chicot Elementary School as long as the new construction does not increase the school's capacity. The construction project at Jefferson Elementary School is not approved because of potential effect of the attendance zones of the new King Interdistrict School on the Jefferson satellite zones. The court indicates that LRSD may petition the court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for King are firm and court approved. In its renewed petition, the court states LRSD must include the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson, any changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction: and the precise number of portable buildings that will be removed and the number that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. 10.17 Prior to granting approval for the Williams Elementary School construction project, LRSD must provide the court with the following information: the school's current capacity\nthe number of square feet that will be added to the school by the construction: any change in the proportional allotment of the school's magnet seats among the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD\nthe precise number of portable buildings that will be removed and the number that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction\nand clarify how the present administration area will be rearranged, i.e. single multi-purpose area or two separate areas, one for expanded cafeteria space and one for indoor recreation. 30 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 aPage: 20 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.18 Before the court will consider approving the construction project at J, A, Fair High School, the LRSD must account for the 1,270 square feet difference between the 3,450 sguare feel of the old space and the 2,180 of new space and specify the exact number of new classrooms that will result from the construction. 10.19 This LRSD motion seeks approval of construction projects at Chicot, Jefferson, Williams and Fair. The court approved only the construction of the cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School (see Order dated April 30, 1993 (Docket No. 18151. The combination of the LRSD motion and the court Order approving it in part reguires LRSD to construct a cafetorium at Chicot School which will increase the size of the school by approximately 3,000 sguare feet and have sufficient capacity to seat at one time more than one-half of the children enrolled at Chicot. The cafetorium should have been constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. 10.20 LRSD filed its \"Special Study - Jr, High Capacities and Projections\" and \"Custodial Calculation - Omaha Formula\". The Jr. High Capacity Study contains no desegregation requirements and is in the process of being revised. With respect to the calculation of the required number of custodians per building, LRSD has told the court that it utilizes the Omaha formula, that this calculation is checked at least once per year and that the number of full-time equivalent positions is adjusted where specific building requirements require an adjustment. 31 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94Page: 21 Program Seq #: 20 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Program Code: 06 Primary Leader: Dr. C. Russell Mayo Secondary Leader: Program Goal: To implement a student assignment process that is consistent with the approved Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 10.21 Limit enrollment in the four-year-old program to 18 students per class. 10.22 Limit enrollment in grades K-6 to class sizes that are consistent with state standards. 10.23 With respect to grandfathering, students are encouraged to return to their school zones, They were notified fay letter a month and a half ago. 32 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Saq #: 21 Page: 1 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Coda: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Description: The Staff Development Department was established to promote the implementation of the desegregation plan through activities that will result in improved academic achievement. Inservice opportunities designed to increase the effectiveness of curriculum delivery together with training tailored to improve interactions among and across all lines will occur. Additionally, this department will provide support and resources for site-based staff development experiences. District Goal Support: Goal No. 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrighment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal No. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal No. 3. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. Goal No. 5. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal No. 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Program Goal: The Staff Development Department will provide activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement. In support of the goal of providing ongoino staff development and information to parents relative to student success, LRSD will pursue the following objectives by the following means: Update skills of all district staff on a regular basis and to keep alt staff abreast of developments in their field of endeavor. [ Plan References: L 126-128 FY Program Budget: $465,627.29 1st Qtr Expend: $69,080.94 3rd Qtr Expend: $80,888.95 FTE 7 YTD Expenditures: $231,134.88 2nd Qtr Expend: $81,164.99 4th Qtr Expend: Related Function Codes\n33Program Seq #: 21 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Program Qoal: Plan Reference Page Number L 126 L 126 LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Denrtis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Donita Hudspeth To provide etaff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Mayr, 1994 Evaluation Criteria 1. To provide etaff developntent inservice to improve race relations and equity (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Superintendent, Staff Development, Central Office Staff) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Continue to articulate vision/mission of LRSD to community Fall 1988 (07/01/93) Ongoing (06/30/94) Superintendent (Central Office, Director of Communications) 1.1 1.1 1.1 (Increased minority staff representation in areas needed) (Increased representation of minority students in programs currently under- represented) (Administration of Human Relations Survey will reflect improvement in race relations and equity) Public participation Dissemination of material (Increase in number of students returning to public school) (School District's required Annual Report to Community will include mission/goals for LRSD) A. Six Community Forums were held by the Superintendent to articulate vision/mission as well as to hear ideas from the public 10/11/93 12/06/93 B. Three (3) District dialogues with employee groups 01/06/94 02/03/94 C. Washington Magnet PTA 01/18/94 01/18/94 D. Two (2) dialogues with Little Rock City Board 02/01/94 02/28/94 E. Press Conference in concert with Little Rock City Hall 02/03/94 02/03/94 34Program Seq *: 21 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code\n09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Page: 3 Reviaion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number Donita Hudspeth To provide ataff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria F. Forest Part PTA 02/07/94 02/07/94 G. Garland PTA 03/01/94 03/01/94 H. Mann Magnet PTA 03/03/94 03/03/94 I. Hail High Kindergarten parents 03/07/94 03/07/94 J. Dunbar PTA 03/08/94 03/08/94 K. Early Childhood Task Force 03/14/94 03/14/94 L. Two (2) Community Forums 03/21/94 03/24/94 M. Romine tnterdistrict PTA 03/22/94 03/22/94 1.2 Schedule and implement workshops and activities related to improving race