{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_61","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's semi-annual report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1994/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's semi-annual report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/61"],"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\nFile of Ann Brown, federal monitor\nCARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / / --------------------------------------------- 1------- ~ w 1 / / / I // ---------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 // / ---------------------------------------- 1- / LL 0.6 , 0 / --------------------------------------- / ffi 0.4 // m , --------------------------------------- ~ 0.2 /// z \u0026gt;--__.n ____ n.___ __ ____,_n 0 ~--- ---- --- -~~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp V) I.O ...... CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Cl) a: w 1.2 1 / / / Kindergarten Teachers _____________________________________________ j _______ _ I // --------------------------------------- -- D9 Years Exp ~ 0.8 // 1-- // LL 0.6 / 0 a: w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 0.4 / 0.2 / / / / / / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp \\0 \\-0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers ~ w I 1.2 1 / / / o 0.8 , ~ / ------------------------- 1-- ,' LL 0.6 , 0 / a: / w 0.4 , m , ------------------------- ~ ,' ::\u0026gt; 0.2 , z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF  15 Years Exp  14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp -- 10 Years Exp r-.\".... . CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: ~ UJ I 1.2 1 / / / LRSD Kindergarten Teachers ____________________________________1__ ____________ __ ~ 0.8 ,,' --------------------------------------- 1-- // LL 0.6 / 0 a: UJ m ~ ::\u0026gt; z 0.4 / 0.2 / BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 00 \\,0 - CLOVERDALE ELEMENT ARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 3.5 _____________________________________________ 3- ______ _ ~ 3 ,,' LU --------------------------------------- I ,' o 2.5 , --  9 Years Exp ~ r- 2 / --------------------------------------- 1.L. ,' 0 1.5 , a: LU 1 ,' al .--------------------------------------- ~ / / :::\u0026gt; 0.5 , z ~----------------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp 0\\ \\-0 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers (J) a: 1.2 / _______________________________ j ____________________ _ LU 1 / / / I , ------------------------- ~ 0.8 // ------------------------- 1-- // LL 0 a: 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.2 , / / / () () --------------- () LU m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0 ~--- -==~ ~-~ ---~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More D30 Years Exp 25 Years Exp 20 Years Exp a15 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ~---~ 0 .r.-.-.-.. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD ~ w I (.) ~ I-LL 0 1.2 1 / 0.8 , 0.6 , / / / / / / / / a: // w 0.4 , m ~ ::) z 0.2 , Kinder arten Teachers -------------------------------------------1------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp __ 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp ...... .r.:.-.-.. en a: LU I ~ I-LL 0 a: LU al ~ GEYERS PRINGS ELEMENTARYL:R SD Kindergarten Teachers /  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp ~ ~~()..,__ ___ ..,_() ___ .y()_ __ -----\u0026gt;,J-()----,1 o I~~==:? --- --- ---\n\u0026gt;/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience N t..... GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD ~ w I 2.5 2 / / / ~ ,' uJ 1.5 , ~ LL 0 a: w 1 / / / m , ::E /~ :::::, 0. 5 , z Kindergarten Teachers -------------------------------2-------------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ~ r.-.-.... ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :::) z GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARYL:R SD BM Kindergarten Teachers WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers / Cl) a: I,\u0026lt;) w .r.-.-.-.. I ~  9 Years Exp I- a Years Exp u. 0 7 Years Exp a: 6 Years Exp w m ~ 5 Years Exp z= \u0026gt; (\\ (\\ (\\ (\\ o? - - - - ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience ~ w GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / / ______________________________ j ___________________ _ 1 / / / I // ------------------------ D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp ~ 0.8 ,, , ------------------------ 1-- / LL 0.6 , 0 a: w m 0.4 , 0.2 , / / / / ------------------------ / ------------------------ / t--------------- () () n ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 0 L,/4--- --- .____ ___,=. ==3/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 10 Years Exp \\0 .r.-.-.-.. HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD ~ UJ I ~ I-LL 0 cc UJ m ~ z= \u0026gt; / ('\\ 0 ~ - BM Kindergarten Teachers ('\\ ('\\ ('\\ WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp r. r.-.... HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / / -------------------------------------------- 1------- Cf) a: 1 / / / w // --------------------------------------- I /, ~ 0.8 , ,' ___ ------------ ------------ ______ t-- // IL 0.6 , 0 / -------------------------------------- a: /// ~ 0.4 , ~ / -------------------------------------- / ::J / / z 0.2 / \" \" ('\\ 01/. - - BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp ,__ 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp 00 t--- HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Cl) a: UJ I ~ r- LJ.. 0 a: UJ CD ~ ::::\u0026gt; z Kindergarten Teachers 0 ,._______ __________ ____./ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 35 Years Exp  30 Years Exp 25 Years Exp 20 Years Exp 15 Years Exp 10 Years Exp O'\\ r-- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: 1.2 ~ LlJ 1 / / / LRSD Kindergarten Teachers / -------------------------------------------- 1 ------- I ---------------------------------------- // ~ 0.8 // ILL 0 a: LlJ m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0.6 / 0.4 / 0.2 / / / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 0 0.0. ... KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 ~ / 1 / , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - .1 - - - - - - - LU I / / -- D9 Years Exp ~ 0.8 , I-LL 0.6 , / / / -------------------------- 0 ,--------------------------- / a: / LU 0.4 , cc / -------------------------- ~ ., ::, 0.2 , z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp ..... 0.0. ... KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 2.5 Cl) a: w I / -------------------------------------------2------- 2 / / / () / ------------------------------------- ~ 1.5 / / I-LL / -------------------------------1------ Q a: w m ~ ::J z 1 / 0.5 / / / / ------------------------ / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 16 Years Exp D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp N .0.0. ... MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ ::J z BM LRSD Kindergarten Teachers WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp C\"'\u0026gt; 0-0 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 1.2 Cl) a: / 1 / w I () / 0.8 / ~ I- / 0.6 -/ LL 0 a: / 0.4 / w ca ~ 0.2  :::\u0026gt; z 0 / / / / LRSD Kindergarten Teachers ---------------------------------------------1------- _  9 Years Exp BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp s:t\" .0.0. ... MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 0.2 / / / BM LRSD Kindergarten Teachers WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF D15 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp V\") .0.0. ... ~ LU I ~ I-LL 0 a: LU al ~ ::::, z MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARYL:R SD Kinder arten Teachers BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / / - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - 1 / 0.4 / 0.2 / / / / / / / ---------------------------------------- / --------------------------------------- / n n n o I~=== --- --- --- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience - -  9 Years Exp a Years Exp - - 7 Years Exp - - 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp - - t'-- 00 ~~ (J) a: UJ I (.) ~ I-LL 0 a: UJ al ~ :::\u0026gt; z MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD 1.2 / / 1 / / / 0.8 / / / 0.6 / / / 0.4 / / / 0.2 / 0 / / Kindergarten Teachers --------------------------------------------1------- ----- 16 Years Exp BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 15 Years Exp  14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 00 0-0 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers / Cl) a: w 0\\ :c 0-0 () 4 Years Exp Lli ~ 3 Years Exp LL 0 2 Years Exp a: 1 Year Exp w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z \" \" \" \" 0~ - - - - ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience ~ LU I ~ t-u.. 0 a: LU m ~ :::\u0026gt; z PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers /  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp () () () () 0~ 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience 0- ' PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / -------------------------------------------1------- / / / ~ w 1 / I / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ~ 0.8 // / ---------------------------------------- 1-- / I LL 0.6 1 0 -------------- ------------------------ / iJ: // w 0.4 / m ~ ::J z 0.2 / n n n 0 l~c::.- =====::, .i::::i.~~:i::::t'?' _.. __ _,. .._ __ __, BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Y ec\n\\rs Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ~ w I ~ tu_ 0 a: w m ~ :J z AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Kinder arten Teachers BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp AMBOY ELEMENTARY: ~ w 1.2 1 / / / I , o 0.8 ,' tS I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0.6 ' 0.4 , 0.2 , NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers / _____________________________________________ j _______ _ --------------------------------------- / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF --  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp (\"') .0.\\ .... 0 AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - (/) / / / a: 1 / w 15 Years Exp I / ---------------------------------------- - - / (.) / D14 Years Exp -.::I\" 0.8 / 0\\ ~ - / --------------------------------------- - - 13 Years Exp ~ / / 0.6 / LL 12 Years Exp 0 / ---------------------------------------- - - a: / / 11 Years Exp 0.4 / w al / ---------------------------------------- - - 10 Years Exp ~ / / ::J 0.2 / z () () () - I? - 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More Cl) a: w I 0 ~ t- LL 0 a: w m ~ :::) z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 1.2 / / 1 / / / 0.8 / / / 0.6 / 0.4 / 0.2  / 0 NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers ---------------------------------------------1------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp \u0026lt;r) .0.\\ .... U) a: w I () ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :::::\u0026gt; z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: / o I~ NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers n () () n BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience D9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp \\0 .0.\\ .... CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 0.6 , 0.4 .  0.2 , NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp t--' CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / -------------------------------------------1------- ~ / / w I 1 ~ 0.8 // I- / LL 0.6 / 0 a: w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z / 0.4 / 0.2 / / / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 00 0-\\ CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: w m . ~ ::::, z BM NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp 0\\ .0.\\ ... CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 / ---------------------------------------------1-------- / ~ 1 // Iw ,, ---------------------------------------- - D14 Years Exp ~ 0.8 , ~ 0.6 , 0 cc / / w 0.4 , m ----------------------------------------- ~ // :z:: :\u0026gt; 0.2 , BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp - 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 0 0 N LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers / 4 Years Exp ...... 0 N 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp . 1 Year Exp BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ 1- u.. 0 a: w m ~ ::) z NLRSD Kindergarten Teachers / \" \" \" \" 0 ,~----... .e::/1.~!:l:IIC!!!:l:::n::c::i., ____ ..., c=.===-===:71/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience D9 Years Exp E8 Years Exp  7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD .. Kindergarten Teachers ~ 1 : / --------- ----------- - ------------------L----- 16 Years Exp ~ , - ------- --- -------- -- ---- --- ------ -- -- -- 15 Years Exp ~ 0.8 // ~ LL 0.6 , 0 0.4 , ------------------------------------- / / a: w m . / ------------------------------------- ~ ::::, z 0.2 / / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp M 0 N MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD ~ w 1.2 1 / / / I , Kindergarten Teachers ,----------------------------------------------1------- ---~------------------------------------ ~ 0.8 // ------------------------------------------ 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp - 2 Years Exp __ 1 Year Exp r- // LL 0.6 , 0 a: UJ al ~ :::, z 0.4 / 0.2 / 0 / / / / BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience ~ w I 0 ~ I-LL 0 a: w co ~ ::\u0026gt; z MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 1.2 / / 1 / / / 0.8 -/ / / 0.6 / / / . 0.4 / / / 0.2 / 0 / Kindergarten Teachers ---------------------------------------------1------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF -- D9 Years Exp a Years Exp 7 Years Exp -- 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp Cl) a: LU I 0 LiS I-LL 0 a: LU al ~ :::\u0026gt; z MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD / () o? BM Kindergarten Teachers () () WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More () - WF ~ 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp B11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp \\0 0 N SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD ~ w I 1.2 / 1 / Kindergarten Teachers / -----------------------------------------------1-------- --------------------------------------- / / ~ 0.8 ,', --------------------------------------- ~ ,' LL 0.6 , 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0.'4. // / 0.2 , / / --------------------------------------- / --------------------------------------- / o~-----------------' BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp r-- 0 N SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD ~ w I 1.2 1 / ~ 0.8 // I- / LL 0.6 , Kindergarten Teachers / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1. - - - - - - - 0 / -------------------------------------- - D9 Years Exp a Years Exp 7 Years Exp -- 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp aw: 0.4 , / m ~ ::) z 0.2 , BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience 00 0 N Cf) a: w I (.) ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :) z SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD / . n 0~ BM Kindergarten Teachers n (1 WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More n WF D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 0 ' 01 ~ UJ I ~ ..... LL 0 a: UJ m ~ :::J z BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kinder arten Teachers 0------------ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp .0. ... N ~ UJ I ~ I-LL 0 cc UJ [Q ~ ::) z BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers ~~------ --- ~--. 0 ------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience- D9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp --N BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers 2.5 ~ /// ---------------------------------------------2------- ~---~ LU 2 , 15 Years Exp I 0 --------------------------------------- ~ 1 .5 //// I-LL 0 a: 1 / / / / --------------------------------------- aLUl ,, --------------------------------------- ~ 0.5 // z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF __ D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp -- 10 Years Exp .N. .. N CJ) a: w I (.) ~ ~ LL 0 a: w m ~ ::J z CATO ELEMENTARY: 1.2 / / 1 / / / 0.8 / / / 0.6 / / / 0.4 / / /. 0.2 / 0 PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers _____________________________________________ 1 ______ _ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp CATO ELEMENT ARY: 1.2 ~ / / PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers _____________________________________________ j ______ _ Iw / --------------------------------------- 1 / _  9 Years Exp ~ 0.8 / tu. 0.6 / 0 --------------------------------------- / a: / w 0.4 / m --------------------------------------- ~ // :::\u0026gt; 0.2 / z -~----------,J----------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp Cl) a: LU I ~ I-LL 0 a: LU m ~ ::::, z DUPREE ELEMENT ARY: 2.5 / / 2 / / / 1.5 / / / 1 / / / 0.5 / 0 / / / PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers ---------------------------------------------2------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 ~ / -------------------------------------------1------- UJ I ~ 1 / 0.8 / / / / / 1-- // LL 0.6 / 0 a: UJ 0.4 / / / ------------------------------------- / ------------------------------------- / m / ------------------------------------- ~ // - ::\u0026gt; 0.2 / z \u0026gt;---------~--------- ..:. BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF -- 11124 Years Exp 20 Years Exp 18 Years Exp -- D14 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ...... ~ aen: w I () ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z FULLER ELEMENT ARY: 1.2 / 1 / / 0.8 / / 0.6 / / 0.4 / / 0.2 / 0 / / / / / PCSSD KindergartenT eachers ____________________________________________ j _______ _ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp FULLER ELEMENTARY: 1.2 ~ w 1 / I ~ 0.8 / I-LL 0.6 , / / / / PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers / --------------------------------------------- 1------- -- D9 Years Exp --------------------------------------- / 0 / --------------------------------------- 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp -- ii6 Years Exp a: / w 0.4 / m ~ ::J z 0.2 , / / BM 5 Years Exp WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 ~ / ____________________________________________ j _______ _ w 1 / I -------------------------------------- // ~ 0.8 // 1-- // LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.2 , / / / / -------------------------------------- / -------------------------------------- / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF . 22 Years Exp 18 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ~ LANDMARK ELEMENT ARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 ~ / --------------------------------------------- 1------- w 1 / / / I / --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 //, --------------------------------------- ~ // LL 0 a: w ca 0.6 , 0.4 , / / ~ / :z:J 0.2 , ______________ ________. 0 ,,_______ __________ __, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp ii2 Years Exp 111 Year Exp tr) N N LANDMARK ELEMENT ARY: ~ LU I ~ t- LL 0 a: LU al ~ ::) z BM PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience D9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp \\0 N N LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: ~ Ll.l I ~ I-LL 0 a: Ll.l m ~ ::, z PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers / () n n () 0 -~--_-___ p_-_-_-_-_ -_ --~~~~~~--- --- -- ----~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 24 Years Exp D22 Years Exp 18 Years Exp ,\n,.1 6 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 10 Years Exp TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers 1.2 ------- -----------------------1--------------------- / / ~ 1 // IU J ,, ------------------------- / ~ 0.8 , r- LL 0.6 / 0 a: / w 0.4 , m ------------------------- ~ // / ~ 0.2 , 0 ,._____ ___________ ____, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 00 ~ ~ w I (_) ~ 1- u. 0 a: w m ~ :::::, z TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Kindergarten Teachers o~-------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp ~' ~ LU I ~ ~ LL 0 a: LU m :E :::\u0026gt; z TAYLOR ELEMENTARY / Kindergarten Teachers n n WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More n \" ~ WF 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11111 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 0 \u0026lt;'\"\u0026gt; N KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS By Race, Gender, and Years of Experience School BM WM BF WF # of Years Experience Carver 3 5 13 13 Cloverdale 2 7 8 30 Geyer Springs 4 11 14 Gibbs 14 Hall 9 King 8 5 16 10 11 Mabelvale 8 17 Meadowcliff 9 16 Pulaski Heights 14 School BM WM BF WF # of Years Experience Amboy 6 14 Central Elem 4 12 16 Crestwood 4 13 Lakewood 16 Meadow Park 4 7 Seventh Street 3 1 5 Baker 11 14 Cato 5 16 10 Crystal Hill 2 6 8 9 Dupree 5 8 24 Fuller Elem 4 6 22 Landmark 3 Taylor 4 The fifth subsection reports the number of F.T.E. librarians by race, gender, school and years of experience for the Cycle V schools for the 1994-95 school year. 231 CJ) a: UJ I 0 u5 ~ LL 0 a: UJ co ~ :J z CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp . 1 Year Exp n n n n 0~ '1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience r.1. nf N (\") N Cl) a: LU I ~ I-LL 0 a: LU m ~ :::) z CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / D9 Years Exp B Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp n n n n 0~ ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience M M N CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians 1.2 ~ / --------------------------------------------- 1------- w 1 / I I I // --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 // I --------------------------------------- 1-- / LL 0.6 / 0 a: w a:, ~ :::) z 0.4 / 0.2 / I / I / I BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF D35 Years Exp D30 Years Exp -- 25 Years Exp 20 Years Exp 15 Years Exp -- 10 Years Exp CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians 1.2 ~ ---------------------------------------------1------- LU 1 / / / I --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 ,,' --------------------------------------- 1-- // LL 0.6 , 0 ffi 0.4 // al / --------------------------------------- z~ 0.2 ,  _ ________._.__.___ ____ _ BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF - 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / Cl) a: w I D9 Years Exp \\0 ~ a Years Exp C'1 N t- 7 Years Exp LL 0 6 Years Exp a: w 5 Years Exp m ~ z::: :\u0026gt; n n n n 0 ,~ '1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: UJ al ~ LRSD Librarians / , . ~ n n n n z ~~~~=::::-:-:-:--\n--\n-----_-\n:\n:\n-:.---:.---:.---:.\"':.---:.-:.-/- 0 I\u0026lt;.-/_- _____________ ___, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More  30 Years Exp 25 Years Exp 20 Years Exp 15 Years Exp 10 Years Exp t-- M N GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD 1.2 ~ UJ 1 / / / / I ,, ~ 0.8 ,' 1-- // LL 0.6 , 0 ffi 0.4 /// Librarians -------------------------------------------1------- ------------------------------------- 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp __ 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp m ------------------------------------- ~ /// :::, 0.2 , z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF 00 M N ~ w I () ~ I-LL 0 a: w ca ~ ::, z GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / D9 Years Exp a Years Exp ? Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp ('\\ ('\\ ('\\ ('\\ 0~ - - - - -\n/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience 0\\ M N GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / Cl) a: UJ I D14 Years Exp 0 'SI\" ~ 13 Years Exp N ~ 12 Years Exp LL 0 11 Years Exp a: UJ 10 Years Exp m ~ :::) z () () () () o I/- / BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More aen: UJ I () ~ ~ LL 0 a: UJ m ~ ::J z GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp () () () () 0~ ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience -\"\u0026lt;t\" N . GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / Cf) a: w I N (.) \"St\" ~  9 Years Exp N I- B Years Exp LL 0 a: 7 Years Exp w ca 6 Years Exp ~ :z:\u0026gt; s Years Exp n n n n 0 V. - - - - o/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians 1.2 ~ w I ,,\"' ------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 /, ------------------------------------- ~ , LL 0 a: w 0.6 , 0.4 , / / ------------------------------------- / m , ------------------------------------- ~ , ::, 0.2 , z --------------------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF - D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Librarians / Cl) a: w I () 4 Years Exp ~ \"\u0026lt;t\" 3 Years Exp \"\u0026lt;t\" I- N LL 0 2 Years Exp a: w 1 Year Exp al ~ :::, z n n n n o I/. \"' \"' - - ? BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Librarians / ~ w I D9 Years Exp () B Years Exp ~ V) ? Years Exp '\u0026lt;:t\" ~ N LL 0 6 Years Exp a: w 5 Years Exp al ~ :::\u0026gt; z ('\\ ('\\ n ('\\ al~ - - - - ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Librarians 1.2 / / ------------------------------~--------------------- ~ 1 / LU // ------------------------ I ,  ~ 0.8 , ,' ------------------------ ~ // LL 0.6 / 0 / ------------------------- a: // / ~ 0.4 / ~ / ------------------------ / :::\u0026gt; / / z 0.2 / 0/.A --\"-----\"-- - ~-~~-----:~ n BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 19 Years Exp  18 Years Exp 17 Years Exp 16 Years Exp 15 Years Exp 10 Years Exp KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: / Cl) a: w I 0 ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ::E :::J z 0 l,,/4 LRSD Librarians n n n BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience r-- -.::t- N 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp n '1/ WF KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / (J) a: w I D9 Years Exp 00 s:t\" (.) N ~ B Years Exp I- 7 Years Exp LL 0 6 Years Exp a: w 5 Years Exp ca ~ ::::) z n n n n 0 I,? ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: / / / 0.4 , LRSD Librarians ------------------------------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More  14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 10 Years Exp MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: .LRSD ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: w al ~ Librarians / z~ n n n n \u0026gt;--- ______________ _,___ _______ ----\no I~--- --- --- ---~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / CJ) t: w I D9 Years Exp ...... () V) Li'j a Years Exp N I- 1117 Years Exp LL 0 6 Years Exp t: w 5 Years Exp m ~ :z:: \u0026gt; () () () n 0 ,~ -\n/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians 1.2 / . / -------------------------------------------1------- ~ UJ 1 / / / I ,' ------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 ,', ----------- ____________________ _____ J- // LL 0.6 , 0 / a: / w 0.4 , m ~ ::::, 0.2 , / / z n n n 0 ~-===== --- --- ,.__ _ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More -- D19 Years Exp 18 Years Exp 17 Years Exp -- 16 Years Exp 15 Years Exp - - '----------' N V) N ~ LU I ~ 1-- u.. 0 a: LU m ~ ::J z MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / () () () () BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians 1.2 ~ / -------------------------------------------- 1------- w 1 / / / I // --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 /, --------------------------------------- 1-- / LL 0.6 , 0 / --------------------------------------- aw: 0.4 , / m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 0.2 , / / / --------------------------------------- / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF --  9 Years Exp B Years Exp 7 Years Exp -- 6 Years Exp s Years Exp MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / aCl): 16 Years Exp w 15 Years Exp I () V) D14 Years Exp V) ~ N I- 13 Years Exp u. 0 12 Years Exp a: w 11 Years Exp m ~ 10 Years Exp :z:\u0026gt; () () () () I~ 11.in a1 1 11,,111111111 .C:i a: 1 : 1 1 n, 1/ 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More ~ UJ I ~ I-LL 0 a: UJ al ~ ::::\u0026gt; PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp Z n n n n 0 /.----------------~- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience Cl) a: w I () ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ ::::, z PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Librarians / D9 Years Exp a Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp n n n n 0 L,,/4 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience ~ lf) C'l PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD ~ w 1.2 1 / / / I / ~ 0.8 // I- // LL 0.6 / 0 fl: / / w 0.4 / / Librarians --------------------------- ---------------1------- D15 Years Exp  14 Years Exp -- 13 Years Exp m ------------------------------------- 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp -- 10 Years Exp ~ /// :::, 0.2 / z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 00 V) 01 AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / Cl) a: LJ.J I 0-.. ~ on 4 Years Exp N r- 3 Years Exp LL 0 2 Years Exp a: LJ.J 1 Year Exp m ~ :z:: J n n n n 0~ '1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / (f) a: UJ I D9 Years Exp ~ 0 B Years Exp \\0 N t- 7 Years Exp LL 0 6 Years Exp a: UJ 5 Years Exp al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z () () () () 1~1 i !  I ! I I , ~ 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians 1.2 --------------------------------------------- 1------- / ~ w 1 / / / ::r: / ~ 0.8 //, --------------------------------------- 1-- // u.. 0.6 , 0 / --------------------------------------- a: // w 0.4 , m ~ // ::::\u0026gt; 0.2 , z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF 15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp -- 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp -- 10 Years Exp CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / CJ) a: LU I 4 Years Exp N (.) \\0 N ~ 3 Years Exp I-LL 2 Years Exp 0 a: 1 Year Exp LU m ~ :) n n n n z 0~ 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / ~ w I D9 Years Exp ~ (\") a Years Exp \\0 N r- 7 Years Exp LL 0 6 Years Exp a: w 5 Years Exp al ~ :::) () () () () z ~1111111111111111!11 mz, ~ 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: ~ w 1.2 1 / / / I , ~ 0.8 ,' J-- ,' LL 0.6 , 0 / ffi 0.4 ,' m , ~ / ::, 0.2 , NLRSD Librarians ---------------------------------- ________1_ ___ _____1 7 Years Exp 16 Years Exp D15 Years Exp -- 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp z ------------------- 12 Years Exp -- 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ NLRSD Librarians / z~ n n n n 0 ~--- --- --- ---~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) a: LU I ~ I-LL 0 a: LU co ~ NLRSD Librarians / ~ ____n_ __ _ n._____ _ n_ ___ n_ _ 0 ~----- ----- .c::::::zi:::::..::c::::::::c:v .----~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience D9 Years Exp B Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp \\0 \\0 N CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians 1.2 / ---------------------------------------------1------- / ~ 1 // IU J /// --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 / / --------------------------------------- 1- / u.. 0.6 / 0 --------------------------------------- / a: / ~ 0.4 / --------------------------------------- ~ /// 2 0.2 / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF -  19 Years Exp 17 Years Exp 15 Years Exp - 13 Years Exp 11 Years Exp LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / Cl) a: LU I 4 Years Exp 00 ~ '-0 N 3 Years Exp I-LL 2 Years Exp 0 a: 1 Year Exp LU m ~ :z:J n n n n o I~ 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / Cl) a: w I () 0\\ D9 Years Exp \\0 ~ N I- a Years Exp LL 0 7 Years Exp a: mw 6 Years Exp ~ 5 Years Exp :::\u0026gt; z ('\\ ('\\ ('\\ ('\\ al~ - - - ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: 1.2 / / / 0.4 / NLRSD Librarians ------------------------------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 15 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp - 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp en a: w I () t5 I-LL 0 a: w al ~ ::::, z MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp () () () () 0~ 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience ..... r-- N MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / Cl) a: w I 9 Years Exp N ~ a Years Exp t--- N J- 7 Years Exp u.. 0 ' 6 Years Exp a: w 5 Years Exp al ~ ::::, () () () () z ~!\"Ill! ml I'! ! !!  !I:! !I , ~ 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians 1.2 / -------------------------------1--------------------- / Cl) / / a: 1 / w D15 Years Exp I / ------------------------- --------------- / (_) / 14 Years Exp ~ 0.8 / t-- ~ N / ------------------------- --------------- 13 Years Exp J- / / 0.6 / LL 12 Years Exp 0 / ------------------------- --------------- a: / / 11 Years Exp 0.4 / w m / ------------------------- --------------- 10 Years Exp ~ / / 0.2 / :z:J n () () 0 ,~ -/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More Cf) cc w I ()  ~ r-u.. 0 cc w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp () () () () 0~ '1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience \"\u0026lt;t\" t'-- ('I (J) a: w I () ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :) z SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians /  9 Years Exp B Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp n n n n 0~ 1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience l() t-- N SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Librarians 1.2 ~ / ___________________________________________ j ______ _ ,' 17YearsExp 18 Years Exp UJ 1 / I , ~ 0.8 ,', ------------------------------------- 1-- / / LL 0.6 , 0 a: / w 0.4 , m ~ ,' ::J 0.2 , z --------------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF -- 16 Years Exp D15 Years Exp D14 Years Exp -- 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 10 Years Exp I.O tN ~ UJ I ~ I-LL 0 a: UJ ca ~ BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians / 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp z~ ------n- ------------n- ---- n n 0 ~--- ---- --- ----'1/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience rtN Cl) a: w I 0 ~ I-LL 0 a: w m ~ :J z BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians /  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp n n n n 0~ - - - ~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience 00 r-- N BAKER INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians 1.2 ~ / _____________________________________________ j _______ _ w 1 , / / I // --------------------------------------- ~ 0.8 ,/ / --------------------------------------- ~ / LL 0.6 , 0 / --------------------------------------- ffi 0.4 // / m / --------------------------------------- 3 0.2 /// z BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF -- D24 Years Exp 22 Years Exp 18 Years Exp -- 14 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 0\\ r--N CJ) cc: LU JC (.) ~s t-,- LL C) cc: LIU 00 1111:- 1111:::: :) -~'? - CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience WF , 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 0 00 N ::::::\u0026gt; CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience WF D9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp ..... 00 N CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians 1.2 / (I') . - - - -.... - - - - - . --- - - .. .. . - . - - .. .. . .. - . - .. . - . - - - .. - - - . - .. 1 - . - - .... - c,r::~ / 1 D20 Years Exp .-' LL.I -[\" . - - - - .. - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - --.. - - - .. - .. - - .. - . -- - - - - - - - .. .. - 18 Years Exp N ( ''1 / 00 ... 0.8 N c:r LL.I . -- - - --- - - - - -- - - - - - ... --- - -- - - .. - - .... ... - .. - - - - -- - - .. .. - 16 Years Exp ~\" , LL.. 0.6 14 Years Exp ( .,. 111f~ .. -  -- - - - -- - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - .. .. . ... .. . - .. - - .. - - . - .. c11::: 0.4 12 Years Exp LL.I c..i.:..:.:.i .... - - .. - - - - - - -- -- - -- .. - .. .. - - - - - --.. - - - . .. .. -- - - - - .... - - .. 10 Years Exp / -:::~: 0.2 ::::1 n n n -::,1 ,t., ... ~ '7 0 BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More 0) 11::j:: L.l.J ..L... (M) 111:~t u.J I,,,._ L..l. I ,. .,. ltufil 11::i: L.LJ 11::1:t ::::~~ :::::::\u0026gt; :\n!:: CRYSTAL HILL INTERDISTRICT: PCSSD / n 0 ~ BM Librarians n n () WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience . 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp ~ 00 N CRYSTAL HILL INTERDISTRICT: PCSSD ~ lJ_J I ~ I-LL 0 a: lJ_J al ~ :::, z BM Librarians WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp s::t\" 00 N CRYSTAL HILL INTERDISTRICT: PCSSD Librarians 1.2 / _______________________________ j ____________________ _ ~ 1 / / / IL U //, ------------------------- ~ 0.8 , , ------------------------- 1-- ,' LL 0.6 , 0 a: / / LU 0.4 , m ------------------------- ~ // / ~ 0.2 , BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF D19 Years Exp 17 Years Exp 15 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 11 Years Exp tr) 00 N (() 11:1: l..lJ :::i: ,, ) 1~.~  ,11:5 1..1 i'\"- 1..1_ () 11:1: I. .U ,1:0 11:=\n1H::- ,,,J \"\n:\n,i 11 ... - DUPREE ELEMENTARY: / n () ? BM PCSSD Librarians n n n WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience 4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp \\0 00 N DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians / (/) ,c: UJ I (.) t'-- 00 ~ D9 Years Exp N I- 8 Years Exp LL. 0 7 Years Exp a: LU al 6 Years Exp ~ 5 Years Exp :::) z n () n () oV- - - - - o/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience Cf) CC LU I () L5 I-LL 0 ex: LU [0 111- .::: :::) z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 PCSSD Librarians - - - .. - - .. - - - - - - - - - - -- - .. - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - .. 1-- .. - - - .. - BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF  15 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 12 Years Exp  11 Years Exp - - 10 Years Exp 00 00 N Cl) er: IJ.J J: (.) ~s J-- Lt- C) cc: U.J 00 -=:- ..::~ ::\u0026gt; --, ,e._ FULLER ELEMENTARY: / 0~ PCSSD Librarians () () () n --- ---- ---- ----~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience  4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp 0\\ 00 N co cc:: LL.I -r (.) c3\" Lt.:I ~ .... LL.. () FULLER ELEMENT ARY: PCSSD Librarians 0\"------------------ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience  9 Years Exp 8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp 0 0\\ N FULLER ELEMENTARY: 1.2 1 0.6 ,' U\" LJJ 0.4 n:I1 5\n:..:.:.,., 0.2 .' PCSSD Librarians / - - .. - .. - .......... - - .. -- - - - -- .. - .,_ - .... - - - - .... -- .. .. ... .. .. - - - - - - ...... j ........ -- - - -- - BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF -- D25 Years Exp 19 Years Exp 16 Years Exp -- 13 Years Exp 10 Years Exp LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians 0\"--------------------' BM .WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience  4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp N 0\\ N LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: ~ w I ~ ..... LL 0 a: w al ~ ::) z PCSSD Librarians .-..-- ...- Alll'lll!l!l!E'Bl!l!ll!ll!!3llll!IZEIIV' ..----- .------ 0 ,.___-------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience  9 Years Exp  8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp s Years Exp LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Librarians 1.2 Cl) / -- - -- - - - -- - ,. -- - ,, - -- - -- - - - -- ,, ,. .,. - ,, ,, -- - -- - - -- -- ,. ., - - ,. - -- - -- -1- -- - ., - - ,. ffi 1 _  I ~ 0.8 / I- / u. 0.6 ,/ 0 ffi 0.4 ./ m -------------------------------------------------------- ~ 0.2 - , z --------------- BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More WF --- 18 Years Exp 16 Years Exp 14 Years Exp - 12 Years Exp 10 Years Exp 0) cc LIJ :c () t5 I-- Lt_ C:) Cl~ LU Cll .11:1.:- : :J -\n,, tll.- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: / n o l,,/4 - BM PCSSD Librarians n- n- n- WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER One to Four Years Experience ~ B4 Years Exp 3 Years Exp 2 Years Exp 1 Year Exp .,... 0\\ N (/) 1:r:: I.LI :I:: Cl ,ud_Jt' .. l.L.. C .. ,, 1:r:: 1.U 1...x..:.1. .\n:!: :::1 :2~: TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: / n 0 V. BM PCSSD Librarians n n n WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Five to Nine Years Experience  9 Years Exp :-..8 Years Exp 7 Years Exp 6 Years Exp 5 Years Exp TAYLOR ELEMENTARY Librarians 1.2 ' . - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- .. -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - -1 - -- - - - - - 1 / :cot : U.J 11118Y ears Exp J\"- ~) 0.8 -16 Years Exp :I) r--- u. 0\\ 14 Years Exp C'l f- 0.6 / u._ () 12 Years Exp -- - - -- - -- -- - -. ct: 10 Years Exp U.J 0.4 / .C,.,! .l :,. ee.:. . ::, -=.. -'- 0.2 0------------------ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER Ten Years Experience or More LIBRARIANS By Race, Gender, and Years of Experience School BM WM BF WF # of Years Experience Little Rock School District Carver 1 20 Cloverdale 1 4 Geyer Springs 1 2 Gibbs 1 16 Hall 1 18 King 1 10 Mabelvale 1 19 Meadowcliff 1 7 Pulaski Heights 1 12 North Little Rock School District Amboy 1 11 Central Elem 1 17 Crestwood 1 17 Lakewood 1 17 Meadow Park 1 15 Seventh Street 1 12? Pulaski County Special School District Baker 1 22 Cato 1 18 Crystal Hill 1 11 Dupree 1 10 Fuller Elem 1 19 Landmark 1 18 Taylor 1 18 The sixth subsection provides the number of F.T.E. department heads by race, gender, school and years of experience for the Cycle V schools for the 1994-95 school year. The only Cycle V school with a Department Head is Hall High School. 298 HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Cl) 7 / -------------------------------------------6-------- .-----------, ~ 6 / I rzw :?! \u0026amp;: ~ w C LL 0 a: w al :?! ::, 5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / / / / / / / ---------------------------------- / / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - / / / z 0\"--------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER 40 Yrs Experience -- 30 Yrs Experience 24 Yrs Experience D23 Yrs Experience D21 Yrs Experience  17 Yrs Experience 14 Yrs Experience  13 Yrs Experience The seventh subsection provides the number of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school and years of experience for Cycle V schools for the 1994-95 school year. 300 Secretaries at Cycle 5 schools by race, gender and years of experience LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 Cycle 5 School Number of Secretaries Race Gender Years of Experience B F 6 Carver Magnet Elementary 2 w F 25 Cloverdale Elementary I w F 10 Geyer Springs Elementary I B F 6 Gibbs Magnet Elementary I w F 6 B F 13 Hall High 3 w F 20 B F 14 B F 20 King Magnet Elementary 2 w F 7 B F 5 Mabelvale Elementary 2 w F 18 MeadowcliffElementary I w F 21 Pulaski Heights Elementary I w F 24 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 Cycle 5 School Number of Secretaries Race Gender Years of Experience w F 17 Amboy Elementary 2 w F 3 w F 19 Central Elementary 2 w F 15 Crestwood Elementary I w F 5 Lakewood Elementary I w F 14 Meadow Park Elementary I w F 5 1.5 w F 21 Seventh Street Elementary (I full-time, I part-time) w F 8 301 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 Cycle 5 School Number of Secretaries Race Gender Yean of Experience w F 20 Baker Interdistrict Elementary 2 w F 23 w F 18 Cato Elementary 2 w F 17 Crystal Hills Interdistrict Magnet w F 19 Elementary 2 w F 2 Dupree Elementary 2 B F 23 w F 2 Fuller Elementary 2 w F 21 w F 19 Landmark Elementary 2 w F 6 w F 23 Taylor Elementary 2 B F 22 w F 7 302 The eighth subsection provides the number of F.T.E. central office positions by job category, race, gender, school and years of experience for the districts for the 1994-95 school year. 303 ....J w zz 2.5 2 / / / / 0 // ~ 1.5 // w Q. LL 0 a: w m ~ 1 / ~ 0.5 , / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent Central Office Personnel ------------------2-------------- .. ---- --- -- -- 27 YE~arsI: :r i ! I'~ GD1 8 YE~arsI: :\u0026gt; 1i ,., -------1------------ --1 -----.-.. 12 YE~ar:Is: ~~ ...~. . ...- - ... -' o..___-------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Director of Federal Programs Central Office Personnel 1.2 / / ----~------------------------------------------------------ / / / 1 / .....J w z ----------------------------------------------- z / / 0 0.8 / Cl) Vl 0 a: ----------------------------------------------- 1  33 Years Expj ~ w / 0. / 0.6 / LL 0 ----------------------------------------------- a: / / w 0.4 / m ~ ----------------------------------------------- :::) / / z 0.2 / \"... , \"..., ('\\ \" ~ 0 V BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER 3.5 / 3 / _J UJ z / 2.5 / z 0 Cl) a: / 2 / UJ a. LL / 0 1.5 / a: UJ al / 1 / ~ ::, z / 0.5 / 0 / / / / / / / / / / / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Administration/Other Central Office Personnel // ------------------3 ------------3----------------------- / / / / / / / / / / BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER ~39 Years Exp D32 Years Exp 23 Years Exp 20 Years Exp 18 Years Exp 13 Years Exp 10 Years Exp I.O 0 M 5 / / 1 / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Psychological Examiner Central Office Personnel ---------------------------------------------------4--------- D16 Years Ex1: -- 12 Years ExI. :. r---  11 Years Exp ~ 9 Years Exp 6 Years Exp ----1 ------- O Years Exp 0--------------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER _.J w z z 0 ~ w a.. LL 0 a: w m ~ ::) z 8 7 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Department Chair/Athletic Director Central Office Personnel ,,,, ------------ ---- ------- -- -- -- -- ---7------- -- ---- ---------- -- ---- 22 Years Exp / // -----------------------6----- / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ------------------ / ------------------ / ------------------ / D18 Years Exp 17 Years Exp 16 Years Exp 15 Years Exp D12 Years Exp 9 Years Exp 6 Years Exp ---------------4------- 4 Years Exp mo Years Exp 0\"------------------~ BM WM BF WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER ...J LU z 2.5 2 / / / / / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor Special Education Central Office Personnel / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z / --------------------------- / 0 ,' ~ 1.5 // LU D. LL 0 a: LU t0 ~ :::) 1 / z 0.5 / / / / / / / / -------------------1------- / / / - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - -- OIL----------------__/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER --------- 0 ' a11 Yearr\nl: 1 ! ~  a Years E:.\u0026lt;: .___ ______~. 12 / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor(Other) Central Office Personnel ,,' --------------------------------------------- 10-------  31 Years Exp i:d 10 , 27 Years Exp z z 0 ~ w a. LL 0 a: w m ~ ::, z 8 / 6 / 4 / 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / 3 o~--------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER  23 Years Exp 22 Years Exp D21 Years Exp 19 Years Exp 16 Years Exp 15 Years Exp 6 Years Exp _J w z z 0 ~ w Q. 3.5 3 / 2.5 / 2 / / / / / / / / / / LL ,' 0 / a: w m ~ z= \u0026gt; 1.5 , 1 0.5 , NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent Central Office Personnel / / / / / -------------------3-------------------------------------- ------------ 28 Years ExI~ 18 Years \u0026gt;l ~ 17 Years E..r, 15YearsE r. 0\"---------------------' BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER _J w z z 0 Cl) a: w a. LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Business/Finance Manager Central Office Personnel 1.2 / / ------------------ 1------------------------------------- / / / 1 / ------------ / / / / .. 0.8 / N ------------ / / / / 0.6 / ------------------------------- ~--- - 1 14 Years E~~ M ------------ / / / / 0.4 / ------------ / / / / 0.2 / f'\\ f'\\ f'\\ ~ ~ 0 ._____ __ .--v-lllP' ..--v-lllP'~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER ., 7 / / 6 / / LL // / 0 3 / a: UJ m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 2 / 1 / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Administration/Other Central Office Personnel -------------------6---------------------------------------  36 Years Exp ElEJ2Y6e ars Exp M- 25 Years Exp M 19 Years Exp -------2------------------------ 16 Years Exp 13 Years Exp -------~--------- a.,_____ ____________ ___, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER _J w z z 0 Cl) a: w 0. LL 0 a: w m :E ::::, z 2.5 / / 2 / / / 1.5 / / / 1 / / / 0.5 / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Psychological Examiner Central Office Personnel / -------------------- 2------------------------------2---------- ------------- I fi!il0 Years Exp ------------- / ------------- 0\"-------------------' BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER ]-~ ~ 1.2 / / / / / 1 / ....J w z / / z / / 0 0.8 / ~ / w / / a.. / 0.6 / LL 0 / a: / / / w 0.4 / m ~ / ::) / / z / 0.2 / 0 1/. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Department Chair/Athletic Director Central Office Personnel ------------------ 1 -------------------------------------- 1 ------------- ,. ------------- I D27 Years Exp] ------------- ------------- n \" \" V BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER V) ...... M --' UJ z z 0 Cl) a: UJ Q. LL 0 a: UJ m ~ :::, z 1.2 / 1 / / 0.8 / / 0.6 / / 0.4 / / 0.2 / / / / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Curr. Supervisor K - 12 Central Office Personnel / ------------------~------------------------------------- / lrn21 Years Exp / / O..___------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER j ~ 3.5 3 / _J LU z z 2.5 / 0 Cl) a: 2 / LU Q. LL 0 1.5 / a: LU m 1 / ::E ::J z 0.5 / 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Subject Area Supervisor Central Office Personnel / ------------------------------------------------ 3--------- / / / BM WM BF RACE AND GENDER WF rn19 Years Exp ~ 12 Years Exp 9 Years Exp/ _J w z z 0 (j) a: w 0.. LL 0 a: w al ~ :::\u0026gt; z 1.2 / / 1 / / / 0.8 / / / 0.6 / / / 0.4 / / / 0.2 / / / / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor Special Education Central Office Personnel ---------------------------------- t------------ i -------- rnE11Y8 ears Exp 14 Years Exp o~----------------' BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER 0.0. ... M 3.5 ...J 3 / / / / / zw /// z 2.5 / 0 ~ w 0. 2 / 1 / 0.5 / / / / / / / / / / NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor(Other) Central Office Personnel -------------------------------------------------3--------- m15 Years Exp~ 12 Years Exp 11 Years Exp 0\"--------------------/ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent Central Office Personnel 6 / ------------------ 5--------------------------------------- _J 5 / LU / / / z // ------------ z // 0 4 , ~ / ------------ LU /, a. 3 // LL 0 a: ~ 2 ~ =\u0026gt; z 1 0 \"-------------------' BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER 27 Years Exp 24 Years Exp ~ 23 Years Exp 21 Years Exp 18 Years Exp _J UJ z z 0 Cl) a: UJ 0.. LL 0 a: UJ m ~ ::, z 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Director of Federal Programs Central Office Personnel / / -------------------1-------------------------------------- / / / / ------------ / / / / / - ------------ / / / / / I lml39 Years Ei~ ~~ ------------ / / / / / / ------------ / / / 0 ,.___ ___________ __, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER _J LU z z 0 en a: LU a. u. 0 a: LU m ~ :::, z 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Administration/Other Central Office Personnel / ----2 ----------------------------------------------------- / ~------. 21 Years Exp / N N 20 Years Exp C'1 / / -------1------------- ~-------------- 1--------  16 Years Exp 15 Years Exp o~----------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER ....J w z z 0 CJ) a: w Q. LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z 1.2 1 / 0.8 / 0.6 / 0.4 / 0.2 / PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Vocational Administrator Central Office Personnel / / ------------------1------------------------------------- / / / ----------- / / / / / jm20 Years Exp ----------- / / / / ----------- / / / / / / / / / 0---------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER _J w z z 0 Cl) a: w Q. LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Curr. Supervisor Elementary Central Office Personnel / ------------------------------------------------ 1-------- / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 0 --------------~ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER ....I w z z 0 Cl) ~ w Q., LL 01 ~ w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Curr. Supervisor Sec. Central Office Personnel / ----~----------------------------------------------------- / / / ---------------------------------------------~- ----~ I f\nlll]26 Years Exp\\ / / 0\"----------------- BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Curr. Supervisor K - 12 3.5 .....J 3 / / / Central Office Personnel / ----------------------------------------------3-------- / UJ --------------------------------------- z // Z 2.5 , 0 Cl) / / __ ~23 Years Exp a: UJ D... 2 / / / / \\0 22 Years Exp ~ 1 / 0.5 , / / / / / / ------------------1-------------1-----0 \"---------------------J BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER 18 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 10 Years Exp ...Ji w z z 0 Cl) a: w a.. LL 0 a: w m :E :::::\u0026gt; z 10 8 6 4 2 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Subject Area Supervisor Central Office Personnel 9 30 Years Exp / / / / / 29 Years Exp 26 Years Exp / / / rn21 Years Exp / /  20 Years Exp - - 19 Years Exp / / / / /  18 Years Exp 14 Years Exp / / / 11 Years Exp / / 1 10 Years Exp o.._____ ____________ _ BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER r- C\"l ~ _J w z z 0 Cl) a: w a. LL 0 a: w ca ::E :::\u0026gt; z 6 5 4 3 2 1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor Special Education / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Central Office Personnel --------------------------------------------------5--------- / / / / 25 Years Exp 20 Years Exp ~ 19 Years Exp 13 Years Exp  10 Years Exp ~ 0 ,._____ ____________ ___,, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Supervisor(Other) 6 5 / 1 / / / / / / / Central Office Personnel // ---------------------------------------- -----------5-- -------- ------------------------------------------- / ------------------------------------------- / / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- D25 Years Exp - - DJ 17 Yea rs Exp 15 Years Exp 14 Years Exp 12 Years Exp B Years Exp a.._____ _____________ ____, BM WM BF WF RACE AND GENDER School Supt/Asst Supt Dir Fed Progs Adm in/Other Psychological Examiner Dept Chair/ Athletic Dir Supv/Spec Ed Supervisor (Other) Supt/Asst Supt Bus/Fin Mgr Adm in/Other Psy Examiner Dept Chair/ Athletic Dir CENTRAL OFFICE PERSONNEL By Race, Gender, and Years of Experience BM # of Years WM Experience 18 1 1 11 1 21 27 1 15 2 3 2 # of Years Experience 12 18 10 18 39 0 12 15 15 16 23 17 18 28 14 16 19 25 0 27 BF # of Years WF # of Years Experience Experience 9 1 27 33 20 1 13 23 32 0 0 6 1 6 1 9 1 16 1 0 1 4 1 6 1 6 1 9 8 1 12 12 1 15 16 1 17 17 22 11 8 15 1 6 6 15 2 17 19 21 22 2 23 27 31 13 26 36 0 2 0 OF 1 # of Years Experience 18 School Curr Supv Sup Area Supv Supv Spec Ed Supv (Other) SupVAsst Supt Dir Fed Progs Adm in/Other Voe Admin Curr Supv Elem Curr Supv Sec Curr Supv K-12 Subject Area Supv Supv Spec Ed Supv (Other) BM # of Years WM # of Years BF # of Years WF # of Years OF # of Years Experience Experience Experience Experience Experience 1 21 1 9 -------------------------- 1 12 1 19 1 14 1 18 1 11 1 12 1 15 2 23 2 18 21 24 27 39 1 15 16 21 20 1 16 1 20 24 1 26 18 1 10 14 22 23 19 11 1 10 14 18 20 2 21 26 29 1 30 1 10 1 13 1 19 20 25 1 17 1 8 1 12 1 14 1 15 1 25 D. POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION This section of the report indicates the Office of Lead Planning's assessment of policy and program information from the three school districts as stated on page 6 of the Allen letter, Section D. 330 w w.. ... Policy and Program Information Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD District has Administrative Chart indicating titles, names, responsibilities and reporting YES YES YES responsibilities. The District has Policies and Regulations for YES NO NO Magnet Schools The District has Policies and Regulations for YES YES YES Compensatory Education Programs. The District has Policies and Regulations for YES YES YES Majority to Minority Transfers. The District has Policies and Regulations for YES YES YES Transportation. The District has student Assignment Policies YES YES YES or Rules and Regulations. CONTINUED ON NEXT CHART w w N Policy and Program Information (Continued) Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD The District has Policies, Rules, Regulations and written Administrative Directive Governing: A. Class Assignment YES YES YES B. Testing YES YES YES C. Guidance and Counseling YES YES YES D. Extracurricular Activities YES YES YES E. Student Rights and YES YES YES Responsibilities F. Library Usage YES YES YES G. Student Records YES YES YES The District has made available copies of current negotiated YES YES YES agreements with all employee groups. CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS CHART E. STUDENT DISCIPLINE This section of the report provides student expulsion data for the Cycle V schools for the 1994-95 school year. Since no expulsions greater than 10 days occurred in the Cycle V schools, race, gender, school and teacher information is not relevant. 