relations for the following grouops: a. Board of Directors A. B. C. b. c. District Administrators Certified Staff d. District Support Staff Desegregation Inservice - New Principals Desegregation - Ail District Administrators Everybody Means Everybody (Inclusive for all students) Ail District Administrators D. Human Relations/Race Relations - Martin L. King, Jr. Interdistrict Staff E. Operationalizing Equity - Dunbar Junior High 35 1988'89 School Year (07/01/93) 07/27/93 07/28/93 07/28/93 08/04/93 08/19/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 07/23/93 07/28/93 07/29/93 08/04/93 08/19/93 Deseg. Asst. Center IDACj and Central Office Staff (Staff Development Department, Principals) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Roster of participants (Increased minority staff representation in areas needed) (Increased representation of minority students in programs currently under- represented) (Administration of Human Relations Survey will reflect improvement in reace relations and equity)Page: 4 Program Sag f: 21 Reviaion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Coda: 09 Primary Leader\nDennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Rafarance Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria F. Human Relations/Race Relations - Stephens Incentive School G. Human Relations/Race Relations - Garland Incentive School H. Staff Development Specialists - two days training * Inclusion for 21st Century I. Race Relations inservice \u0026gt; Metropolitan J. Race Relations Inservice - Baseline 09/13/93 09/27/93 10/05/93 10/18/93 11/01/93 09/13/93 09/27/93 10/06/93 10/18/93 11/01/93 K. Staff Development Director \u0026gt; Equity Assistance Center - Healing Racism 11/05/93 11/05/93 L Operationalizing Equity - Fair Sr. High 12/06/93 12/06/93 M. Building an Effective Multicultural Climate - Department of Exceptional Children N. Cultural Diversity (Variants Across the Curriculum) Grades 3-6 O. Race Relations \u0026gt; Dodd P. Race Relations  Brady Q. Human Relations - Mitchell R. Race Relations * Baseline S. Cross Cultural Relations/Operationalizing Equity Leadership Class 1,3 Plan and implement an evening symposium for the community on \"Community Involvement in a Desegregated School Setting\" 01/14/94 01/19/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 02/07/94 03/07/94 03/15/94 Fall 1988 01/14/94 01/19/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 02/07/94 03/07/94 03/15/94 Fall 1988 DAC Consultant 1.3 Roster of participants 1.3 (Symposium was held in April and August, 1988) 1.3 (hem completed in April and August, 1988, and is not recurring) 36Program Seq #: 21 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Page: S Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Goal: Plan Reference Page Number L 126 L 126 Donita Hudspeth To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. Provide inservice on cooperative learning strategies in a heterogeneous classroom 1.4 Monitor implementation of above strategies 2.1 Inservice teachers and administration on cooperative learning based on Slavin and Johnson and Johnson (or other appropriate cooperative learning models) A Cooperative Learning Inservice - Martin L. King, Jr. Interdistrict School B. Cooperative Learning Refresher (Voluntary District-wide) C. Cooperative Learning Cycle (Voluntary District- wide) D. Cooperative Learning Refresher (Voluntary District'Wide) E. Cooperative Learning in Social Studies and Science - Williams Magnet 37 Pall 1988 (07/01/93) (07/01/93) July 1991 (07/01/93) 08/05/93 10/29/93 11/10/93 11/30/93 12/06/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) (06/30/94) Ongoing (06/30/94) 08/05/93 10/29/93 11/17/93 11/30/93 12/06/93 Assoc Supt for Educational Prog (Superintendent, District Biracial Committee) (Staff Development Department, Content Area Supervisors) Staff Dev Dept Content Area Sup vs 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 Meetings held (Attendance at public meetings) (District-wide Biracial Monitoring Report will reflect improvement in minority representation in all areas needed) (Increased involvement in group activities in the classroom) (Improved classroom climate and social interactions among all students) Training model (Increased involvement in group activities in the classroom) (Improved classroom climate and social interactions among all students)Program Seq *: 21 Page: 6 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader\nDonita Hudspeth Program Qoal: To provide etaff development to Improve race relatione and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 126 L 126 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria F. Two Cooperative Team Learning Cycles (Voluntary District-wide) G. Cooperative Team Learning Overview - Geyer Springs 2.2 Monitor teachers' use of cooperative learning strategies 01/27/94 03/21/94 (07/01/93) 03/17/94 03/21/94 (06/30/94) Principal (Staff Development Department, Content Area Supervisors) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Classroom observation and documentation (Random observation of classrooms where teachers have been trained) (Random survey of cooperative learning participants regarding effects of implementation in their classrooms) (Principal will observe cooperative learning strategies during routine classroom visitations) 3.0 Provide inservice on additional strategies to improve instruction in desegregated school setting (To improve instruction through the use of effective teaching strategies in the school setting) (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Staff Development, Content Area Supervisors) 3.0 (Increase in achievement of students of teachers in identified programs) 3.1 Provide inservice opportunities on: a. Effective Schools Model PET b. Teaching/Learning Styles c. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) d. Classroom Management e. (and/or other appropriate inservice opportunities) A. Inservice for Effective Schools Model - PET Teams from Mitchell, Brady, Bale, Otter Creek, and Booker 38 July 1991 (07/01/93) 07/01/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 07/15/93 Staff Dev Dept (Content Area Supervisors) 3.1 3.1 Roster of participants Workshop evaluations (Number of participants from a cross-section of district staff involved in the identified programs)Page: 7 Program Saq f: 21 Revision Dale: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting In improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Resporwibiiity Evaluation Criteria a. PET Refresher \u0026gt; Voluntary District-wide b. Effective Schools Training Leadership Class 01/24/94 02/08/94 01/24/94 02/22/94 B. Teaching/Learning Styles a. Early Intervention ADHD - District Administrators 07/29/93 b. Overcoming the Barriers - District Administrators 07/29/93 07/29/93 c. Early Intervention in ADHD - Special Education Teachers) d. Early Prevention of School Failure - All new kindergarten teachers e. Staff Development Director attended 3 day Institute - Making Education Meaningful for African-American Children (should have been included in first quarter report) f. Strategies for Working with At-Risk - Voluntary District-wide g. Strategies for Working with At-Risk - Voluntary District-wide h. Learning Styles Cycle - Voluntary District-wide 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/19/93 10/18/93 11/15/93 11/17/93 08/17/93 08/17/93 07/21/93 10/18/93 11/15/93 12/08/93 i. Early intervention of ADHD/Developmental Differences - Voluntary District-wide 11/29/93 11/29/93 j. Working with At-Risk - Brady Elementary 11/29/93 11/29/93 k. Two (2) Early Intervention of ADHD/Developmental Differences - Voluntary District-wide 39 01/10/94 03/07/94Page\nProgram Seq #: 21 Revision Date: May 7. 