333 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 SCHOOL NUMBER OF EXPULSIONS\u0026gt; IO DAYS Carver Magnet Elementary School None Cloverdale Elementary School None Geyer Springs Elementary School None Gibbs Magnet Elementary School None Hall High School None King Magnet Elementary School None Mabelvale Elementary School None Meadowcliff Elementary School None Pulaski Heights Elementary School None NORTH LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 SCHOOL NUMBER OF EXPULSIONS\u0026gt; IO DAYS Amboy Elementary School None Central Elementary School None Crestwood Elementary School None Lakewood Elementary School None Meadow Park Elementary School None Seventh Street Elementary School None PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - FY 94/95 SCHOOL NUMBER OF EXPULSIONS\u0026gt; l ODA YS Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School None Cato Elementary School None Crystal Hill lnterdistrict Magnet Elementary School None Dupree Elementary School None Fuller Elementary School None Landmark Elementary School None Taylor Elementary School None 334 F. PERCEPTUAL DATA This section of the report indicates the Office of Lead Planning's assessment that all Cycle V schools utilized the results of perceptual surveys in Extended Comprehensive Outcome Evaluation Plans. 335 UITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Utilized Perceptual Data of ECOE Plan SCHOOL YES NO Carver Magnet Elementary School X Cloverdale Elementary School X Geyer Springs Elementary School X Gibbs Magnet Elementary School X Hall High School X King Magnet Elementary School X Mabelvale Elementary School X Meadowcliff Elementary School X Pulaski Hei2hts Elementary School X NORTII LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Utilized Perceptual Data of ECOE Plan SCHOOL YES NO Amboy Elementary School X Central Elementary School X Crestwood Elementary School X Lakewood Elementary School X Meadow Park Elementary School X Seventh Street Elementary School X PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Utilized Perceptual Data of ECOE Plan SCHOOL YES NO Baker Interdistrict Elementary School X Cato Elementary School X Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School X Dupree Elementary School X Fuller Elementary School X Landmark Elementary School X Taylor Elementary School X 336\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_834","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''"],"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/834"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1994-95 N (Q)I ffi/IrIBIJ LI TTTJL~ Iffi(.Q )C CI[ JPTIJJifLfi CC CCIE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law June 20, 1994 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: JUN 2 0 1994 Officeo f Desegregationlo rntor\n:ig As directed by the June 10, 1994 court order, this document represents the 1994-95 tentative budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains six sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1994-95 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The fifth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees. The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the final section of the document. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 A final 1994-95 budget document will be produced for board approval and submission to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring once the District's books have been closed for the 1993-94 fiscal year and additional revenue information has been received from the state. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services vs NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET .. 1994-95 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-95 ANNUAL BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of Directors, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents ..................................... l REVENUEA ND EXPENDITURES Revenue Graph ........................................................ 2 Expenditure Graph .................................................... 3 Revenue and Expenditures -- Operating, Capital Outlay, Building/Bond, and Federal Programs ................................ 4 Revenue -- Operating Budget .......................................... 5 Expenditures -- Operating Budget ..................................... 6 Revenue and Expenditures -- Federal Programs ......................... 7 EXPENDITUREFSO R SALARY,O PERATIONASN D DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Expenditures by Function ............................................ .8 Expenditures by Object .............................................. 15 Expenditures by Function/Object ..................................... 21 FIVE-YEARR EVENUEA ND EXPENDITURPER OJECTIONS Revenue Projections -- 1994-1999 .................................... 77 Expenditure Projections -- 1994-1999 ................................ 78 BUDGETN OTES Budget Notes ........................................................ 79 SALARYS CHEDULES Administrators ...................................................... 80 Teachers ............................................................ 81 Classified Employees ................................................ 83 PROGRAAMN ALYSIS Army JROTC Program ...........................\n...................... 86 Reading RecoveryProgram Addition ................................... 91 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Pat Blackstone, President Prentice Dupins, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Lynn Hamilton J. W. Johnson Mable Mitchell Larry Shadid James R Smith, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Student Affairs Mable Bynum - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $20,567,680 53% 1994-95 LOCAL REVENUE $15,505,500 40% FEDERAL REVENUE $3,025,000 8% TOTAL REVENUE = $39,098,175.00 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES Satar tea 1994-95 Debt Service $1,200,000.00 t nsurance/ Other $221,000.00 Equipment $855,000.00 Supplies $1,565,000.00 Services $2,440,000.00 Tu it ion $1,120,000.00 Benefits $3,465,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $39,310,000.00 3 OPERA TING BUDGET FUNDS 01, 02, a 04 TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES Salaries Benefits Tuition Services Suoolies Equioment Insurance/Other Debt Service TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES Salaries Benefits Services Supolies Equipment Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY (05) BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE BUILDING (03)/BOND (10) FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 - 1990-91 - 1991 -92 1992-93 1993-94 ACTUAL - ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED $32,294,537.77 $34,645,116.10 $34,680,190.72 $35,888,462.00 $22 189,901.75 $24 704 357.88 $24 654 619.76 $26 527 859.00 $2,539,762.48 $2,687,251.00 $2,624,924.22 $2,774,990.00 $1,115,205.60 $1,089,105.75 $1,067,374.16 $1,100,000.00 $2,102,210.72 $2,240,998.57 $2,159,022.38 $2,463,635.00 $1,246,073.84 $1,449,719.28 $1,244,849.46 $1,283,387.00 $770,454.71 $486,095.52 $218,292.93 $219,119.00 $393 822.41 $258 826.67 $256 304.01 $277 493.00 $1,169,554.97 $1,194,864.61 $789,841.15 $1 166,700.00 $31,526,986.48 $34,111,219.28 $33,015,228.07 $35 813,183.00 $767,551.29 $533,896.82 $1,664 962.65 $75,279.00 $2,038,196.59 $2,794,034.45 $3,560,377.92 $3,663,986.00 $778,814.49 $1,181,949.19 $1,644,091.99 $2,020,744.00 $245,764.17 $334,085.01 $441,367.07 $575,744.00 $138,083.28 $332,748.29 $472,493.90 $509,001.00 $295 901.95 $282 309.99 $371 965.64 $323 069.00 $243,540.22 $233,377.76 $206,103.77 $121,116.00 $27,448.05 $37,279.48 $42,809.42 $64,278.00 $1,729,552.16 $2,401,747.72 $3,178,831.79 $3,613,952.00 $308,644.43 $392,286.73 $381 ,546. 13 $50,034.00 $161,618.30 $2,014.05 $185,463.82 $34,828.00 $385,514.64 $494,814.65 $391,650.75 $400,000.00 $545 118.89 $311,365.08 $542,286.34 $420,000.00 $2,014.05 $185,463.62 $34,828.03 $14,828.00 $4,174,273.93 $1 396 597.95 $1,027,013.50 $3,277,801.00 $38,792.52 $414,325.83 $4,012 465.94 $235,000.00 $2,816,468.50 $783,910.28 $1,761,678.00 $2,231,025.00 $1 396 597.95 $1 027 013.50 $3 277 801.44 $1 281 776.00 4 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $36,900,753.87 $35,663,828.00 ($1,236,925.87 $26 905 600.00 $26 650 000.00 ($255 600.00 $3,010,900.00 $2,950,000.00 ($60,900.00 $1 116,220.00 $1 120 000.00 $3,780.00 $2,437,250.00 $2,110,000.00 ($327 250.00 $1,574,250.00 $1,275,000.00 ($299,250.00 $244,260.00 $135,000.00 ($109,260.00 $187 850.00 $190 000.00 $2 150.00 $1,188,770.00 $1,200,000.00 $11,230.00 $36 665 100.00 $35 830,000.00 ($1 035 100.00 $235,653.67 $33 828.00 ($201 825.87 $3,663,986.23 $3,251,525.00 ($412,461.23 $2,019,900.00 $1,794,000.00 ($225,900.00 $583,650.00 $515,000.00 ($68,650.00 $463,650.00 $330,000.00 ($133,650.00 $208 250.00 $270 000.00 $61 750.00 $106,100.00 $60,000.00 ($46,100.00 $30,900.00 $31,000.00 $100.00 $3,412,450.00 $3,000,000.00 ($412,450.00 $251 536.23 $251,525.00 ($11.23 $34 828.23 $1,028.00 ($33,800.23 $392 000.00 $670,000.00 $278 000.00 $425 800.00 $660,000.00 $234,200.00 $1,028.23 $11 028.00 $9,999.77 $3,277 801.44 $1,016 776.00 ($2 261,025.44 $170,000.00 $50,000.00 ($120,000.00 $2,431,025.44 $200,000.00 ($2,231,025.44 $1 016 776.00 $866 776.00 l$15o 000.00 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE 1990-1995 OPERA TING BUDGET 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 SAi.AR Y (01 ), OP'l!RA11NG (02), \u0026amp; omrr SHRYICI! (04) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED BEGINNING BALANCE $576,482.48 $767,551.29 $533,896.92 $1,664,962.00 REVENUE, LOCAL Prooerty Taxes $8 318,915.54 $8 254 539.36 $8 463 731.24 $8 465,000.00 40% Pullback $3,273,349.66 $3,151,431.23 $2,659,432.57 $2,660,000.00 40% Pullback {Accrued) $928,368.16 $1,039,428.11 $1,584,228.23 $1,585,000.00 Delinquent Taxes $693,558.60 $1,236,053.69 $960,646.26 $1,000,000.00 Excess Commissions $30,328.77 $30,189.65 $31,612.84 $30,000.00 land Redemption $117,506.10 $84,695.83 $92,073.43 $75,000.00 Tuition - Summer School $79 943.42 $59 645.00 $66 435.00 $76 500.00 Interest $224,913.67 $58,425.29 $144,538.58 $110,000.00 Pupil Activitv Sales $58,356.00 $53,040.00 $56,816.18 $50,000.00 Rent and Miscellaneous $120 970.79 $130 096.65 $131,122.06 $95,500.00 Deseareaation - Sec. VIII.C - LR $250,425.00 Deseareaation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $83,475.00 Tuition - PCSSD $71 675.46 $120 489.78 $96 047.54 $100 000.00 Cournv General and Severance Tax $35,236.96 $34,981.02 $35,830.83 $32 700.00 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $13 953 123.13 $14,253,015.61 $14,322,314.76 $14,613,600.00 REVENUE STATE MFPA $13 847 114.00 $16 296 020.00 $16 096 402.01 $16 361 513.00 State Aooortionment/Workers' Comoensation $28 896.00 $28 934.54 $28 479.49 Transoortation Aid $368,946.00 $588,197.00 $513,002.00 $494,317.00 M-to-M Incentive $532,463.00 $816,988.00 $1,131,696.00 $1 070 000.00 Compensatorv Education $337,951.47 $219,725.48 $251,557.04 $234,439.00 Special Education Suoervisor $65,734.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 Act 591 Residential $11 480.20 $28 867.80 $26 957.82 $25 000.00 Special Education Preschool $93 695.00 $156 202.00 $314 325.00 Vocational Education $54,959.00 $48,934.00 $80,435.96 $24,602.00 ABC Preschool $161,500.00 $274,585.00 $234,116.00 Desearegation - Sec. VIII.B $778 050.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 Deseareaation - Sec. VIII.C $293,239.74 $471 134.13 $455,368.81 $57,075.00 Maanet/M-to-M Transoortation $285 798.36 $327 148.98 $260 337.00 $300 000.00 Other State $46,450.56 $61,616.22 $36,039.95 $28,338.00 Public Law 874 and Other $55,128.00 $33,240.00 $22,762.00 $22,500.00 TOTAL STATE AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE $16,706,208.33 $19,632,176.15 $19 790,000.06 $19 622,400.00 IU IAL LUl,.\nAL, 1,.\nC)Ofil IT,\n::, 11\\1 C I\\NU UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE t.30 659 331.46 t.33 885 191.76 t,34 112 314.84 134.236 000.00 NON-REVENITE RECEIPTS /Sales Insurance Relund Misc.I $100,134.01 $55,135.56 155,264.44 $7,500.00 TRANSFERS TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS $958,589.82 {$62,762.51 1$21,285.48 1$20,000.00 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE.NON-REVENUE, 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $1,664,962.55 $235,653.00 1$1 429,309.55 $8 514 794.30 $8 320 000.00 1$194 794.30 $3,295,781.35 $3,250,000.00 1$45,781 .35 $863,568.65 $1,000,000.00 $136,431.35 $1,203,713.06 $1,150,000.00 {$53,713.06 $30,561.43 $30,000.00 1$561.43 $102,961.29 $100,000.00 ($2,961.29 $76 500.00 $76 500.00 $0.00 $119,291.03 $110,000.00 ($9,291.03 $55,000.00 $50,000.00 ($5,000.00 $129,565.00 $100,000.00 ($29,565.00 $263,862.40 $345,000.00 $61,137.60 $94,620.79 $115,000.00 $20,379.21 $117,254.41 $115 000.00 {$2 254.41 $35,369.94 $34 000.00 {$1,369.94 $14 922,843.85 $14,795,500.00 {$127,343.85 $16 733 932.00 $17 050 000.00 $316 068.00 $141 500.00 $141 500.00 $541,600.00 $500,000.00 ($41,600.00 $1,034,620.00 $1,000,000.00 {$34,620.00 $382,057.00 $480,000.00 $97,943.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $0.00 $41,250.00 $40 000.00 {$1 250.00 $321 255.00 $325 000.00 $3 745.00 $24,602.34 $20,000.00 {$4,602.34 $234,439.01 $240,000.00 $5,560.99 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $0.00 $57,082.32 $0.00 {$57,082.32 $271 430.00 $275 000.00 $3 570.00 $140,000.00 $40,000.00 {$100,000.00 $25 665.00 $25,000.00 1$665.00 $20,284,107.67 $20,592,675.00 $328,567.33 $35188 951.32 $35,388, 175.00 $2~23. 68 $18,840.00 $10,000.00 7$8,840.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 BALANCES AND I+ OR -l TRANSFERS S32 294 537.77 S34 645 116.10 S34 680 190.72 [J~_l!fil!,462.00)~1!.QQ,75:J.87~$~,863,828.00 .=1l1,236 925.87 s TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATORS TEACHERS SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TUITION TOTAL SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES REGUlAR PROGRAMS SPECIAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS PUPIL SUPPORT STAFF SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRAL SUPPORT OTHER SUPPORT NON-BOND/NON -PFIOGRAM/COMMUNITY TOTAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL INTEREST FISCAL FEES TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES TOTAL SALARY, OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCES NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ~ $32,294,537. 7r_ $34,645,116.10 $34,680,100.72 $35,888,462.00 $2,274,595.94 $2,434,417.93 $2,389,830.0  $2,520,025.00 S 15,089,059.05 $17,222,527.5 $16,8 2,870.86 $17,8,700.00 $302,785.34 $326,529.22 $341,  15.27 $340,000.00 S 17 ,666,40.33 S 19,003,-47  .69 $19,574,116.17 $20, 70 , 725.00 $594,099.2 $533,289.66 $524,031.13 $525,775.00 $1,115,205.60 $1,089 105.75 $1,067,374.16 $1,100,000.00 $19,375,745.17 $21,605,870.10 $21,165,521.46 S22,330,500.00 $1,153,795.50 $1,519,965.24 $1 627 825. 45 $2,055,863.00 $232,079.61 $269,601.83 $327,404.86 $466,969.00 $312251.38 $245,349.38 $319065.38 $261,023.00 $588,813.72 $1,313 139.75 $782,927.75 $766,024.00 $78,334.88 $83 927.27 $82,727.23 $152,082.00 $495,775.16 $480,144.36 $466,769.73 $623,671.00 $738,318.88 $758 657.78 $795,427.64 $1,024,808.00 $406,405.63 $431,209.66 $449,835.91 $467,100.00 $658,100.37 $635,281.90 $629,584.22 $666,821.00 $5,906,876.04 $5,132,953.90 $5, 160, 194.84 $5,302,290.00 $265,134.68 $205,117.23 $186,702.32 $206,330.00 $135,915.49 $220,468.79 $225,795.84 $239,010.00 $9,885.00 $14,667.48 $5,604.29 $15,000.00 $10,001,686.34 $11,310,484.57 $11,059,865.46 $ I 2,246,991.00 $557,646.62 $637,259.78 $224,285.46 $440,155.00 $610,948.45 $556,636.89 $564,799.49 $724,985.00 $959.90 $967.94 $756.20 $1,560.00 St, 169,554.97 $1,194,864.61 $789,8  1.15 $1,166,700.00 $31 526,986.48 $34,111,219.28 $33,015,228.07 $35,744,191.00 $767,551.29 $533 896.82 $1 664,962.65 $144,271.00 6 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $36,000,753.87 $35,003,828.00 $1,236,925.87 $2,776,450.00 $2,725,450.00 ($51,000.00 $18,046,980.00 $18,124,550.00 $77,570.00 $378,880.00 $375,000.00 ($3,880.00 $21,202,310.00 $21,225,000.00 $22,690.00 $528,050.00 $525,000.00 ($3,050.00 $1,116,220.00 $1,120,000.00 $3,780.00 $22,846,580.00 $22,870,000.00 $23,420.00 $2,467 700.00 $2 165,550.00 ($302,150.00 $4e7,960.00 $394,450.00 ($93,510.00 $258,480.00 $234,960.00 ($23,500.00 $717,030.00 $815,020.00 $97,990.00 $159,170.00 $144,280.00 ($14,800.00 $648, 130.00 $525, 1 10.00 ($123,020.00 $1,091,500.00 $000, 110.00 ($111,300.00 $492830.00 $439,550.00 ($53,280.00 $606 560.00 $5 5,450.00 ($61,110.00 $5,241,300.00 $4,900,750.00 ($3 0,550.00 S 194,360.00 $175,700.00 ($18,660.00 $252,480.00 $224,050.00 ($28,430.00 $12,250.00 $15,000.00 $2,750.00 SI 2,629,750.00 $11,560,000.00 ($1,069,750.00 $474 845.00 $ 85,500.00 $10,655.00 $709,800.00 $710,000.00 $200.00 $4,125.00 $4,500.00 $375.00 $1,188,770.00 $ I ,200,000.00 $11,230.00 $36,665,100.00 $35,630,000.00 ($1,035,100.00 $235,653.87 $33,828.00 ($201,825.87 FEDERAL GRANTS BEGINNING BALANCE_S_ REVENUE EVEN START CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 MEDICAID NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 lllll0-111 111111-112 111112-113 111113-94 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED $11111127 .Ill $21111 1144.43 $3112 2811.73 $381,545.00 $134,430.00 $125,578.00 $122,31M1.00 SI 1811,71111.00 $1 152 3111.00 $1 111111 72.00 $1 661 000.00 $79,1104.00 $102 1134.1111 $73 515.00 $65,593.00 $36,771.00 $44,657.76 $39,11111.78 $41,000.00 SP ED PRESCHOOL !SECTION 8111 ANO ECCi $298,701.44 $354,585.00 $396 140.00 HEAD START so.oo $22 061.00 $48,646.00 $71 325.00 Tlll.E VI-B $300 321.00 $300,1115.00 $3011,238.00 $3111,554.00 Pl.. 811-313 $31 751.00 $27 4011.00 $21 704.00 $18 358.00 ~ HOMELESS ASSISTANCE $21 000.00 $21 875.00 JTPA $48 11111.511 $72 124.111 $114,151.311 $221 ,5117 .00 CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL AID $87 872.14 $104 21111.00 $134 578.12 $148 411.00 EISENHOWER MATH/SCIENCE $20 777.00 $30 8711.00 $42,740.00 $42 000.00 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION $?3 207.00 $110 0118.00 $112 818.00 $112 II00.00 ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY $41 1110.00 EXXON ENERGY $53 020.00 $311705.00 $50 000.00 OTHER $0.00 $511040.00 $10 322.00 TOTAL REVENUE $18485e8.70 $2 494 3110.02 $3 1118 OII0. 211 $3 282 441.00 TOTAL EDERAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $2 038 11111.511 $2 794 034.45 $3 580,377.02 $3 1183 11811.00 EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $511 458.18 $311873.72 $32,270.110 $31 1175.00 SPECIAL EDUCATION $2711 7411.311 $347,537.08 $457 ,2111.111 $358 058.00 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $73 001.04 $134 124.96 $1113,807.83 $222 780.00 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $952 250.1111 $1 162,323.20 $1 355,723.69 $1 704,518.00 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $12 904.52 $11 565.80 $14 738.70 $11,612.00 PUPIL SUPPORT $119 4711.110 $287 414.75 $441,017.06 $621 01111.00 STAFF SUPPORT $145 397.44 $2114,392.34 $420,312.43 $5061107.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT $102 81111.51 $911,801.73 $121 7211.51 $114,041.00 OTHER/CENTRAL SUPPORT $5 793.20 $10 981.110 $28,71111.11 $15 500.00 NON-PROGRAMMED $27 441.05 $311844.41 $41,954.42 $59,11111.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $13 170.54 $11 887.711 $101,258.83 $20 1711.00 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES $1 7H 552.111 $2 401 747.72 $3178 831.711 $3 1114 052.00 ENDING BALANCE $211111 144.43 $3112 2811.73 $381,545.23 $411 934.00 7 111113-94 11194-115 11194-115 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $381 2118.00 $251,538.00 ($1211750.00 $122 31111.00 $107,000.00 1$15 31111.00 $1 5113,471.00 $1,1100,000.00 $11 5211.00 $115,5113.00 $113 700.00 $28 107.00 $47 1118.00 $47,000.00 !$1118.00 $3116, 140.00 $400,000.00 $3,8110.00 $71 325.00 $72,000.00 $675.00 $3111554.00 $320,000.00 $4411.00 $18 410.00 $111 500.00 1$1 1110.00 $21 875.00 $21 000.00 1$875.00 $210 000.00 $75,000.00 ($135 000.00 $148 411.00 $147,200.00 ($1 211.00 $42 000.00 $40 000.00 1$2 000.00 $85 230.00 $110 000.00 1$25 230.00 $0.00 $114 831.00 1$84 831.00 $10 322.00 $1100.00 1$11722.00 $3 238 7211.00 $3 000,000.00 1$2311 7211.00 $3 1118 012.00 $3 251 5311.00 1$3811 4711.00 $281175.00 $30 000.00 $1 325.00 $375 1185.00 $350 000.00 !$251185.00 $198 250.00 $170,000.00 1$28 250.00 $1 885 770.00 $1 310,000.00 1$375 770.00 $15 030.00 $5,000.00 1$10 030.00 $543 930.00 $500,000.00 1$43,1130.00 $425 7IIO.OO $500,000.00 $74 210.00 $43 SCIO.DO $110 000.00 $1111140.00 $23,5110.00 $15,000.00 1$8 5IIO.00 $50.000.00 $50 000.00 $0.00 $22,470.00 $10,000.00 1$12 470.00 $3,412 450.00 $3 000 000.00 !$412 450.00 $205 5112.00 $251,538.00 $45 974.00 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) FUND FN 01 10 02 10 02 11 01 11 02 11 01 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 -- - - 01 11 1--- 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 01 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 02 11 -- C DESCRIPTION 00 INSTRUCTION 00 INSTRUCTION 05 PRESC-HOOL - - - 1~0- K- IN-D- ER- GAR-TE--N 10 KINDERGARTEN 26 ELEMENTARY - - - ---- 20 ELEMENTARY - - -- 21 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 22 LANGUAGE ARTS -23 MA THE--M--A- TICS 24 SCIENCE ------ 28 READING ------ -- 30 MIDDLE SCHOOL ----- 30 MIDDLE SCHOOL - -- 31 MUSIC - - -- 32 LANGUAGE ARTS 33 MATHEMATICS __ _ 34 SCIENCE 35 SOCIAL STUDIES 36 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 37 ART 39 PHYS-IC_A_L_E_D_U_C_A-TION 40 HIGH SCHOOL 40 HiGH SCH_O_O__ L 41 MUSIC - -- - - 42 LANGUAGE ARTS 43 MATHEMATICS 44 SCIENCE - 91-92 EXPENSES 16,640,.06.31 - - - 500,554.8Q - - ~1,611_._8 0.00 --- - f------ --- 11,966.44 0.00 -- - 130,099.54 - -- - - - :!_0,427.34 0.00 -- - - - 0.00 0.00 -- - 708.00 0.00 - -- 45,297.80 --- 1,189.60 3,021.43 -- - 1,793.17 - 2,582.32 1,415.44 21.54 -- 863.40 1,254.52 - 0.00 - 72,705.1.! 1_2,323 . !5 872.23 - - - - 1,0Q1.4Q 4,200.43 --- - - -- - 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD - ---- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 119,761.99 177,882.00 114,835.09 64.56% 1,125,722.30 1,189,300.00 912,211.53 76.70% 93,805.50 97,790.00 84,256.21 86.16% 4,942,200.72 5,215,600.00 4,524,450.87 86.75% 513,465.65 689,428.00 488,544.96 70.86% 2,451.76 3,900.00 4,285.45 109.88% 21.57 - 0.00 0.00 556.76 0.00 0.00 72.22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,025,258.66 2,135,000.00 2,042,866.33 95.68% 253,749.33 330,986.00 256,968.63 77.64% 934.71 12,665.00 7,463.48 58.93% 1,197.49 1,375.00 1,139.79 - 82.89% 1,598.93 5,875.00 11,290.73 192.18% 3,633.06 2,398.00 2,303.78 96.07% 716.89 1,475.00 1,056.22 71.61% 81.61 50.00 0.00 0.00% 1,zQz.13 2,580.00 1,363.08 52.83% - - 72- 1- .1- 3 820.00 387.13 47.21% 3,126,!3!..lQ 3,624,100.00 ~. 191,~~z.~~ 88.06% - 329,844.19 4~~.805.00 36_!,41~.55 74.86% - --- 56,440.14 1~.~5Q_.QQ_ 1~.~~1-~1 99.00% --- 1,154.39 1 .~50.00 1,Q~6-?1 82.94% - 7,228.82 1,200.QQ 863.68 71.97% - - ---- 2,811.59 2,500.00 3,045.56 121.82% - - - - ==-=--= 'll'HHlitA ~ @lRtll'llll ll4H'1r'1r!LIlEfi l.(Q)CCIJFKl1 JlfilIT,,,!ICCCC lf!l(Q)@JL~ J1'W ~\nl 1\" Jl WW,11li i,\u0026gt;~P'1l~l Q)l1'1['UJIRZUl1IB,'l f 11~'1lJ~CC'1l'Il(Q)~ ll~'l()l {ID)~'\n)'\n~~)('Jiln~ll[)o/ (( j) Jlj J~ CITllJDlf~(tn1~ C O)~J 2..m.t xenrt 11'WTICC~i!'l2_ - - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of FUND FNC DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD - --- - --- 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 1,002.1~ 917.14 1,200.00 1,387.56 115.63% -- --- - - - 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 193.49 353.19 800.00 0.00 0.00% ---- f--- 02- 1147- ART 2,928.52 2,854.22 1,900.00 ~687.48 - 141.45% 02 1148 RADIO/TV 1,508.67 2,029.62 0.00 0.00 - - 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATIO N 626.38 587.40 650.00 416.10 64.02% - - - --- - 02 1150 ATHLETICS 16,000.00 922.50 1,000.00 18,183.60 1818.36% 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETI - 44,760.72 48,525.33 50,600.00 42,277.56 83.55% f- ~!.~~9:ZQ 19,121.21 24,360.00 10,460.90 42.94% - - ------- - cs 3,984.37 8,292.74 1,290.00 16,178.51 1254.15% 02 1154 GIRLS SOFTBALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 376.54 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIE - -- s 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,842.85 02 1161 CHEER- -- - --- - - - ~ -- - --- - -- 4,4~,1.36 2,964.59 9,950.00 11,786.45 118.46% 02 1162 DRILL 02 - 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL --- - ~~923.22 1,875.46 7,115.00 0.00 - 0.00% -- - 3,842.06 89,059.92 240,420.00 84,663.39 35.21% 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1193 MiNf GRANTS - - - ~.976.22 18,601.08 20,400.00 19,298.46 94.60% ~ ---- 4,803.99 4,630.44 5,000.00 4,315.95 86.32% 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER - SCHOOL 2,564.76 29,669.41 64,887.00 27,217.34 41.95% 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENT ION 14.97 5,465.74 6,000.00 5,110.96 85.18% 01 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUC - - - TION 0.00 75,015.07 78,000.00 67,926.22 87.08% --- - - 02 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUC TION 2,164.67 5,786.21 7,700.00 5,016.89 65.15% of 1220 RESOURCE ROOM- 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM -- - 0.00 1,164,399.94 1,230,000.00 1,293,~61.78 105.17% -- - - 1,649.09 88,209.13 90,750.00 98,407.69 108.44% 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 01- 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10 02 1240 SPECIALCLASS 1:10 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS,1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS7:6 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHO - 8,525.59 5,832.17 0.00 0.00 -- - f--- --- --- - 0.00 659,049.10 695,300.00 4_1Z,346.~~ 64.34% -- \u0026gt;--- - - 705.99 49,077.48 Q~.830.00 4~.~~Q-~~ 75.70% - - - 0.00 188,Q~5.82 241,700.00 14~.3~~-Z~ 61.81% --- - 5,198.37 28,486.45 81 ,7~0.00 24,43_.75 29.88% -- - ----- -- OL 0.00 2,212.~0 0.-00 0.00 Page: 9 ~ -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of FUND FNCT DESCRIPTION -EXPE-N- SES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD t----- 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RESI _ 10,024.76 8,629.20 10,000.00 11,066.1 110.67% - 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDICAPPED 18,486.72 17,571.13 15,000.00 30,291.27 201.94% - 01 1280 -PUB---L--IC DAY--- -S--CHOOL - - 0.00 130,713.72 138,100.00 114,482.87 82.90% - 02 1280 PU-BLIC DAY SCHOOL - 0.00 12,889.62 18,550.00 11,478.24 61.88% - 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PROGRA 0.00 0.00 12,425.00 11,992.33 96.52% 02 1290 01 1320 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDICAP - 62,552.27 108,711.27 166,932.00 146,855._~1 87.97% DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION - -- 0.00 80,524.69 85,000.00 79,145.24 93.11% 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION - -- - - 4,247.10 10,733.13 11,974.00 9,633.82 80.46% 01 1330 B-USINESS EDUCATION 0.00 366,005.06 386,300.00 359,642\".69- 93.10% --- - - - 02 1330 BUS- IN--E--SS EDUCATION --- -- 48,913.85 68,227.45 56,581.00 62,999.94 111.34% 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 0.00 259,903.38 274,500.00 258,396.36 94.13% 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 30,599.28 77,329.25 54,689.00 63,813.12 116.68% 01 1352 02 1352 P-RIN--CIPLES OF TECHNOLOGY 0.00 63,137.94 66,700.00 62,027.07 92.99% r-- PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOGY 33,336.43 33,933.71 6,300.00 5,578.37 88.55% 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCTION - 0.00 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 01 1360 HOME EC 0.00 286,119.03 301,900.00 256,288.47 84.89% 02 1360 HOME EC 12,474.25 34,395.05 43,498.00 37,752.71 86.79% 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 0.00 48,449.20 51,300.00 49,495.38 96.48% -- 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 3,588.51 9,231.33 7,000.00 5,915.74 84.51% 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 0.00 0.00 5,600.00 4,546.77 81.19% 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 0.00 363,105.62 383,200.00 322,824.37 84.24% 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 13,340.44 71,257.64 - 76,381.00 ~.665.Q! 87.28% 02 1510 02 1520 BASIC SKILLS 0.00 0.00 5,690.00 1,226.04 21.55% -- r--- DROPOUT PREVENTION 16,991.62 19,931.81 20,604.00 12,31~I1 59.77% -- - 02 1522 TRANSITION PROGRAM - 0.00 11,798.37 ~~~0.00 - _!Q,240.~~ 75.02% 02 1525 02 1550 02 1560 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 191,523.81 223,574.19 223,941.00 245,~?~-~:! 109.61% EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC t--- ---- -- 97,049.54 124,898.65 1 _:!.Z,8~4.0Q 94,~11 -~6 80.02% READING- - - --0.00- 0.00- 68,800.00 58,519.64 85.06% - Page: 10 FUND 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 02- 01 \"Jl'Hlll~ BCO)]Rs.1I'HIfLi ,II1r\"lr'JL,J_m\u0026amp; @CClt IMlJ]])l.L,]l(C (C]HJ(Q)(Q)JL5 Jl ( h'1JJ l \"Jl ~\u0026lt;JJ11il~l\u0026gt; }li)~P1]io'\\1'].l})T['TfUJIR\u0026lt;JI~B 3l'f fl1'l[J~CC'1I'Il(Q)~ ll\u0026lt;'UY\\1')l)1t/g L~ru1TTt-1lql0cJ'mn ) \u0026gt;0 (li)IP)~lr~1(rfi1m~ @~ 0 J[l) \"~~ ~ll'WilCC~(l@41,p FN C DESCRIPT 15 15 15 65 * 75 * ION MP ED 15 90 OTHER CO -91 COMP -E-D P-A--RENT/HO-MEW--OR-K 15 92 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY - - - 15 93 COMP ED TURNING POINT - - --- - - - - 15 94 COMP ED PALS LAB - --- -- -- - - 19 10 GIFTED AN D TALENTED ~19 10 GIFTED AN D TALENTED - - - - -- - 1-9 11 GIT PROJE CT PROMISE . - -- 19 11- GIT -PROJE CT PROMISE 19 12 GIT SUMM ER QUEST - --- - 19 1-3 -GIT- M- ATH EMATI-CS - 19 1-4 GIT SC---I-EN CE -- - 19 90 OTHER IN STRUCTIONAL SERV 19 -- --- 92 MCRAT LA NGUAGE ARTS GRAN -- 20 00 SUPPORT ING SERVICES 270il i SUPPORT ING SERVICES 21 21 21 21 21 --- 00 PUPIL SUP 01 02 * --- 10 ATTEND \u0026amp; 20 GUIDANCE - PORT - - -- SOCIAL WRK SEV /COUNSELING SERV ---- 21 21 21 21 21 20- G-UIDANCE /COUNSELING -SERV 23 APPRAISA L SERVICES 30 HEALTHS 31 JOHNSON 40 PSYCHOL ERVICES - - \u0026amp; JOHNSON GRANT OGICAL SERVICES - ---- - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES -- - ~.17!-~~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 - - -- - ---- ~.~85.54 0.00 0.00 - - ---- 76~.Q32.12 152,333.13 187,120.00 122,250.! -- _118,268.33 115,841.03 101,700.00 76,494.83 - 24,685.40 29,957.18 0.00 499.93 - 43,408.77 42,826.09 44,350.00 35,852.!~ -- - 53,180.16 58,295.09 24,300.00 10,961.74 45,411.36 405,353.20 428,300.00 326,906.18 27,689.4Q 67,758.57 75,500.00 42,402.93 -- - 0.00 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 57.85 2,424.63 11,000.00 7,522.09 -- --- 3,048.70 2,675.74 18,250.00 13,767\u0026amp;! -~00.00 7,149.61 20,803.00 19,714.71 0.00 0.00 21,100.00 0.00 0.00 2,718.68 4,835.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 594.00 0.00 4,934,623.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 1,463,766.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 552.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,392.85 54,612.91 0.00 0.00 - --- 169,523.70 166,860.00 0.00 0.00 ---- 0.00 15,669.53 73,000.00 - 62,Q46.~~ 0.00 843,592.20 890,800.00 __ 800,09Z.8 3,147.51 170,218.18 176,230.00 - 163,64~-~~ _ 36,955.59 - J_4,044.28 __ 11900.00 _!.!_,59~-~! - 89,061.05 - 86,756.63 116,8?0.0Q ~6,50Q.1~ 0.00 0.00 352.00 0.00 -- -- ----- - - - 0.00 167,900.00 164,927.67 -- - - -- - 158,965.0~ Page: 11 --_] % of EXP/BUD 65.33% 75.22% 80.84% 45.11% 76.33% - - 56.16% 68.38% 75.44% 94.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - -- 86.09% 89.82% 92.86% 83.42% 74.05% --- 0.00% 98.23% - - - 1l'H)[M X~ @]RZ'Jr!U1Ll ll'1l'1l'lL1l]~R l@calrtI:F UJiffiJLITra~ ((WJl(IT)(IT)]L,~ n ~ J~\u0026lt;ni\u0026gt;, , n ~ ~q11)~ Ht)XjP%~~kIT JH1cu11RzI1IB:iW 'H l'HYB\u0026lt;U'11'll@JNY ]:i'HH 11LJ1Lt i ,~mil,l1 \\lf' q( f)) ll l ~ (0))1J1(.t'~Ha' illTTllil~ ccp~ i ll\u0026gt;J(t'JllN~r lFY'I!(G\u0026lt;e@1 ,f\\,n - -- 93-94 - 91-92 92-93 93-94 % of FUND FNCT DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD ---- - - - --- - --- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES 58,42Q.17 ___Q,707.6!! 71,400.00 12,892.27 18.06% -- -- - - - - 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY SER 0.00 387,373.48 4 ! 0,700.00 326,766.~!! 79.56% - - -- - - 02 2150 SPEEC-H PAT-H/AU- DIOLOGY SE-R 26,54~.31 71,168.22 155,817.00 J_46,83~.1Q 94.23% 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 0.00 62,688.24 66,!Q0.00 57,867.66 87.55% - ---- - - 02 2160 PHYS- \u0026amp; -OCC T-H-ERAPY 0.00 4,686.25 4,8Q0.00 4,410.z~ 91.89% - - -- 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SERV 0.00 34,518.96 700.00 3,824.2~ 546.32% - - - -- - - 02 2191 ROCKEFELLER ED RENEWAL 0.00 0.00 _J__,302.00 0.00 0.00% - - - - --- - 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND GRANT 0.00 0.00 7,500.00 7,514.17 100.19% 02 2194 - - - - - - - AASA A-DVISE GRANT- - 0.00 0.00 1,850.00 0.00 0.00% 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION 0.00 415,391.85 439,700.00 538,264.35 122.42% 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION- - - 133,560.57 358,615.51 589,571.00 397,716.82 67.46% 02 2211 INSTRUCTION COE/NCA - 3,972.14 4,112.74 11,000.00 4,754.38 43.22% - 02 2212 -E-LEME-N-TARY INSERV- ICE - - 717.67 - 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 01 2215 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 0.00 . 13,987.57 15,300.00 29,869.36 195.22% 02 2215 CR i ADM/INSTRUCTION 0.00 6,349.67 6,650.00 7,905.37 118.88% 02 2216 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 0.00 18,80 1,981.00 277.01 13.98% ----- 02 2217 CELEBRATION OF TEACHING 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,058.82 105.88% 02 2218 INSERVICE-ADE READ GRANT 5,297.80 15,138.45 4,440.00 11,480 . .Q.1 258.56% 02 2219 INSERVICE-ADE/UALR/UCA 10,879.02 3,087.45 11,935.00 1,024.26 8.58% - 01 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 0.00 587,960.59 611,800.00 505,186.75 82.57% 02 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 116,339.47 389,728.15 409,863.00 - 366,246.~~ 89.36% 02 2225 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTER 16,285.37 18,376.87 25,500.00 30,040.47 117.81% - 02 2295 * 0.00 3,432.93 0.00 - -- -- 0.00- 02 2310 01 2320 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 244,669.24 256,980.24 251,500.00 1_!1!, ! ~-17 76.02% SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE - 754.00 84,204.50 ~~.00Q.00 90,Q~~.3~ 101.23% - - - - --- - - --- 02 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 5,339.37 64,552.63 68,Q~0.00 1.1,242.~Q 103.37% -- - 01 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 0.00 56,890.69 0,200.00 _ _1_, 1Q~-~11 02.01% - - --- ---- - - - --- 02 2321 ASST SUPT INST-RUCT- ION 540.00 28,456.94 30~140.00 31,116.57 103.