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader\nDonita Hudspeth 8 Program Qoal: To provide staff development to improve race relatione and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting In improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectivee Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria i. Strategies for Working with At-Risk Children - Voluntary District-wide m. Three (3) Learning Styles Cycle Workshops - Voluntary District-wide n. Learning Styles Overview \u0026gt; Bale Elementary o. Learning Styles Overview - Fair Park p. Two (2) Thinking Skills Training courses - Voluntary District-wide q. Learning Styles Overview - Mabelvale Elementary C. TESA - Registered four (4) staff members for Trainer of Trainers TESA - October a. Three staff members trained as coordinators for TESA b. TESA (Cycle 1) Sessions 1-2 - Voluntary District-wide c. TESA (Cycle 2) Sessions 1-2 - Voluntary District-wide d. TESA (Cycle 1) Sessions 3-4-5 e. TESA (Cycle 2) Sessions 3-4*5 f. TESA (Cycle 3) Sessions 1-4 01/11/94 01/11/94 01/12/94 01/24/94 01/24/94 03/07/94 10/19/93 11/22/93 11/30/93 01/11/94 01/18/94 02/01/94 01/11/94 03/24/94 01/12/94 01/24/94 02/28/94 03/07/94 10/22/93 11/22/93 11/30/93 03/14/94 03/22/94 03/15/94 D. Classroom Management a. Classroom Management - Martin L King, Jr. Interdistrict Staff 08/05/93 08/05/93 b. Positive Discipline - Carver Magnet c. Behavior Modification - Mabelvale Jr. High 40 08/18/93 08/19/93 08/18/93 08/19/93Page: Program Saq *: 21 Raviaion Data: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Coda: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth 9 Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Rafaranca Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Data Completion Data Responsibility Evaluation Criteria d. Positive Discipline - Rightsell Incentive School e. Positive Discipline - Brady Elementary f. Discipline Management - Cloverdale Elementary 09/13/93 10/11/93 10/11/93 09/13/93 10/11/93 10/11/93 g. Classroom Management Cycle - Voluntary District-wide 10/21/93 10/28/93 h. Classroom Discipline \u0026gt; Watson Elementary i. Positive Discipline * McDermott Elementary 10/26/93 11/02/93 10/26/93 11/02/93 j. Cooperative Discipline Cycle - Stephens Incentive School 11/08/93 11/29/93 k. Positive Discipline - Garland Incentive School I. Positive Discipline - Mabelvale Elementary m. Positive Discipline  Voluntary ^strict-wide n. Positive Discipline - Mabelvale Jr. High o. Classroom Management Cycle - Voluntary District-wide p. Two (2) Positive Discipline Workshops - Voluntary District-wide q. Training Seminar - Working with Difficult Students r. Discipline Management - Wakefield Elementary s. Discipline Management Incentive Schools' Instructional Aides E. (and/or other appropriate inservice opportunities) a. Abacus Training (all teachers at non-pilot elementary schools) 41 11/08/93 11/15/93 11/16/93 01/10/94 01/11/94 01/20/94 02/03/94 02/07/94 03/09/94 08/30/93 11/08/93 11/15/93 11/16/93 01/10/94 01/11/94 02/24/94 02/04/94 02/07/94 03/10/94 09/29/93Page: 10 Program Seq *: 21 Revnion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide etaff development to improve race relatione and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Object! vea Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria b. Abacus Training/Technical Assistants 09/30/93 10/04/93 c. Self-Esteem/Elementary - Voluntary Districtwide d. Seh-Esteem/Secondary - Voluntary Districtwide e. Self-Esteem/Eiementary - Voluntary - Districtwide f. Abacus Training (extra assistance) - Voluntary District-wide - 8 sessions g. Performance Management Training - Staff Development Director h. Abacus Training Sessions - Eighteen Voluntary District-wide and all Resource Teachers i. Two (2) Self-Esteem/Elementary/Secondary - Voluntary District-wide j. Leadership for Change Training Leadership Class/Vice Principals - Voluntary District-wide k. Curriculum Frameworks Training - Director of Staff Development and Six (6) Curriculum Supervisors I. Leadership for Change SEDL Training - Staff Development Director 42 10/19/93 11/02/93 11/10/93 10/19/93 09/21/93 01/11/94 01/05/94 01/24/94 02/07/94 02/15/94 10/19/93 11/02/93 11/10/93 12/07/93 10/15/93 03/23/94 02/03/94 01/24/94 02/09/94 02/17/94Page: 11 Program Seq *: 21 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relatione and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 127 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria m. Positive Confrontation - Bale Elementary 3.2 Send selected staff to professional development sessions in order to increase the number of available trainers and in return for a commitment to assist with collegial staff development. 3.3 Provide district-wide program of staff development 02/23/94 07/01/93 07/01/93 02/23/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 4.0 Provide inservice on \"Effective Implementation of the LRSD Discipline Management System\" (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Director of Pupil Personnel) 4.0 4.0 (Decrease in the number of students who receive disciplinary sanctions) (Decrease in the disproportionate number of minority students who receive disciplinary sanctions) 4.1 Continue to involve courtselors. principals, assistant principals, and teachers in discipline managenwnt in a desegregated school setting A. Positive Interventions in the Discipline Management System - Inservice Secondary Administrators B. Each building has a building discipline plan C. Students have received training in Rights/Responsibilities Handbook 43 July 1991 (07/01/93) 07/29/93 08/16/93 08/30/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 07/29/93 09/03/93 09/30/93 Director of Pupil Services (Pupil Services Department, Principals, Counselors) 4.1 4.1 4.1 Roster of participants (Building Level Discipline Managment Plans established for all schools) (Counseling classes will include orientation to the building level plan and district-wide Rights and Responsibilities Handbook)u Page: 12 Program Seq *: 21 Revieion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting In improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 127 L 127 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. Focus Group/Peer Sharing - Discipline Management System - Voluntary District- wide/Administrators 4.2 Monitor use of discipline managment system 12/08/93 Fall 1988 (07/01/93) 12/08/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) Principals Counselors School Teams 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Documentation (Quarterly Behavior Managment Reports) (Building level biracial committee reports will be used to monitor and/or adjust discipline plans) (District-wide Biracial Committee) 5.0 Provide PAL (Academic Support) teachers with strategies for planning and delivering more than orw type of instructional grouping (To provide academic support teachers with strategies for planning and delivering more than one type of instructional grouping) (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Assoc. Superintendent, Academic Support Supervisors, Content Area Supervisors, Staff Development) 5.0 5.0 5.0 (Increase in achievement for all students in Academic Support Programs) (Decrease in achievement gap in representative population) (Decrease in number of students requiring academic support services) 5.1 Continue to investigate and research sources of strategies, models and activities of successful small and large group instructional practices within heterogenous classes A. Five articles distributed to Academic Support teachers 44 Fall 1988 (07/01/93) 08/16/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 09/30/93 Assoc Supt for Eductional Prog (Staff Development Department, Content Area Supervisors, Academic Support Supervisors) 5.1 5.1 Identification of sources (Provide staff with information from current research monthly)Page: 13 Program Seq #: 21 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Six articles distributed to Academic Support teachers C. Six articles distributed to Academic Support Teachers 5,2 Conduct workshop to address ths following: a. grouping theory and strategies b. demonstration of strategies for varied instruction A Cooperative Learning Inservice * Martin L King, Jr. Interdistrict B. Language Arts and Reading Workshop - New Teachers C. Integrated Learning \u0026gt; Garland Incentive D. Hands-On Science - Rightsell Incentive E. Making Language Learning Meaningful Session 1*2 - Southwest Jr. High F. Making Language Learning Meaningful Session 1-2 - Cloverdale Jr. High G. Applied Math 9th Grade Teachers - District- wide 45 10/01/93 12/17/93 01/03/94 03/24/94 Fall 1988 (07/01/93) Fall 1988 (06/30/94) Supervisor of Math and English (Content Area Supervisors, Staff Development Department) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Written evaluation by participants (Increase in achievement for all students in Academic Support Programs) (Decrease in achievement gap in representative population) (Decrease in number of students requiring academic support services) (Principal will observe forough classroom observations and teacher conferences) 08/05/93 10/04/93 10/04/93 10/04/93 10/08/93 10/15/93 10/12/93 08/05/93 10/14/93 10/04/93 10/04/93 11/11/93 11/12/93 10/13/93Page: 14 Program Seq #: 21 Revision Date: May 7. 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Qoal: To provide etaff development to improve race relatione and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Resporwibility Evaluation Criteria H. Developing Thematic Units \u0026gt; Voluntary Districtwide I. Cooperative Learning Refresher - Voluntary District-wide J. Literature Instruction/Shared Reading and Writing - Voluntary District-wide K. Literature-Based Instruction Grades 1-3 - Voluntary District-wide L Hands-On Equations Grades 5-8 - Voluntary District-wide M. Cooperative Learning Cycle - Voluntary District-wide N. Hands-On Science Grade 3 - Voluntary District- wide 0. Integrating Math and Science Grades 1-2 - Voluntary District-wide P. Hands-On Science Grade 6 - Voluntary Districtwide Q. Hands-On Equations Grades 5-8 - Voluntary District-wide A. Cooperative Learning Refresher - Voluntary District-wide S. Cooperative Learning in Social Studies and Science - Williams Magnet T. Integrating Math and Science \u0026gt; Gibbs Magnet 10/21/93 10/29/93 11/02/93 11/04/93 11/09/93 11/10/93 11/11/93 11/15/93 11/18/93 11/29/93 11/30/93 12/06/93 12/07/93 10/21/93 10/29/93 11/03/93 11/04/93 11/16/93 11/17/93 11/11/93 11/15/93 11/18/93 12/06/93 11/30/93 12/06/93 12/07/93 U. Hands-On Science Grade 5, Voluntary Districtwide 12/09/93 12/09/93 V. Flips, Slides, Turns Grades 4-6 Math Teachers 12/09/93 12/09/93 46Page: 15 Program Seq *: 21 Revision Date: May 7. 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the Implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria W. Hands-On Science - Bale Elementary 01/05/94 01/05/94 X. Hands-On Math - Science (New Teachers Grades K-6) Y. Three (3) Training Sessions Integrating Math and Science - Voluntary District-wide (2-6) Z Two (2) Math in Literature * Voluntary Districtwide (Grades K-6) AA. Integrating Geography Through Children's Literature (Grades 4-8) BB. Three (3) Hands-On Science - Voluntary District-wide CC. Makine Language Learning Meaningful Session 3-4 - Southwest Junior High School DD. Cooperative Team Learning (2 cycles) - Voluntary District-wide EE. Skills Through Literature - Stephens FF. Language Arts Integration - Rightsell GG. Increasing Effectiveness in Working with Groups - Incentive School Instructional Assistants HH. Fractions, Fractions, Fractions (Grades 4-8) - Voluntary District-wide II. Positive/Negative Numbers (Grades 6-8) - Voluntary District-wide 47 01/05/94 01/11/94 01/13/94 01/19/94 01/20/94 01/27/94 01/27/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 03/09/94 03/10/94 03/15/94 01/19/94 02/17/94 02/24/94 01/19/94 03/17/94 01/27/94 03/17/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 03/10/94 03/10/94 03/15/94Page: 16 Program Seq #\n21 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Coda: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the Implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 127 L 127 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6.0 Provide inservice to assist principal and faculties with strategies for promoting student achievement and growth (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Asst. Superintendent, Planning, Research and Evaluation, Staff Development, Content Area Supervisors) 6.0 6.0 (Increase in achievement for alt students) (Decrease in achievement gap in representative population) 6.1 Continue to provide imervice for principals on methods for developing their school improvement plan A. \"What Works\" - directed sharing for new principals 6. Evaluating Literature Based Instruction - District Administrators C. Portfolio Assessment - District Administrators D. Monitoring the At-Risk Child - District Administrators E. Monitoring Instructional Effectiveness - District Administrators F. Next Step In Portfolio Writing - Jefferson Q. Redesign Portfolios - Garland Incentive 48 Pall 1988 (07/01/93) 07/27/93 07/28/93 07/28/93 07/29/93 07/29/93 09/07/93 09/14/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 07/27/93 07/28/93 07/28/93 07/29/93 07/29/93 09/07/93 09/15/93 Div of Schools Eval and Testing IRC Specialists (Asst. Superintendents) 6.1 6.1 6.1 Comprshansive and accurate product (Number of workshops In Integrating the Curriculum, Literature-based Instruction, Authentic Assessment and/or other relevant methodologies) (Better school improvement plans are submitted)Page: 17 Program Saq #: 21 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Rafaranca Paga Numbar Object! vea Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responeibility Evaluation Criteria H. Writing/Getting Started - Pulaski Heights Elementary I. Integrating the Curriculum/Thematic Units * Washington/Woodruff J. Portfolio Assessment  Wilson Elementary 09/23/93 09/28/93 10/18/93 09/23/93 09/28/93 10/18/93 K. Grant Writing Workshop * Academic Incentive Grant 10/27/93 10/27/93 L Portfolio Assessment - Washington Magnet M. Portfolio Assessment - Watson Elementary N. Portfolio Assessment (2 Sessions) - Rockefeller Incentive School 0. Focus Group * Technical Assistance * Academic incentive Grants P. Portfolio Assessment - Bale Elementary Q. Six (6) Portfolio Assessment Training Sessions R. Effective Schools Training Leadership Class S. Achieving Equity Leadership Class 11/01/93 11/02/93 11/08/93 11/17/93 12/06/93 01/04/94 02/08/94 03/15/94 11/01/93 11/02/93 12/06/93 11/17/93 12/06/93 03/09/94 02/22/94 03/15/94 T. Seven (7) Reading Inservices to Promote Instructional Practices 02/02/94 03/15/94 6.2 Continue to assist principals in revising school improvement plans through the analysis of disaggregated data July 1991 (07/01/93) Ongoing (06/30/94) Assoc and Asst Supts 6.2 6,2 6.2 Completed plans (Provide written feedback and opportunities for sharing \"What Works\" in various building-level plans) (Plans reflect strategies that evolved from disaggregated data) 49Page: 18 Program Seq #: 21 Reviaion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6.3 Continue to provide special school-based program and content area inservice meetings scheduled on a regular basis with specific sessions on content methodology and interpersonal relations for program implementation in a desegregated setting A. Integrated Learning - Garland incentive B. Hands-On Science - Rightsell Incentive C. Making Language Learning Meaningful Session 1-2 - Southwest Junior High D. Positive Discipline - Brady Elementary E. Discipline Management - Cloverdale Elementary F. Making Language Learning Meaningful Session 1-2 - Cloverdale Jr. High G. Race Relations Inservice - Metropolitan H. Portfolio Assessment  Wilson I. Classroom Discipline - Watson J. Race Relations Inservice - Baseline K. Portfolio Assessment - Washington Magnet L Portfolio Assessment - Watson Elementary M. Positive Discipline - McDermott N. Positive Discipline - Garland Incentive 50 1991 School Year (07/01/93) 10/04/93 10/04/93 10/08/93 10/11/93 10/11/93 10/15/93 10/18/93 10/18/93 10/26/93 11/01/93 11/01/93 11/02/93 11/02/93 11/08/93 Ongoing (06/30/94) 10/04/93 10/04/93 11/11/93 10/11/93 10/11/93 11/12/93 10/18/93 10/18/93 10/26/93 11/01/93 11/01/93 11/02/93 11/02/93 11/08/93 Staff Dev Dept Content Area Supervbora Principals 6.3 6.3 6.3 Workshop agendas and evaluatiorts (A computer based compilation of individual employees/school-wide staff development activities will be available) (Student achievement will increase\ndisparity gap in representative population will decrease)Page: 19 Program Saq f: 21 Revision Date: May 7. 