-24%- Page: 12 - -- ~ - - =--=---- - - -=-===----= 'j['JlllM k Y@JR1'1T1lLllHl '1!''1l'JL,!Rm @ci::m~W ID'lffiILil\u0026lt;D~ er IHl@(Q)ll, Jl ~)~qJ)l C, n ,ef\\, l~)Xifl14~0)ll'1rUJlR3J\u0026amp; Iffilf 1PllJ~CC'1fJI(Q)JNY Jli'HH1 1w~{~~~) ii\\flfuu~ qQl)Jl1 ,9C D)filc_e1r1IDgfid1@m~~D 2 lliXeilNt 1FWficcd@41,)2_ J - - ---- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of FUND FNC DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD 01 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINES - - - - S SERVIC 0.00 55,764.93 58,900.00 60,247.~~ 102.29% -- - 02 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINES S SERVIC 795.00 28,921.34 31,600.00 31,821.22 100.70% 01 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SE RVICES 0.00 55,925.22 58,900.00 60,234.46 102.27% - - - -- --- 02 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SE 01 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGR RVICES 1,135.83 30,917.11 31,140.00 31,734.27 101.91% ------ EGATION 0.00 52,149.08 55,100.00 56,325.94 102.22% 02 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGR- -- - - - ---- EGATION- -- _ 3,643.07 40,007.65 53,800.00 43,728.43 81.28% 01 2400 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 02 2400 PRiNCIPAL'S OFFICE 01 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S 0 02 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S O - - - -0.00 1,040,705.36 1,058,300.00 1,032,770.~~ 97.59% 43,~96.74 596,111.12 636,369.00 626,313.59 98.42% FFICE 0.00 449,509.91 508,300.00 543,068.1_~_ 106.84% --- - - FFICE 111.29 33,473.10 34,765.00 40,894.37 117.63% 02 2510 BUSINESS SUPPORT 01 2540 M \u0026amp; O OF PLANTIER --- - SERVICES ~986.12 104,622.58 111,100.00 113,736.94 102.37% ViCES 0.00 55,794.93 58,900.00 60,272.50 102.33% 02 2540 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SER VICES 4,225,030.45 3,873,345.31 1,279,850.00 1,404,537.75 109.74% 02 2541 M \u0026amp; O-CUSfoDIAi SE - RVICES 193,241.49 0.00 1,208,710.00 1,156,872.64 95.71% 02 2543 ASBESTOS REMOVA - - L 24,481.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2544 ENERGY CONSERVA ----- TION 431,614.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2549 M \u0026amp; 0 UTILITIES \u0026amp; IN SUR 0.00 0.00 1,419,500.00 1,331,769.88 93.82% 02 2550 PUPIL TRANSPORTAT 02 2555 MAGNET/M-TO-M TRA - - ION SER 906,532.35 1,121,656.19 1,254,780.00 1,075,466.~~ 85.71% - NSP. - -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 29,719.62 01 2570 INTERNAL SERVICES ,_02---2-570 INTERNAL SERVICES -- - 0.00 55,795.01 58,900.00 60,285~~ 102.35% 31,345.30 60,570.76 92,850.00 ~.782.33 122.54% - 02 2571 2,327.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2630 INFORMATION SERV 01 2640 PERSONNEL SERVIC - --- ICES 11,022.95 35,111.12 33,550.00 _ 33,~88.~~ 101.01 % -- ES 0.00 55,794.96 58,900.00 60,285.84 102.35% 02 2640 PERSONNEL SERVIC - - -- ------ --- ES 4,218.19 31,535.66 34,390.00 35,335.68 102.75% I- -- ---- 01 2660 DATA PROCESSING S 02 2660 DATA PROCESSING S ERVICES 0.00 45,833.07 48,500.00 - ~~.~II-~~ 100.16% ERVICES 34,120.95 120,055.54 - 138,390.00 - 138,~55.~~ 100.41% 02 2900 OTHER SUPPORTING SERVICES 0.00 890.00 :hQO~ 5.~~8.6? 583.87% - - - - - -- - Page: 13 FUND FNCT 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 04 04 04 2901 2902 2905 3700 3900 4100 4100 4400 4900 5100 5101 5102 'll 1lllllt1 Xj '@JR{TI'HILll H'lr1lI LJE IRl@\u0026lt;DOJCF UJIB3ILIIC\u0026lt;CU lH.I(Q)@IL Jl\u0026lt; ~\u0026gt;J 1,J, 1W 1\\, l~~\\JP'l~~IDllTI'UJIRllJ:I\u0026amp;B3 1fI'I ~'llJ~CC1fII@~ ll1'Hn 1J1yc~~\nr ~~1Jl'ctllt'~' 1CfJ\u0026gt;l1ll~ \u0026lt;P)J1i)ce]1'1IDtr@fin~nD~2 illJ Ilrt ll'Wlicc@41,D ------- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD CROSSIN-G GUAR- DS 0.00 0.00 57,010.00 54,445.94 95.50% BREAKFAST/LUN-CH AIDES - 0.00 0.00 175,000.00 180,459.20 103.12% VIPS - -- -- - - 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 4,461.46 74.36% NO-N--PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPIL S- - 34.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,968.63 425.33 3,000.00 12,514.39 417.15% PAYMENTS TO OTHERS - 136,593.66 1,067,374.16 1,100,000.00 687,523.34 62.50% PAYMENTS TO OTHERS 952,512.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 3,472.21 0.00 0.00 -PAY-ME- NT T-O--- STATE -- - 11,698.85 5,178.96 12,000.00 12,253.92 102.12% BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 1,139,188.69 711,056.79 1,118,255.00 1,130,326.40 101.08% BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-PCSS 20,721.89 43,619.74 23,350.00 0.00 0.00% ---- BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-LR 34,954.03 35,164.62 35,095.00 0.00 0.00% GR- AND- TOTALS 34,904,530.07 33,015,228.07 36,126,357.00 31,928,393.22 88.38% Page: 14 \"Hl,ll ll ~ n(Ll)1 R tll'H H 1L II1 r1r 1L1I lii m @CCI~I FUJIIBILcIcI cc rm@@ IL~ TIi ll\u0026gt;~ Jl,,r t W\"'1,H t1'lJP)Jl$f'TIO)l(1I'UJIBlIBllB'if~ ( Q)ffi?\u0026gt;JJIBCC1r ll1'Uf\u0026gt;l-lW~'g 5~t'a1fil'.-d1@H)ln' D2 @UD\u0026lt;r)ina11tnim1~@ ~ D~ I.D)!hllr cel.l\"~jicc d@,D(1 , 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 Fund Object DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES 01 00110 REGULAR QE_R_T!_FIC_A_IED 17,066,397 ~~ 16,742,398.94 17,738,600.00 15,511,796:95 02 00110 REGU_LA_CR_ E~TiflCATED ~~08~.24 359,620.58 723,316.00 539,076.29 01 00115 C!=~TlflED AQ!Yl!_N 2,529,94I_.2_ 2~,4_9_0~,3_0_1_ .92_~6,6 _21_265, .00 2,666,665.55 02 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 54,920.88 _ 15,403.00 37,760.00 31,900.82 02 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATE 4,436,627.20 4,433,555.87 4,702,169.00 4,510,777.43 02 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN - 303,770.74 222,770.10 215,725.00 220,790.96 - ---- -- - --- 01 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 281,727.57 280,000.00 307,072.20 02 - 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS - 257,721.90 2,385.56 63,219.00 200.00 01-00131 AIG_N~Q SU_BS_TIT_U_TE-_S_ 0.00 59,687.70 60,000.00 71,807.90 02 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 68,807.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 J % of EXP/BUD 87.45% 74.53% 101.54% ~.48% 95.93% 102.35% 109.67% 0.32% 119.68% t------,------,--1 02 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 16,517.00 22,268.10 22,500.00 24,835.20 110.38% 01 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,--~_____,,o--,.o~o 02 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 17,971.35 24,500.38 57,845.00 26,150.59 ,__45-.2-1-0/i--\u0026lt;o 02 0015'1 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 450.00 1,300.95 - -----+----'--- 02 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CER 0.00 0.00 t--------+----1--50.00 0.00 01 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,469,783.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -~~---1------=-+-----,--,--c--c-,-,---,-,--t------ 02 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 20,199.93 1,474,276.85 1,538,210.00 1,423,565.24 289.10% 0.00% 01 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----i 02 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 384,244.37 346,599.03 368,649.00 353,712.78 02 00212  TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 4,483.00 2,000.38 02 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 44.00 99.52 02 00220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 848.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.95% 44.62% 226.18% 02 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CER! 91.13 -- 0. 00 t----2-=--.-c-10c--c5c-_o,....,o-+------O-.O-O -=- 0~ 02 00230 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 69,128.74 _ 0.00 _0_.0Q 0.00 02 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SY 0.00 _ 6~,632.4~ 67,94Q.00 1----58-,5-8-8.68 -8-6-.2-4-li-10 cf-1 00240 i_NSU_R_A__N__C E -=~ 533,289.66 52~,031.1~ __5 25.?Z~-QQ_ 448,047.60 85.22% ~ -~4Q INSURANCE _ 18,261.50 7,233.85 15,409.00 _ 22,497.18 146.QQ'.\u0026amp; Page: 15 Fund Object 02 00241 01 00250 02 00250 02 00251 01 00260 -- -02 - -00-260 02 00261 \u0026gt;0-1- 00290 02 00310 02 00311 02 0031--2 02 -0031-3 02 00314 1------ 02 00315 02 00316 02 00317 02 00318 02 00319 02 00320 02 00321 - -- 02 00322 02 00323 -02 00324 02 00325 02 00326 02 00327 -02 00328 02 00329 1t'Hlll~ ~@IRi'H'lllI JL,II'Tr1f!.LIIEfi l.@\u0026lt;DOIFC1 1JIB3ILII~\u0026lt;\u0026lt;DD IHI@@IL n ~ n,, Jl~ ,11, J.E)XJf)IaWJD)II\"lfUJIB1.ImE lf @JJIB\u0026lt;D1r ):1'\\[J!')1l))  3)/Zalilffi.lHc)tCJ ' IDil ll~ ~~ ll'ffi}lJ~ C ID~D 2 ITI\u0026gt;Ib:ilJ (r)lf'YTI\u0026lt;Cc tC ID4)1L _ 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES INSURA~CE, NON-CE~T 179,457 -l!!_ 160,878.40 179,120.00 147,615.11 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENS __ 8,313.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENS -- - 116.46 25,064.50 33,773.00 16,8~._1Q UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CER 7,111.26 7,997.67 9,223.00 3,907.58 - - - - WORKERS COMP 13,663.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 WORKERS COMP 137.35 13,177.96 15,493.00 23,104.34 ---- --- -- '{VORKERS COMP, NON-CER - 3,801.42 3,032.38 4,766.00 5,310.35 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 0.00 10,_Q00.00 9,361.00 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SER 243,960.75 227,589.66 196,157.00 170,692.94 CONSOLIDATION LAWSUITS 107,137.00 77,853.85 80,000.00 73,010.70 LEGAL SERVICES 16,233.36 42,489.33 40,000.00 30,620.30 ELECTION SERVICES 4,274.53 9,734.22 9,500.00 8,636.03 DESEGREGATION MONITOR 58,845.98 41,211.61 60,000.00 50,322.00 AUDIT SERVICES 15,500.00 15,700.00 15,950.00 15,950.00 SECURITY SERVICES 44,851.98 43,605.93 44,900.00 43,362.03 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTE 25,000.00 50,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICL 7,093.98 8,664.68 7,350.00 14,008.71 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDIN 3,160.10 6,025.66 4,800.00 1,700.00 RENTAL/LEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 22,795.45 27,187.00 13,923.22 UTITLITY SERVICES-GAS 204,132.95 212,020.84 235,100.00 208,470.80 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECT 826,922.63 764,066.41 779,000.00 724,543.99 UTILTITY SERVICES-WATER 67,914.86 61,988.98 66,800.00 63,665.09 CLEANING SERVICES 1,538.15 275.74 900.00 459.98 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLD/GRNDS 24,577.95 45,546.71 41,000.00 47,412.78 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 94,459.28 103,340.24 99,123.00 82,410.40 \u0026gt;------- REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICL 21,269.85 12,860.03 10,120.00 25,01..79 500.00 ~- REPAIRS/MAINT-SEC SYSTE 530.67 1,702.13 ___ 2,34~.__!Q WASTE DISPOSAL ---- - - - 60,433.53 - 35,571.8~_ 54,100.00 49.~57.62 Page: 16 % of EXP/BUD 82.41% 49.84% ---- 42.37% -~ 149.13% 111.42% 93.61% 87.02% 91.26% 76.55% 90.91% 83.87% 100.00% 96.57% 0.00% 190.59% 35.42% 51.21% 88.67% 93.01% 95.31% 51.11% 115.64% 83.14% ---- 247.19% 468.42% --- 91.05% -- -- - -- ---- 'll'Hlll~ ).W DJR{\"Jl'llf1! Jl'1f'1f'lLl~!R l@CCJI:fKllJ TIBlLllCC CCHll@@IL, n WWJ l. .J l ~,1\\, l~\ni.'(JP1'H~IDH'1rUJmI\u0026amp;3 lIB'W(' D)JB3Jl!R(C'1r Jti-Hn1 'll2J''~g, c,~ta1Hl'ilu~cr mn r,9@ nj)lt'))rfd1t1firn1~ ~D2 IIDIIDrcre 1rWficc @~D---=,----- _] 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fund Object DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD 02 00331 PUPIL T-RAN-SPO- RTATION ~1!Z81 -~1 78,784.03 184,646.00 48,543.89 --- 26.29% 02 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 22,64~.4~ 16,933.70 40,491.00 19,780.33 48.85% 02 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 16,1~8.1~ 17,993.55 34,935.00 24,985.38 71.52% 02 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 32,482.5Q__ 23,055.00 23,875.00 22,736.06 - 95.23% 02 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 10,227.24 13,495.00 10,311.13 76.41% -11,184.29 ---- 02 00340 REPAIRS-TELEPHONE 573.58 0.00 0.00 --- 02 00341 TELEPHONE 142,818.54 118,770.02 143,739.00 135,225.20 94.08% - - - 02 00342 POSTAGE 29,164.08 18,348.12 38,615.00 36,056.38 93.37% - 1------- ADVERTISING - 02 00350 785.36 1,245.92 1,350.00 2,279.27 168.83% 1-- -- WRECKER SERVICE - -- 02 00355 0.00 1,940.00 2,000.00 2,490.00 124.50% t-- 1-- - ---- -- 02 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 20,894.63 26,086.14 35,149.00 15,484.55 44.05% 02 00361 D-ATA- -PROCESSING --SERVIC 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00% 01 00370 TUITION 0.00 21,988.00 20,000.00 21,047.00 105.24% ---- - 02 00370 TUITION 45,813.98 45,400.33 36,000.00 50,177.88 139.38% -- - 01 00371 TUTION - PCSSD 136,593.66 122,087.84 130,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 00371 TUTION - PCSSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 00372 TUITION-MAGNET 0.00 923,298.32 950,000.00 666,476.34 - 70.16% 02 00372 TUITION - MAGNET 935,209.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 2,012.61 11,800.00 8,541.86 72.39% 02 00383 FIRE SAFETY SERVICE 0.00 1,158.51 0.00 0.00 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES -- 02 00385 0.00 2,044.00 10,373.00 0.00 0.00% ---- 02 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVIC 11,698.85 5,178.96 64,980.00 33,844.10 52.08% --- 02 00391 PHOTOGRAPHY 224.57 222.43 300.00 367.28 122.43% TRASH/WASTE SERVICES 0.00 1,094.94 --- 02 00392 0.00 0.00 ----- --- 02 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVIC 0.00 __ __1A10.00 7,800.00 __?,94~.00 37.76% 1--- ARCH/ENG SERVICES - 02 00395 163.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---- 02 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 5,180.97 3,500.00 15,600.QQ_ ~.87~-~Q -18.41% - - 02 00399 NORTH CENTRAL VISITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - -- - -- - - Page: 17 - 1l'llllllt K Y\u0026lt;D)lRtll'lH1L( ,Il1l'1CILJIF3l @CC~ IJ\u0026gt;llJiffilLil\u0026lt;CC CIHl@@l.L,~ ll ~l'i}) Jlu ll illJ/4,H'l,~ 1~1P!~~[1)1[1r'LlJIR3.mJI~B 'lY('Q )lfilJJI\u0026amp;(G11' H~'HJ~kl[2 J~1g ~L~atlltiitH'' @JIj /9 (O)lIJ)(t'.\n]F~lftfilln~ .co1~D~2I I (_e)JI'W'D, @41,1'_ J 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fund Object DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD 02 00401 SUPP~S, TOOLS \u0026amp; SM EQU 0.00 ~.15~ 3,Q00.00 2,997.74 99.92% --- 02 00405 SALES AND USE TAX 0.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00% --- - ---- 02 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS !! 1 ~.315.~5 549,757.65 625,779.00 581,757.09 92.97% ------ ----- 02 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS _!!i,1Q,65 66,375.02 9,750.00 53,077.17 544.38% - - ---- 02 00412 SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL 32,377.74 55,842.24 45,000.00 40,833.08 90.74% 1-- SUPPLIES PLUMBIN~ - - 02 00413 16,774.47 15,285.59 15,500.00 24,250.60 156.46% SUPPLIES FLOORING - 02 00414 2,597.52 1,648.56 2,500.00 1,407.96 56.32% -- 02 00415 SUPPLIES ROOFING- 18,021.65 9,281.83 10,000.00 9,392.32 93.92% - ----- - 02 00416 SUPPLIES HARDWARE 31,752.01 39,840.67 35,000.00 35,416.03 101.19% - - - ------ - - 02 00417 SUPPLIES PAINTING 17,835.19 36,829.92 35,000.00 29,500.33 84.29% -- - 02 00418 SUPPLIES PUTTY/GLASS 15,981.27 14,914.92 15,000.00 8,051.14 53.67% --- 02 00420 TEXTBOOKS 112,683.72 81,315.32 111,772.00 78,742.67 70.45% 02 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 303,174.00 0.00 0.00% -- 02 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 54,642.11 60,727.36 67,602.00 55,068.41 81.46% 02 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIO 13,329.39 15,223.89 17,799.00 15,145.17 85.09% 02 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 28,450.32 22,101.33 27,487.00 24,821.85 90.30% 02 00451 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 0.00 0.00 60.00 184.44 307.40% 02 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 32,745.38 50,676.27 54,500.00 103,585.74 190.07% 02 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIAL 388.00 290.22 4,628.00 350.06 7.56% 02 00491 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00492 BUILDING MATERIALS 33,871.94 51,228.16 45,000.00 59,226.79 131.62% 02 00496 PARTS/SUPPL, VEHICLE BUS 103,539.98 124,954.17 105,000.00 118,786.1Z_ -113.13% 02 00497 PARTS/SUPPL, EQUIP REPAI 27,227.48 40,050.83 45,800.00 47,966.99 104.73% - 02 00499 AWARDS 7,609.89 5,349.38 7,050.00 5,537.78 78.55% 1-- 02 00521 CARPET 2,184.57 2,556.0~ 365.00 954.59 261.53% -- ~ ---- - -- 02 00523 ROOFING 15,870.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- ----- --- -- - - - - 02 00525 BLINDS 0.00 1, 1 I_8.44 0.00 0.00 --- -- - - - 02 00528 WATER FOUNTAINS 0.00 388.21 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - Page: 18 1l'IH[llt k Y@lR\\'1l'HJHL ,IT'1f11'1LIRl\u0026amp;3 .@CClPOUCJ JIBILHCC Cilfl@@IL n ~ n  ll W4l, I\u0026amp;1vr,1a~IDH1r'UJ!ffi.!J\u0026amp;fi,l'ff (Q)IB3JJfRCC1I' H~'LlJkwil~ '33gg ~ 1:a1n~rn')Y@' nJ \u0026gt;\n@ JPe)' ir~1~ihmil$iQ :l~J0 ) IlDIlNt ~ll'Wficc @ 4} D 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fund Object DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXP/BUD 02 00530 IMPROVE. OTHER THAN BLD 1,282.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00532 FENCE - - - -- -0.00 1,749.00 0.00 -- 0.00 - - 02 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - 383.51 8,529.92 1------7-,6-95 __0_0 --+-----8-,9-27 _1_0 _ -1-16-.0-1_/c__,o - - --- - - ---+--------+--------~-- 02 00540 EqUIPMENT _ _ 484,276.44 170,006.45 124,559.00 123,399.24 99.07% 02 00541 FURNITURE 0.00 . 4,706.62 0.00 0.00 02 00549 BAND iNsfRUMENTS --- 0.00 -~2-9-,1-7-8-.2-4+----1-,5-0-0.-0-0_,_ ___ 5_5_3_-8-8-3 -6-.9-30-/c__,o 02 00550 VEHICLES - ____ 0.00 t-----0-.0-0----2-5,000.00 1-----24-,2-6-4-.0-0 97.06% 02 00551 BUSES - - - 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 00552 * 123,742.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1-----1 02 00553 * ------ 312,997._52_ _____ 0._00-+_-_-__ 0_.0_0-l_-___ 0._0_0_ _ 02 00556 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00570 IMPROVEMENTS - - - 0.00 0.00 +-----0-.0-0-+-------0-.0-0 1------ 02 00571 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS ,~ __ 1,014.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00575 HVAC EQUIPMENT - 24,481.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --,----,-,--,-I 04 00610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL 637,259.78 224,285.46 440,155.00 446,840.00 101.52% 04 00620 INTEREST 556,636.89 564,799.49 734,985.00 679,385.20 92.44% 02 00630 DUES AND FEES 12,748.50 16,200.75 20,568.00 15,185.50 73.83% 04 00630 DUES AND FEES 967.94 756.20 1,560.00 4,101.20 262.90% 02 00641 PROPERTY INSURANCE 240,914.36 161,730.68 178,350.00 134,373.00 75.34% 02 00642 LIABILITY INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,465.20 02 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 64,980.00 65,000.00 101,964.00 156.87% 02 00645 ACCIDENTAL INSURANCE FU,__ __ 3_,4_44_._3_7_-_-+ -- 7,_6_85__.___4_6_ __ 0.00 15,196.00 ___ __, 02 00646 ACCIDENTAL DEATH INS 0.00 1,261.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 00650 LEGAL AGREE/JUDGEMENTS 1,562.32 0.00 1,000.00 69.30 - 6.-93_/c_o 02 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 4,446.12 11,575.-00__,__ __ 0.00 - --0.00% 02 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 157.12 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 02 00692 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - Page: 19 Fund Object 02 00699 ~ -- 1l'HllM X @lRZ1['fHfLl ,JI1r1rn_,,!,Rrn3,. (Q)(CI0rlClJ lIBILilC~CC C!ID@@IL~ Jl$ 9\u0026gt;Jl \" TI,{!, l~1\\JP'l!$~lDil\"lrl1J!fil.JlaIB~' ir @lIBJJIECC\"lr ll~'HJXn w~g ~~ 1ll~1H)'f ~ @Il D~ @]1)Jce,\nirta1an1r@n~~ D O ITDIIDa~ ITWilCC @41\u0026lt; 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 DESCRIPTION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES EXPENDITURE REFUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 (85,368.94 - --- -- GR-AN-D TOTALS -- - 34,904,530.07 33,015,228.07 36,126,357.00 31,928,393.22 Page: 20 % of EXP/BUD 88.38% L_ 1r!Hllltf ~@IRZ1l'JH1LI II'TP1r'JLl,RIBZ,@ CCOlP1Cl1 JlIBJLIICCC JH1@@1L~ Il  n n 4 )l:i,)~P1Mf'TID)H1rllJJRZJl1B$3~l' f1' Fl1J~CC'Trli@~ff(O)IffiJJJRCC1f -~'QJB!}Q)g 'v\u0026amp;1TTtu1J~/ cmrn,~ @ J1))c_t'\nJffillli'U~@~jJ_]])Ib)(l'_Il'W4CC~@,{1,D = J - - - - -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fn et Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses - - Budget Expenses Exp/Bud - - 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 15,056,539.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1000 INS - -00120 - TRUCTION REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 98,466.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - -- 02 1000 INST -R-UCTION 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 257,721.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1000 INS -- - TRUCTION 00131 -ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 68,807.32 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 02 1000 INS_ 02 1000 INS TRUCTION 00140 SUBSTITUTES. NON-CERT ~16,517.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCTION 0015() STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 5,679.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1000 IN - -- - ~ 34,328.52 -- STRUCTION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1000 IN STRUCTION - 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 34,482.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 -f- -- 01 1000 IN STRUCTION 00240 INSURANCE 432,480.75  0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1000 IN STRUCTION 00240 INSURANCE 10,113.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - t--- 02 1000 IN STRUCTION 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 6,752.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 6,819.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1000 INS TRUCTION 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 1,605.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1000 INS TRUCTION 00260 WORKERS COMP 10,437.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1000 INS TRUCTION 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 408.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 29,179.69 2,910.60 3,306.00 3,240.00 98.00% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 28,630.26 76,589.40 100,114.00 82,601.21 82.51% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,214.29 222.66 248.00 247.84 99.94% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 2,190.13 5,673.45 8,600.00 6,293.i! 73.18% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL - 00240 INSURANCE 844.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE. NON-CERT -~ 2,320.21 5,631.32 8,200.00 3595.32 68-.24% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 12.20 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00-251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 36.63 129.57 150.00 - 65.80 43.87% 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 8.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1105 PR ESCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 7.32 26.21 150.00 - 93.48 62.32% -- Page: 21 --- Fun Fnct - 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 02 1105 01 1110 02 1110 01 1110 02 1110 02 1110 02 1110 01 1110 02 1110 01 1110 02 1110 02 1110 02 1110 1flH[lB~ @IR.z\"WITIDL il1f1J'ILIIBR \\@CCOrfCU JlffiILilCC(C IHI@@lL, n  n On ,{I, I\u0026amp;W:fJEWID)Il'JfUJ)RlIJDE',lf JFUJl~CC'lril@Wff(Q)IIBJJJE,(C1J' -~WID)g fil:!Ilfil:ll~_Ilj O @JP)ll'fil111IlIID~ @ ~ D2 IIDilD11 Il'WilCC@ 41D, -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 Fnct Descr Object Object Description_ - Expenses Expenses Budget PRESCHOOL - 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV - - 118.00 751.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL -- 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,066.15 289.41 36,112.00 PRESCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 90.46 0.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 242.45 28.00 0.00 -- PRESCHOOL 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL - 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - - ~ PRESCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 6,346.13 11,204.56 5,624.00 -- - PRESCHOOL 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 500.00 PRESCHOOL - 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS -- 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 PRESCHOOL 00521 CARPET -- 0.00 2,556.05 0.00 PRESCHOOL 00530 IMPROVE OTHER THAN BLDS - 1,282.88 0.00 0.00 -PRESCHOOL 00532 FENCE 0.00 1,749.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 0.00 8,529.92 7,695.00 PRESCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,024.38 3,470.84 3,755.00 - PRESCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,928.00 KINDERGARTEN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 1,092,499.27 1,155,500.00 KINDERGARTEN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 81,302.96 85,000.00 KINDERGARTEN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 33,223.03 33,800.00 KINDERGARTEN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN - 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 1,375.59 1,500.00 KINDERGARTEN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 KINDERGARTEN 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 675.47 1,000.00 --- Page: 22 - 93-94 % of Expenses Exp/Bud 100.00 -- 179.71 0.50% 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00- 0.00 3,717.27 66.10% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 373.29 0.00 0.00 8,927.10 ~*********\"' 3,400.07 90.55% 0.00 0.00% 886,912.09 76.76% 2,539.50 0.00 66,966.57 78.78% 19-4.26 - 0.00 25,299.44 - 74.85% 210.99 -- 0.00 ---- - 853.00 56.87% ---- -- 0.00 - 1,140.92 **********' - - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud - 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00261 WORKERS COMP NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q2r - f- 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 f- - --- KINDERGARTEN 00331 PUPIL TRANSPOR-T-ATION 1,068.67 1,107.05 1,430.00 798.87 55.87% 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 10,802.74 9,344.43 8,860.00 10,583.92 P\"********* 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00540 EQUIPMENT 95.03 0.00 0.00 968.18 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 4,614,691.08 4,881,600.00 4,179,512.12 85.62% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00120 -REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,487.04 10,900.00 9,572.30 87.82% 01 1120 -ELEMENTARY 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 165,050.60 165,000.00 181,388.50 P\"*********\" -- - 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 24,887.60 25,000.00 37,801.90 htr*********l 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00140 SUBSTITUTES. NON-CERT 0.00 13,452.40 13,500.00 13,551.90 f.lt*********l 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 354,750.65 365,000.00 328,089.49 89.89% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 1,738.52 2,000.00 1,743.18 87.16% 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 137,571.44 140,000.00 119,505.85 85.36% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00241 INSURANCE. NON-CERT 0.00 830.22 840.00 703.40 83.74% 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 6,098.60 7,100.00 4,145.90 58.39% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 47.77 60.00 14.56 24.27% 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 3,025.74 3,025.00 5,685.59 htr********\" 02 1120 00261 0.00 17.55 25.00 25.31 firr********' ELEMENTARY WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 6,242.50 fit-********' 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 125.00 0.00 2,245.50 - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 0.00 174.08 0.00 - -- -0--.00 --- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 3,995.51 6,193.80 6,895.00 _4,442.45 64.43% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 160.00 0.00 825.00 0.00 0.00% --- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 24.34 380.00 168.00 44.21% 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 47,665.92 51,417.18 67,431.00 61,410.31 91.-07% Page: 23 [ 1l\"JH!l~~ (O)JRZ\"H'JHLl[, ll1l\"1l'lltHJt RlCDXClTf\u0026gt;~U JJIBILHCs3CC CHl((D)(D)lL,~ n @ n  n w~q,i,1Jta, \u0026gt;o\"Qr)l~:tTio)H1r'UJJJRBZYl~W1~'~' 3u51 wcc1111@wt@IB3JJiacc,r JF11JWI.OJ~~g 1fll'allr)1\nc u\u0026gt;1no, \u0026lt;D)I_lJ)Q\")lrta1t1film@~~ DJ ill.)~1~1c ..tSlf'WfiC@Q ~D -=----=--- - - - - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of -Fun Fnct Fnct Descr - Object Object Description Expense~!- Expenses Budget ~penses Exp/Bud -02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00420 TEXTBOOKS 76,919.90 61,220.51 75,459.00 54,968.92 72.85% I- - - --- -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 135,270.00 0.00 0.00% - - -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00440 PERIOOICALSISUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 163.20 200.00 0.00 0.00% -- I- -- - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,358.21 3,699.05 350.00 1,740.15 ti':*********\"' -02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 168.00 - 38.00 22.62% 02 1121 -ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 104.25 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 -02 --- 1121 -ELEMENTARY MUSIC 0033- 2 TRAVEL EXPENSES 223.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 t-- --- I- 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 330.01 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 876.30 900.00 994.66 f\u0026gt;*********' - - 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00342 POSTAGE - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.04 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 11.36 1,575.46 2,000.00 3,281.75 htr********\" 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00420 TEXTBOOKS 9,758.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 - 1,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1122 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 21.57 0.00 0.00 - 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 \"556.76 0.00 0.00 02 1124 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 72.22 0.00 0.00 02 1128 READING 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 708.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 1,908,435.80 2,018,000.00 1,900,987.95 94.20% 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 57,039.52 59,200.00 50,137.84 84.69% 01 1130 MID::\u0026gt;LE SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 49,256.07 45,000.00 66,864.00 htr********\" 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 11,620.50 15,000.00 24,185.00 htr*********\"' 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT 0.00 6,945.10 7,000.00 8,338.10 f\u0026gt;*********' -01 ,--1--130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00210 -SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------- 0.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 146,436.69 150,000.00 149,610.39 99.74% 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 4,530.44 5,000.00 4,265.16 85.30% - 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 55,946.29 55,000.00 50,277.38 91.41 % 02 11_3,_0_ MIDDLE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE. NON-CERT 0.00 4,235.14 4,200.00 _3,17.30 83.75%-- Page: 24 [ - -- Fun Fnct 01 1130 02 1130 02 - 1130 01 -1130 02 1130 02 1130 01 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 f--- 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 - 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 1130 02 - 1130- 02 1131 02 1131 02 1131 Fnct Descr - MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL '1rHllll$~ (0)JRZ'1l'!JHLl ,,JI'1l''1l'ILJ.RlltZ @CCIJFt\u0026gt; l(JJIBJLll~CCCC JHl(Q)@LL.~ J1 ~ n\" n W~9\u0026gt;1)-[J$\\).\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\"\\Jf'l~:wlD)H'Jr'UJIJIBRTlltIt'l ~ llJ~(C'TI'H(Q)~ff@LIBJJJECC'1r IFUJ~ID~g ~ \u0026lt;l1llta1H'19@' nD9 \u0026lt;D\n1_p)ctJ1rffi.1rtn @1m~ ~D 2 IIDn~ lf\"Jficc@,{l,D - -- - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 - Object Object Description Expenses - Expenses - Budget 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION -0--.00 2,539.72 3,000.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 125.60 150.00 - 93-94 % of Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 1,761.33. 58.71% - -- 55.74 37.16% MIDDLE SCHOOL - 00260 WORKERS COMP -- - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 1,288.19 1,300.00 2,482.76 **********\" - - 00261 -- MIDDLE SCHOOL WORKERS COMP NON-CERT 0.00 37.43 50.00 75.31 **********\" - ---- --- MIDDLE SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 552.00 27.60% - - f- ---- - MIDDLE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- -- - -- MIDDLE SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,704.77 3,334.12 125.00 230.17 **********\" - - MIDDLE SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,396.85 f- 1,676.05 2,700.00 493.49 18.28% MIDDLE SCHOOL  00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 206.46 0.00 0.00 270.95 - --- --- - MIDDLE SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 38.00 0.00 1,000.00 475.00 47.50% MIDDLE SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEl 0.00 345.58 450.00 1,001.37 **********,. c-- - -- -- MIDDLE SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 1,231.50 1,281.60 3,675.00 1,731.38 47.11% -- - MIDDLE SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 168.55 631.86 1,400.00 106.80 7.63% -- -- MIDDLE SCHOOL 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00% -- -- MIDDLE SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 19,561.85 17,712.52 21,030.00 20,132.14 95.73% C-MIDDLE SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 12,266.86 2,980.45 5,462.00 6,206.96 **********\"' MIDllLE SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 56,404.00 0.00 0.00% - MIOOLE SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00% MIDDLE SCHOOL 00497 PARTS/SUPPL, EQUIP REPAIR 288.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00521 CARPET 0.00 0.00 365.00 366.45 **********1'1 ------ MIDDLE SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 7,389.42 2,534.32 7,700.00 5,709.99 74.16% 00541 0.00 0.00 -- -0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL FURNITURE 0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 45.00 75.00 375.00 0.00 0.00% MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 700.00 0.00 0.00% MUSIC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 45.00 50.00 3,100.00 995.52 32.11% MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 784.69 467.50 2,800.00 _1,473.23 52.-62% Page: 25 -Fun Fnct 02 1131 -- - 02 1131 02 1131 02 1131 02 1131 -02 -1131 - -- 02 1131 02 1132 02 1132 02 1132 02 1132 -02- 1132 - I--- 02 1133 02 1133 02 1134 02 1134 02 1134 02 1134 02 1135 02 1135 02 1135 02 1135 02 1136 -02 1136 02 1137 02 1137 02 1139 02 1139 'Jl'lHl1l 'X1 1, lRtH'HHll .JI1l'\"Jl'JL,lJPJZ1 (D)CCIlP~U JJIBlLIICCr'C !Bl@@lL TI~ '])~_TgI) \"T I~ 0 l~.'1J4l l~)o \"0l\")i!,f1lU1H1l'llYlP2rJnLr{'i~'f J t~llYWCC\"II'JI(D)JNYff(D)J.ffi,fJJE,(C\"Jr lr'UJ!T il\u0026gt;J')o ~ ,ll@llt.' (U l Jl 1~ W11(1r\n) l 1fl'fiim~ (D )~JJ IIDIb)(t~ ITWficcq@ 41,D 91-92 92-93 93-94 Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget - - - - MUSIC 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 40.00 0.00 0.00 MUSIC - 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 - 252.00 300.00 MUSIC - 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 119.47 165.21 3,575.00 f.-- MUSIC 00499 AWAROS 0.00 0.00 850.00 f-- MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 200.44 0.00 600.00 f--- -- - -- MUSIC 00630 OUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 740.00 ~ LANGUAGE ARTS - 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 f--- -LANGUAGE ARTS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 40.74 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;-- LANG-UAGE ARTS 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 144.00 0.00 0.00 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 -SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 2,836.69 1,197.49 1,341.00 LANGUAGE ARTS - 00450 AUOIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 34.00 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS - 1,793.17 1,534.62 5,875.00 MATHEMATICS 00540 EQUIPMENT - 0.00 64.31 0.00 SCIENCE 00331 -PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 2,250.94 1,179.76 2,398.00 SCIENCE 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 2,453.30 0.00 SCIENCE 00540 - -EQUIPMENT 331.38 0.00 0.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 1,204.55 716.89 375.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 00540 EQUIPMENT 210.89 0.00 1,100.00 I-SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 21.54 81.61 50.00 ____ _] - - 93-94 % of - Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 168.00 56.00% 0.00 3,316.23 92.76% 249.25 29.32% 791.25 **********,. 470.00 63.51% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,139.79 85.00% 0.00 0.00% 11,290.73 **********,. 0.00 0.00 2,303.78 96.07% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 ---- 1,056.22 96.02% 0.00 0.00 0.00% -- - --- ART 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ART 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 863.40 1,707.73 2,580.00 1,363.