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code\n09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relatiorrs and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Pian Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria O. Cooperative Discipline Cycle - Stephens Incentive P. Portfolio Assessment (2 Sessions) - Rockefeller Incentive Q. Positive Discipline - Mabelvale Elementary R. Working with At-Risk  Brady Elementary S. Operationalizing Equity  Fair Sr. High T. Cooperative Learning in Social Studies and Science - Williams Magnet U. Portfolio Assessment * Bale Elementary V. Integrating Math and Science - Gibbs Magnet W. Portfolio Assessment - Brady X. Hands-On Science - Bale Y. Positive Discipline \u0026gt; Mabelvale Junior High Z Compton's Encyclopedia Computers - Franklin AA. Childrens Writing - Franklin BB. More Portfolios - Rockefeller CC. Making Language Meaningful - Southwest Junior High DD. Race Relations - Dodd EE. Language Arts Strategies - Stephens FF. Race Relations - Brady GG. Language Arts Integration  Rightsell HH. Improving Human Relations - Mitchell 51 11/08/93 11/08/93 11/15/93 11/29/93 12/06/93 12/06/93 12/06/93 12/07/93 01/04/94 01/05/94 01/10/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/24/94 01/27/94 01/31/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 02/07/94 02/07/94 11/29/93 12/06/93 11/15/93 11/29/93 12/06/93 12/06/93 12/06/93 12/07/93 01/04/94 01/05/94 01/10/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/24/94 01/27/94 01/31/94 01/31/94 02/07/94 02/07/94 02/07/94Page: 20 Program Seq 21 Revieion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader\nDonita Hudspeth Program Qoal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in Improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 128 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria II. Portfolio Assessment \u0026gt; Dodd 02/21/94 02/21/94 JJ. KK. LL Positive Confrontation - Bale Portfolio Assessment - Hall Learning Styles * Mabelvale Elementary MM. Cross-Cultural Relations - Baseling NN. Integrating Math/Science - Mitchell 00. Literature in Social Studies - Geyer Springs PP. Cooperative Learning Refresher - Geyer Springs 6.4 To provide special assistance for teachers as requested. 02/23/94 03/02/94 03/07/94 03/07/94 03/14/94 03/17/94 03/21/94 07/01/93 02/23/94 03/02/94 03/07/94 03/07/94 03/14/94 03/17/94 03/21/94 06/30/94 7.0 Form tri-district committee for collaborative procedures July 1. 1991 (07/01/93) Ongoing (06/30/94) (Directors of Staff Development from LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD) 7.0 7.0 Ongoing analysis (Tri-district workshops will be held) 7.1 Establish tri-district committee A. Tri-district Committee is formed 52 July 1. 1991 Ongoing (Directors of Staff Development from LRSD, PCSSD. and NLRSD) 7.1 7.1 Ongoing analysis (Tri-district committee was formed in August, 1991)Page: 21 Program Seq *: 21 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting In improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 7.2 Meet four times per year, two timea each semester. The committee functions will be to identify and implement staff devsiopntent strategies that will assist the districts In fulfilling expectations of \"maintaining quality\" desegragatsd school districts. A. First meeting is scheduled for October 1, 1993 B. Tri*Di$trlct Committee Meeting 7.3 Plan any activities appropriate for collaboralion, e.g., community meetings, etc. A. Teachers from LRSD were recruited for Equity in Excellence class taught by PCSSD and will receive salary credit at its completion B. Meeting with Media Speciaists and Curriculum Specialists from North Little Rock and Pulaski County to plan Multicultural Fair C. Teachers from LRSD were granted salary credit for classes taken through Pulaski County Staff Development Department D. Meeting with Associate Superintendent for Desegregation from Pulaski County E. Teachers from LRSD were recruited for Equity in Excellence class taught by PCSSD and will receive salary credit F. Tri\u0026lt;fistrict Multicultural Fair 53 (07/01/93) 07/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 (07/01/93) 08/26/93 11/16/93 09/01/93 11/30/93 12/01/93 02/23/94 (06/30/94) 06/30/94 10/01/93 10/01/93 (06/30/94) 12/15/93 11/16/93 12/17/93 11/30/93 01/07/94 02/23/94 (Directors of Staff Development from LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD) (Directors of Staff Development from LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD) 7.2 (Record of meetings and collaborative nature of areas addressed) 7.3 (Documentation of number of activities among the three districts)Page: 22 Program Seq *: 21 Revision Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name\nStaff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Qoal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number L 126 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6.0 Provide staff development comportent for effective staff development in desegregated school setting (07/01/93) (06/30/94) (Board of Directors, Superintendent Director of Staff Development) 8.0 (Gather and analyze data from school district participants on the effectiveness of the staff development activities designed to address their specific needs) 8.1 Establish staff development component a. Staff Development Dept Personrtei b. Staff Development Office c. Staff Development Catalogue/Calendar A. Department personnel is functioning at 86% B. Office is operational C. Catalogue was distributed on October 1 8.2 Certified staff members (administrators and teachers) shall be trained to teach and counsel black an educationally-advantaged students. 8.3 The Little Rock School District will hire a five- member staff development team for this purpose. 54 July 1991 July 1991 July 1991 (07^1/93) 07/01/91 09/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing (06/30/94) 06/30/94 10/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 Board of Diractore/Supt Human Resources Dir of Staff Dev 8.1 8.1a Implementation of Staff Development Dept Employment of Director, four specialists and one secretary (implementation of Staff Development Department in July, 1991) 8.1b Office is operational 8.1b (Office was established in July, 1991 8.Ie Dbtribution of catalogue/ calendar 8.1c (Staff Development Catalogue/Calendar distributed annuallyPage: 23 Program Seq #: 21 Reviaion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal\nTo provide ataff development to improve race relatiorw and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectivea Strategies Beginning Date Completion Data Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 8.4 The Little Rock School Kstrict Staff Development Department will be responsible for implementing the staff development senzices. 8.5 The staff development goals and programs currently used by the District, such as TESA, PET and others, will be continued, but a far more creative and comprehensive staff development program suitable for the needs of all employees and volunteers will be implemented. 8.6 The districts will cooperate In designing a fresh and extended approach to staff development. Included in the planning will be community resource persons and all district personnel responsible for delivering training to staff, and to parent, volunteer, or student committees or groups. 8.7 Staff development will based upon certain basic principles of human behavior, learning process and change dynamics. 8.8 The diverse training needs of staff at all employment levels will be met. 8.9 The District will establish resource banks which identify the training skills or specialized knowledge of employees and volunteers which can be shared through staff development activities. 55 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94Page: 24 Program Seq #: 21 Revieion Date: May 7, 1994 Program Name: Staff Development Program Code: 09 Primary Leader: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Leader: Donita Hudspeth Program Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. (To provide staff development activities that will promote the implementation of the desegregation plan resulting in improved academic achievement.) Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 8.10 Computer data bases will be used to record each employee's staff development history. 8.11 Carefully planned training of trainers' events will be actively used to expand inhouse training expertise. 8.12 Interdistrict training activities will be frequently offered for groups of employees and volunteers. 6.13 The District will deal decisivelv with the Issue of racism and will involve all staff, students, and parents In a comprehensive prejudice reduction program. 8.14 Certain areas of training and staff development will be specialty emphasized: utilization of voulnteer resources, preparation of substitute teachers and aids, and training for parents. 56 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Saq *: 22 Page: 1 Raviaion Data: May 11, 1994 Program Nama: Ubrary/Media Program Coda: 32 Primary Laadar: Dennis Glasgow Secondary Laadar: Lucy Lyon Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Plan References: Each child In the Uttio Rock School District should be given access to his/her full measure of the Instructional resources. Ubrary/media services will be designed to provide lor extension and enrichment of basic skills and will also accommodate the varied learning styles of students In different instructional groups. Because students will have opportunities Io work and learn in the library/media center under the direction of a trained teacher-librarian, they will be able to approach learning in a variety of ways, thus accommodating their individual styles and also providing for the additional \"time on task\" or enrichment that many students need In order to internalize the material initially presented. The District s plan is to offer a library/media program to serve learners with diverse needs, background and abilities through a comprehensive program designed to better support District goals and student needs with regard to learning stylos, relevance of instruction, support of multicultural school curriculum, and the application of learning to real-life situations. Ubrary/media services will be designed to provide for extension and enrichment of basic skills and will also accommodate the varied leamlng styles of students In different instructional groups. Students will have opportunities to work and learn In the library/media center under the direction of a trained teacher-librarian. The Uttle Rock School Distrlcfs library/media program will fulfill Its potential as an essential contributor to the District s successful desegregation plan. Upon implementation of the elementary program a review of the secondary program will commence with special attention being given to meeting the interests and needs of the District's diverse population. Goal #1 - Implement Integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities In achiovement. Goal #2 - Develop and maintain a staff that Is well-trained and motivated. Goal #3 - The Uttle Rock School Board, administration, stafl, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each Individual as a valued contributor to society to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which out community and nation can draw as we prepare lor the 21st Century. Goal #6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Ran. I L 106, L 107, L 109, L 110 ] FY Program Budget: $479,954.32 1st Qtr Expend: $61,580.87 3rd Qtr Expend: $91,974.51 FTE 30 YTD Expenditures: $264,476.35 2nd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: I Related Function Codes: 3 57Program Seq #: 22 Program Name: Library/Media Program Code: 32 Program Qoal: Plan Reference Page Number L109 L106 L109 L109 L109 LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Page: 2 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Lucy Lyon Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. Implement the district's proposed new elementary library/media program. 1. (To provide equitable access to library resources including multicultural and audiovisual resources for all students.) 1.1 Hire consultant, coordinator, and clerical help A Consultant, coordinator, clerical help were hired. 1.2 Review recommendation/outline new program. A. New was program outlined. 1.3 Identify equipment and material necessary for new library/media program and determine the necessary equipment to ensure each district student equity of access in standard instructional offerings. 58 (July 1, 1993) (June 30, 1994) (Coordinator of Library Services, Principals, Librarians) Dir of Human Serv, Supv of Inet Tech 09/20/88 09/01/88 10/16/88 11/01/88 1. Comparison of survey results 1988-1993 will show increased use. 1. Comparison of data collected monthly will show: eStudent visits will increase. eVolume of books checked out will increase.  Independent research by etudents will be documented to show use. Number of classes/groups scheduled by teachers will be documented to show use. 1.1 Contracts (Contracts are on file in Human Resources.) Consultant, Supv of Inst Tech, Advisory Committee Librarians Coordinator of Library Services 1.2 Agenda for meetings (Agendas are on file in the Dept, of Instructional Technology.) 1.3 Report/List (Surveys and list are on file in the Dept, of Instructional Technology.)Program Saq *: 22 Page: 3 Ravialon Data: May 11, 1994 Program Nama: Library/Media Program Coda: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthls Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number L109 L109 L109 L109 L109 L109 Objectivea Stratagiae Beginning Data Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Equipment/materials were identified. 1.4 Order equipment and materials rtecessary including AV software. (Determine/purchase core materials needed for each elementary school.) A Books and reference materials supporting curriculum ordered for each school. 1.5 Prepare a tentative supplemental list of new AV film/videoe, etc., and distribute. A. List of film/videos was prepared. 1.6 Develop procedures, guidslines, policy statements, and curriculum guides. A Procedures, guidelines, policy statements and curriculum guides were completed. 1.7 Conduct inservice and curriculum development for classes for librarians, principals, and teachers. Library media specialists will provide inservice training to building4evel staff In the use of materials and equipment. A. Inservice and curriculum classes were held. 1.8 Process naw material including cataloging. A. New material was processed. 1.9 Receive requests for AV materials for fall semester 1989. A AV requests for fall semester 1989 were received. 59 10/16/88 (July 1, 1993) 01/03/94 02/01/89 (12/01/89) 07/01/93 12/01/89 11/01/88 April 1. 1989 04/01/89 12/05/88 (June 30, 1994) 03/31/94 03/01/89 05/30/90 06/30/94 05/30/90 10/01/89 May 30, 1989 05/30/89 Supv of Inst Tech. Coor of Lib Services, (Librarians) Supv of Inst Tech Cortsultant, Supv of Inst Tech, Coor and Advisory Committee Consultant, Supv of Inst Tech, Coor and Advisory Committee Librarians, Media Staff Supv of Inst Tech 1.4 Purchase orders (Materials supporting the curriculum will be used in each elementary school.) 1.5 Supplemental ibt (List on file in Dept, of Instructional Technology.) 1.6 File copies (Curriculum guide, polices, and procedures on file in Dept, of Instructional Technology.) 1.7 (Agendas and memos) (Agendas and memos on file in Dept, of Instructional Technology.) 1.8 Completion memo 1.9 Checkoff list (List on file in Dept, of Instructional Technology.)Psge: 4 Program Seq #: 22 Revieion Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Qoal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the districts Desegregation Plan Plan Reterence Page Number LI 09 L110 L110 L110 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Resporwibility Evaluation Criteria 1.10 Schedule films\\videos as possible. (Schedule videos correlated to LRSD curriculum as requested by teachers. Use of 16mm film is outdated.) A Videos are scheduled daily and were current on 09/30/93. B. Videos are scheduled daily and were current on 12/17/93 C. Videos are scheduled daily and were current on 03/25/94. 1.11 Hire full-time librarians and full-time cbrks for each elerrwntary school as needed. A Full-time librarians were in place in all elementary libraries. Clerks were In place according to LRSD formula. 1.12 Develop a maintenance proposal which assures prompt and efficient repair of all AV equipment independent of the time of year. (Maintain procedures for prompt and efficient repair of AV equipment.) A. Third quarter repair record: 145 AV machines repaired  63 within one (1) week or receipt\n70 computer monitors repaired\n33 computer cable jobs completed 1.13 Notify teachers via librarians of the fail schedule (films/videosl. (Instructional videos correlated to LRSD curriculum are scheduled. Use of 16mm film is outdated.) GO (July 1, 1993) 08/23/93 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1. 1993 07/01/93 July 1, 1993 01/03/94 July 1, 1993 (June 30, 1994) 35% 70% 64% June 30, 1994 09/30/93 June 30. 1994 03/31/94 June 30. 1994 Supv of Inst Tech (Coor Lib Serv) Dir of Human Serv. Supv of Inat Tech. Coor Lib Serv. Principals Supv of Imt Tech (Coor Lib Serv) Supv of Irwt Tech (Coor Lib Serv) 1.10 Schedule (Videos correlated to curriculum will be used in each school.) 1.11 Contracts (Sufficient staff will be in place to meet state and North Central Standards for librarians. Library clerks will be staffed according to LRSD formula, based on enrollment.) 1.12 Copy of proposal Ninety percent of equipment sent in will be repaired within a week. 1.13 File copy (Videos correlated to the curriculum will be used in each school.)Page: 5 Program Sag *: 22 Revision Date: May 11. 1994 Program Name: Library/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matttiis Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Pago Number L109 L110 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. B. C. Teachers are notified weekly of current videos. Teachers are notified weekly of current videos Teachers are notified weekly of current videos 1.14 Supply films/videos per schedule. A. B. C. Videos are supplied weekly. Videos are supplied weekly. Videos are supplied weekly. 1.15 Develop a seven to ten year AV equipment purchase plan based on accepted life spans for equipment and equity consideratiorts. The goal is to devise a plan which will provide the district with consistent lirw item cost each year to simplify budgetary planning and prevent the necessity for large one-time expenditures as is now required A. An AV equipment purchase plan was developed. 1.16 Order supplies and printing. A. Supplies and printing were ordered. 1.17 Conduct inservice for librarians and library clerks. A. Inservice for elementary librarians held 08/12/93, and for secondary on 08/10/93. 61 09/30/93 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1, 1993 08/23/93 10/01/93 01/03/94 Sept. 5, 1989 09/05/89 Oct. 15, 1988 August each yr. (July 1) 08/10/93 35% 70% 80% June 30, 1994 35% 70% 80% Nov. 1. 1989 11/01/89 June 30, 1990 Ongoing (June 30) 08/12/93 Supv of Inst Tech (Coor Lib Serv) Supv of Inst Tech Supv of Inst Tech Coor of Lib Serv Librarians Z I 1.14 Weekly delivery (Videos correlated to curriculum will show 1.15 Copy of plan (Copy of plan on file In Department of Instructional Technology.) 1.16 Copies of purchase orders (Copies of purchase orders on file In Dept, of Instructional Technology.) Agendas (Quarterly data will reflect an Increase in library use.)Page: 6 Program Saq f: 22 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number L106 L107 L107 L107 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completiorf Dele Responsibility Evaluation Criteria \"1 2. (To extend and enrich the basic skills in ways that meet students varied learning styles and promote life long learning.) B. Inservice for librarians offered as follows: Abacus  October 26. 27\nGreat Books - December 2, 3, 6, 7\nSecondary Inservice  December 2 C. Inservice offered third quarter as follows: TriDistrict 01/11/04\nCelebrate Literacy 03/09/94\nSecondary Chapter II 03/16/94 2.1 (Plan with classroom teachers for materials needed for classroom units.) A. Librarian/Teacher Planning for Materials\nSecondary Librarians have consulted with teachers 1,950 times\nElementary Librarians have consulted with teachers 4,828 times 6. Ubrarians/Teacher planning for Materials for Dec., Jan., Feb.: Secondary Librarians consulted with teachers 4,518 times\nElementary Librarians consulted with teachers 10,375 times 2.2 (Hold at least one reading motivation activity each year.) A. Reading Motivation Activities Held\nSecondary = 20 sessions\nElementary \u0026gt; 23 sessions 6. Reading motivation activities held in Dec., Jan., Feb.\nSecondary  36\nElementary = 67 2.3 (Plan with teachers for library instruction to be correlated to classroom instruction.) 62 July 1. 1993 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1, 1993 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1. 1993 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1, 1993 June 30, 1994 12/31/93 03/31/94 June 30. 1994 12/31/93 03/31/94 June 30, 1994 12/31/93 03/31/94 June 30. 1994 Principals, Librarians Principals, Librarians Principals, Librarians Principate, Librariarvs 2. (As a result of increased planning and instruction by LM Specialist, test scores will increase on norm and criterion- referenced tests.) 2.1 (Improved planning with teachers will increase student tests scores.) 2.1 An increase in test scores for reference/studv skills will be evident utilizinQ norm- and criterion-referenced tests 2.2 (More books will be checked out in each school.) 2.3 (Improved planning with teachers will result in higher achievement for students.)Program Seq *: 22 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estella Matthls Secondary Leader: Pag*' 7 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Lucy Lyon Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the districts Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Complstion Date Reeponsibility Evaluation Criteria LI 07 133 1. The selection of materisls/resources to support the curriculum in desegregated school districts is a multi-district goal of the library media programs. A Ubrarian/Teacher planning for Instruction: Secondary = 345 sessions\nElementary = 774 sessions B. Ubrarian/Teacher planning for instruction: Secondary = 1,146\nElementary  3,339 2.4 (Instruct students In literary/reference skills) A Instruction of students in Library skills: Secondary = 22,674 sessions\nElementary = 29,212 sessions B. Instruction of students In library skills: Secondary = 59,401\nElementary \u0026gt; 88,254 2.5 Ubrarv media specialists will plan with ciassroom teachers for materials needed for classroom units. 2.6 Ubrarv media specialists will plan with classroom building staff for at least one school  wide reading motivation activity each year. 2.7, Library media specialists will plan with classroom teachers for library instruction to be correlated to classroom instruction. 2.8 Ubrarv media specialists will instruct students in literary skills and reference/study skills. 1.1 Continue hosting Muki-District, Multicultural Resource Sharing Fair. In the future, the fair site will rotate among the three districts. 63 10/01/93 01/03/94 July 1, 1993 10/01/93 01/03/94 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/01 /93 Annually 12/31/93 03/31/94 June 30, 1994 Principals, Librarians 12/31/93 03/31/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 06/30/94 Ongoing Library Media Director or responsible person including NRLSD) A 2.4 (Abacus assessment will show mastery of reference/study skills.) Resources will be selected, purchased, and utilized by teachers and students as they teach the curriculum of the desegregated school districts.Page: 8 Program \u0026amp;aq f: 22 Raviaion Data: May 11, 1994 Program Nama: Library/Media Program Coda: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Qoal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan 133 I34 Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria A. Two tri-district meetings held to plan Fair. Date of Fair set for 02/22/94 with NLR hosting B. Multicultural Materials Fair, with NLR hosting, held at North Little Rock High School, East Campus. 1.2 Begin hostino Mutti-Dlstrict Resource Sharing Fair with book and AV materials, vendors, rotating the site among the three districts. 11/30/93 02/22/94 07/01/93 11/30/93 02/22/94 06/30/94 2. The inservice training library media staff members to desegregated school districts is a multi-district goal of the library media programs. 3. Utilization of television technology In desegregated school districts te a multi-district goal of the library media programs. 4. Recruitment of minority Library Media Specialists in desegregated school districts is a muHi-district goal of library media programs. 2.1 Plan to host muhi-district Inservice meetings such as the orte sponsored by the Pulaski County Educational Service Cooperative in April of 1988 to explain the new national guidelines for school library madia program planning. 2.2 Plan to host inservice training for multidistrict library media specialists using district employees. A. Tri District meeting planned for 01/11/94. B. Tri-District Inservice held 01/11/94. 3.1 Implement utilization of cable channel 19 and/or videotapes produced at Metro to teach basis skills, etc. 4.1 Contact teachers training institutions/recruit teachers for training programs in library media certification. G4 Ongoing To be established 11/16/93 01/11/94 To be established Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 11/16/93 01/11/94 To be established Ongoing Library Media Directors or responsible person including NLRSD) Library Media Directors or responsible person Library Media Directors or responsible person (including NLRSD Inservice training will develop skills for library medial specialists who work in desegregated school districts Students wilt gain practical vocational experience in running a television studio\nstudents will benefit from instructional units provided over cable system or recorded for later classroom use Hiring and placement of minority media specialists will occurPsQe: 9 Program Seq *: 22 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Qoal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Resporwibility Evaluation Criteria 5. Muhi-district communication for library media program administrators is a goal for the programs. S. The summative evaluation will Involve a pre- and post-survey instrument for a comparsion between the classroom teacher responses from the survey done In 1988 and from a follow-up survey to be conducted In 1993, 5.1 Copy memos relating staff development opportunities to other district administrators. 5.2 Meet informally for sharing sessions. A. Met 11/20/93 for Informal sharing session. 65 Ongoing 11/30/93 07/01/93 Ongoing 11/30/93 06/30/94 Library Media Directors or responsible person (including NLRSD) Better communication will be achieved 6.1 Three  fifths instead of 1/4 of the teachers will consider themselves freouent users of the school library. 6.2 Students will have access at the point of need. 6.3 Only 1 of 10 students Instead of 4 out of 10 will indicate that they seldom or never go the library to use the library/media center materials for a class assignment. 6.4 Only 1/5 Instead of 1/2 of the teachers will report that they rarely or never planned learning activities involving library media activities or skill instruction.Program Saq f: 22 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page\n10 Revision Date: May 11, 1994 Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the district's Desegregation Plan Lucy Lyon Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strstegles Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6.5 Major barriers or constraints noted in the spring 1988 survey will not repeat as major stumbling blocks to the program. 6.6 Increased student visits to the library medial center on a dally and weekly basis will be evidenced through documentation. 6.7 Increase will evidenced by the volume of books checked out by categories: fiction and Dewey categories. 6.8 The number of students who visit the library for independent research will be documented to indicate an increase in usage, and the qualitv of research conducted by students will be improved. 6.9 The number of desses/ groups scheduled end supervised by the classroom teacher will be documented. 7, Library madia specialist will annually evaluate the collection for adeguaev of multicultural materials and will continually evaluate naw materials to ba considered for purchase. 07/01/93 06/30/94 66Page: 11 Program Seq *: 22 Reviaion Data: May 11, 1994 Program Name: Ubrary/Media Program Code: 32 Primary Leader: Estelle Matthls Secondary Leader: Lucy Lyon Program Goal: The district will provide each student with library/media services in accordance with the essential role outlined in the districts Desegregation Plan Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 8. Recommendations for multicultural materials will be shared with all principals and librarians and recommended for core purchase for all schools. 07/01/93 06/30/94 9. The 1992-92 school year will be used to eatabliah baseline data for determining prooreaa, 07/01/93 06/30/94 10. Undertake a comparative study of library resources among the incentive schools as well as other schools of comparable size to bring about parity of holdings through an equitable purchasing policy. 07/01/93 06/30/94 07/01/93 06/30/94 11. Modify building space to Increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland. Purge the shelves of outdated and well-worn materials. At Mitchell, books most frequently used by the four- year old program, kindergarten, and first grades could be permanently placed in the individual classroo\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":93,"next_page":94,"prev_page":92,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1104,"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}}]}}