~ 52.83% PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 1,153.68 648.52 820.00 - 387.13 47.21% PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 72.61 0.00 --- 0.00 - Page: 26 1[1JH[l@~ ({DJR{1['JHJL! .ll1r'1rJLJma @ccrt Jp)liJJIBIL,II(CCCJB [@CO)]l. Il W J1n J1W W,11l,~ 1-\"0P'lttk1JD\nll1l'llJJRJ{IlBc1'Wil~l'1 l(J:WCC'ITII@:N'#@IffiJIIB,CC'IT k'lLJ~Jl)g \u0026amp;1n1rui~ cmIn)2 @IP1ir~1ttfiM ~DgIID ceIIDa JNfic.cce@41,D __ ] - -~ - - T - - --- -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr . Object _9bject Description Expenses Expenses _ Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 02 - 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 100.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1140 00110 0.00 3,246,173.56 -- HIGH SCHOOL REGULAR CERTIFICATED 3,441,100.00 3,046,616.30 88.54% 02 - - 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 30,450.00 29,846.16 98.02% 1140 - - 02 HIGH SCHOOL ,0_0__1_2 0 -REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,851.24 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 67,420.90 70,000.00 58,819.70 84.03% - 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 23,179.60 __ 20,000.00 9,821.00 49.11% 1140 -- 02 HIGH SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES. NON-CERT 0.00 1,870.60 2,000.00 2,945.20 **********,I 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 6,014.50 0.00 4,373.50 -'-- 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1140 - -- - 02 HIGH SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 246,234.28 252,330.00 232,906.49 92.30% - - 02 1140 HIGH- SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 579.72 600.00 979.11 **********'JI 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX. STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 334.57 -- 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 89,963.04 90,000.00 73,680.49 81.87% ,0__2_ 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 860.00 703.50 81.80% 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 703.30 - -- 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 4,320.37 5,040.00 2,784.73 55.25% 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP. NON CERT 0.00 26.53 50.00 12.20 24.40% 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 2,250.81 2,270.00 3,943.90 \"'*********\"\" 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 11.60 10.00 7.99 79.90% 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 2,290.50 76.35% 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 1,330.00 132.00 0.00 0.00 -- - --- 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 226.72 33.51 0.00 2,565.14 -- 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 2,180.10 3,149.28 3,200.00 - 1,400.00 43.75% 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00320 RENTAL/LEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 11,665.95 7,187.00 1,898.80 26.42% 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,351.56 8,943.26 6,273.00 1,171.79 18.68% -- - Page: 27 C - 'Jf!HJJB~ CD)lfil\"If!HlLl II\"If'JfILlB m@ccoc IrllYIB3lLIICCC ClHI@@IL~ Il b!1lIl  n b!l),-0l\u0026amp;, IDf'lB~TI'IrUJmIB IB3'i'fI FUJ~CC'IrII@~#(Q)IIBJlIBCC'Ir lFUJ~jJ)~g_ _ fil1Ilfil1Hil''J7l D_~ @~Jr~~ q@~D2 IIDIb:l(t JNfi\u0026lt;D@,(l,D - -- 91-92-- 92-93 93-94 93-94 Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget ~penses - -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 9,157.28 2,787.94 9,050.00 3,806.98 -02 --1140 HIGH S-CHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 1,189.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00335 INOISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 709.72 1,000.00 1,489.54 -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00340 REPAIRS-TELEPHONE 288.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 5,449.28 5,083.81 6,300.00 8,640.66 - -- -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING ANO BINDING 2,204.38 1,123.92 900.00 196.61 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00394 f----- SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 1,385.00 1,800.00 2,945.00 -02 --1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 27,305.46 17,885.79 25,235.00 33,02\"4.64 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 11,312.26 12,619.09 0.00 8,088.15 -- 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 111,500.00 0.00 f--02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 9,824.96 2,011.51 14,250.00 5,062.35 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00541 FURNITURE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 886.00 1,005.00 2,500.00 1,282.00 02 -1141 MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 651.40 350.00 300.00 0.00 1-- 02 1141 MUSIC 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 191.70 0.00 0.00 274.25 02 1141 MUSIC 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 1,538.15 145.00 900.00 459.98 02 1141 MUSIC 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 6,956.05 4,663.83 3,200.00 2,024.27 02 1141 MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 7,464.31 4,864.61 3,100.00 3,473.32 -02 1141 MUSIC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 225.75 578.45 600.00 -- 66-5- .62 02 1141 MUSIC 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 02 1141 MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEt. 0.00 142.80 200.00 - 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;--- ----- 02 1141 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,255.87 13,854.30 6,300.00 8,240.30 -- - --- 02 1141 MUSIC 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 25.32 0.00 0.00 - --- 02 1141 MUSIC 00499 AWARDS 1,921.72 1,189.93 1,000.00 198.08 02 1141 -MUSIC 00521 CARPET 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 28 J % of Exp/Bud 42.07% t,lt-*********,. **********\" 21.85% **********ii **********,. 0.00% 35.53% 51.28% 0.00% 51.11% 63.26% **********11 l'A'*********11 t----- 0.00% ,__ t'A'*********' 19.81% -- [ --~ Fun Fnct f- 02 1141 -- - '1('Hlll~ H@lR{1rJHI JLH'1r''1r'll,l\u0026amp;] R{@(a)l{( lPUJTIBJLII~CCCC llll@@JL, n  n r, n WW,1\\,l~ ~P'lll~1)!1))[1('l(JJR{l\\%~ 183Wlf 1'UJ~ca1rn@Wff@]IBJJIBCC1f n~'UJB:TIgID (\" ~1TT\u0026amp;1H~( ('J JTI\u0026gt;I ~ W)J1W)lrta1rtfi1ID@~ ~4 2 ~ltDtt ~f1ccq @,fl,k - -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 268.66 600.00 '--- -\u0026gt;-- - - --- 02 1141 MUSIC 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 0.00 29,178.24 _1,500.00 '--- - ~ 02 1141 MUSIC 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,119.00 1,179.00 850.00 ---- 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1142 LANGU-AGE ARTS - 00333 - INSERVICE REGISTRATION 72.00 0.00 0.00 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 800.23 1,154.39 1,250.00 - -- 02 114-3 -MATHEMATICS -00410 -SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,004.40 7,228.82 1,200.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00331 -PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 118.42 0.00 0.00 02 1144 SCIENCE - 00410 -SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,795.01 2,811.59 2,500.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00540 EQUIPMENT 287.00 0.00 0.00 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,002.18 917.14 1,200.00 -- 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 193.49 353.19 300.00 00410 ~ 02 1147 ART SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,928.52 2,854.22 1,900.00 - 02 1148 RADIOnY 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 547.24 0.00 02 1148 RADIOnY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,508.67 1,482.38 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 626.38 587.40 350.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 900.00 922.50 1,000.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 15,100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 95.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 7.27 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 6,935.03 8,998.33 8,500.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 10,403.36 9,564.39 10,500.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 24,242.13 24,236.24 26,000.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00499 AWARDS 3,180.20 2,079.83 2,600.00 Page: 29 - - 93-94 % of Expenses Exp/Bud ~95.21 i\"k*********~ 553.88 36.93% 580.00 68.24% 0.00 0.00 1,036.71 82.94% 863.68 71.97% 0.00 3,045.56 11'r*********\" 0.00 0.00 1,387.56 11'r*********' 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2,687.48 i\"k*********' 0.00 0.00 0.00 416.10 i\"k*********\" - 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 18,183.60 0.00 -- 0.00 7,325.23 86.18% 5,397.85 51.41% 25,512.16 98.12% 2, 17~.37 83.67% [ - - Fun Fnct -- 02 1151 02 1152 02 - 1152 02 - 1152 02 1152 02 1152 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 02 1153 t--02 1154 02 1160 02 1161 02 1161 02 1161 02 1161 02 1161 02 1162 02 1162 02 1162 -02 1163 01 1191 02 1191 1l'lli1lfh~ ((J)JRZ1rlmlk ll1[\"J['J(\u0026amp;JJRR Z(O)CCJfJU:IJ{J( IBTL.JIC(CC~ Hll@(O)]l,,~ TI TI,.T, I~ Wll 11, l~)~P\"lllfilDJll1rHYlRZJJII:B%'irl ~UJ~(C1fJI(O))t\\Jff(Q)lIB,HTRCC'Il' Lt~'lJ)'~O)g (\u0026lt;) ulllfil'H\"~\" co)J 1/I ~ Q)J D(t',)['Mlrtfiun~ @~D-2i ll)~Ib)(t ~\"ficc@~~ -=- - - --- -- -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 Fnc-t Descr - Object Object Description I Expenses Expenses -- Budget ~penses BOYS ATHLETICS - 00540 EQUIPMENT 0,00 3,544,27 _l_,000.00 1,866.95 GIRLS ATHLETICS - - 003-2- 6 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 -GIRLS ATHLETICS - 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,348.43 6,678.40 7,500.00 1,725.75 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS -\u0026gt;- 13,218.89 10,278.58 12,560.00 7,992.29 GIRLS ATHLETICS 004-99 AWARDS 1,902.38 1,568,15 1,900,00 742.86 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 596.08 2,000.00 0.00 -- COMBINED ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 62.50 0.00 0,00 - - -- - -- -- COMBINED ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0,00 4.78 0.00 0.00 -- - COMBINED ATHLETICS - 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0,00 500.00 0.00 - - COMBINED ATHLETICS 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540,00 540.00 495.00 ----- --- COMBINED ATHLETICS 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 250.00 192.89 -- COMBINED ATHLETICS 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.12 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 187,50 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00645 ACCIDENTAL INSURANCE FUND 3,444.37 7,685.46 0.00 15,196.00 -- GIRLS SOFTBALL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 376.54 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,842.85 CHEER 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 1,800.00 820.09 CHEER 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0,00 150.00 62.74 -- CHEER 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 875,00 70.37 CHEER 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 654.20 565.10 825.00 130.00 CHFER 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,827.16 2,399.49 6,300.00 10,703.25 -- DRILL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 184.08 903.17 625.00 0.00 -- DRILL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 105.00 535.99 275.00 0.00 00410 -- DRILL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,634.14 436.30 6,215.00 0.00 - PEP CLUB 00331 - PUPIL -T-RANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUMMER SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 SUMMER SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 50,587.50 ~1,260.00 50,520.00 Page: 30 J % of Exp/Bud 62.23% 0.00% 23.01% 63.63% 39.10% 0.00% \u0026gt;- 0.00% 91,67% 77.16% - 45.56% 41.83% 8.04% 15.76% ~*********, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - - 38.49% -- L ~ -- 91-92 --- - - 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of -Fun Fnc-t Fnct Descr Obje~ Object Description Expenses Expenses -- Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 01 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00115 CERTIFIEO ADMIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I- - -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 8,153.00 14,160.00 11,745.50 82.95% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 3,445.00 8,210.00 4,566.00 55.62% 1-- - -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00 0.00% - ~0-2 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS -- 0.00 540.00 1,200.00 620.00 51.67% 01 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;----- - - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,370.30 14,550.00 4,763.04 32.74% 02 1191 -SUMMER SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX NON-CERTIFIED - 0.00 288.66 1,770.00 349.28 19.73% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 500.00 47.43 9.49% - i----. -- - 01 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -t- -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 46.99 4,080.00 1.50 0.04% 02 1191 SUMM-ER SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP. NON CERT 0.00 9.99 603.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 111.61 1,240.00 0.00 0.00% - -- - - ---- -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP. NON-CERT 0.00 6.55 321.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,020.00 1,215.00 8,600.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.35 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 0.00 19,200.00 11,000.00 8,820.00 80.18% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00385 M\u0026amp;OICUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,822.06 1,085.32 21,526.00 2,837.22 13.18% 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 360.07 02 1191 DRIVER EDUCATION 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 725.18 455.00 1,000.00 662.67 66.27% 01 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -~ 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 15,120.00 15,840.00 15,841_.00* *********i 01 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 1,124.93 1,210.00 _1,2~84 **********~ 01 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 12.10 20.00 0.00 0.00% -- - --- Page: 31 ~ 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses -- Budget Expe~ Exp/Bud 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 28.73 10.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 0031 s'\nNTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 4,320.00 -- 1,600.00 1,600.00 1,550.00 96.88% 02 -1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00327 '\nPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 7.91 62.51 720.00 32.95 4.58% -- 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 923.13 197.81 0.00 0.00 02 1193 MINIGRANTS 00310 - PROFESSIONAL\u0026amp;TECHSERV 0.00 0.00 350.00 325.00 92.86% 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00 341-\nLEPHONE ----+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----+-------+--------+ 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,295.86 3,717.25 2,446.00 3,418.72 ~*********' ~ 1193 MINI GRANTS -- 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 655.60 537.08 725.00 0.00 0.00% ~ 1193 MINIGRANTS 00450 AUDIOVISUALMATERIALS 75.21 13.19 0.00 0.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00540 EQUIPMENT 777.32 362.92 1,479.00 572.23 38.69% - 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 19,575.00 47,990.00 19,860.00 41.38% Q2 1194 -:c-T~MER SCHOO\nQ 0 11 5 CERTIFIED ADMIN 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WOR-K-SH-O-PS---+-------f-----'----+---'-----f-----'-- 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00210 -~AL SECURITY TAX ------+--------+--------'-----+----'------+--------'---- 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 2,250.00 4,600.00 2,300.00 50.00% 0.00 74.00 1,100.00 290.00 26.36% 0.00 1,669.59 3,999.00 1,695.20 42.39% 0.00 5.66 12.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00212-\nTAX. S-TI-PE-ND-S-----i--------+--------+--------+----- 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.18 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 243.00 0.00 0.00% ~ 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 0031 0 PROFES-SIO-N-AL_\u0026amp;_T-EC-H-S--E1_-R--_-V-- -,--:---+------,---+0-.--0--0--- -+- 46.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 0.00 329.13 0.00 - -0- .00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT ~UMMER SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES ------+-----:----:-:---+-----,---,--,-+--------+-- 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 50.00 35.07 70.14% 0.00 0.00 232.00 83.81 36.13% -------+-----cc--=--=--f---,,--,--,--,-t----,-----f-- 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 02 1194 ~/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00410 ~PPLIES AN-D-MA-T-ER-IA-LS---f---.,-----,----=--+--~~---t- 0.00 2,044.00 2,373.00 0.00 0.00% 2,564.76 2,464.99 3,317.00 2,931.08 88.37% - 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 237.13 0.00 0.00 --------+-----,--,--,---+-----,-----,---+---- 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 973.91 - 945.00 0.00 0.00% ---- -- ._0_1__ .,____1 195- SATURDAYD ETENTION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - Page: 32 1l'IHll@\nY \u0026lt;D)JRZ'JILl'Iil1fl f'1rH,1mm @CC]ltI f\u0026gt;UJLIBlLIIC~C flll@@JL n  n  n W,{l, l\u0026amp;1\"0M@'.~~1D)ll1rlLJlfJllJaW\u0026amp;i'If3l ? UJ~CC'TI'II@Nff@JJlRCC'll' lFUJrnDJ~g_ ~ \u0026amp;.1fl(allr\"' @ n J,9 @n\u0026lt;r~1rfa.1C(fi1m@~~ Dg IIDcelb)cr$ WYUCC~@ ,(!,D - == J 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 02 1195 SATUROAYDETENTION 00110 REGULARCERTIFICATED 0.00 4,160.00 --4~00- 3,442.50 76.50% 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 0012{) REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 607. 50 01 1195 SATURDAYDETE-NT-IO_N_ 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1195 SATURDAYDETENTION 00210 ~OCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 316.07 325.00 263.16 80.97% 02 1195 SATURDAYOE~-OQ211  ~TAX, NONCERTIFIED 0.QQ 0.QQ -- 0.QQ 46.44 1----1----+ -------+-------+- --- ------+------ 01 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 \u0026gt;-- 02 1195 SATURDAYDETENTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENSATION 0.00 7.87 15.00 4.18 27.87% l---+-- 02 1195 SATURDAYDETENTION 00260 WORKERSCOMP 0.00 2.22 10.00 4.77 47.70% I- ----- 02 1195 SATURDAYDETENTION 00261 WORKERSCOMP,NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 f----+---+-- ,- --- - 02 1195 SATUROAYDETENTION 00310 PROFESSIONAL\u0026amp;TECHSERV 0.00 979.58 1,000.00 0.00 0.00% f-0-2--1-1-195 SATURDAYDETENTION -00410 SUPPLIESANDMATERIALS 14.97 _____ o_ _o__ o-+---- 150.00 - 742.20 ********** 01 1210 IT_IN_ERA_NT_INSTRUCTION0 011 0 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0. ocr- -7---2,-3--,2 ----7--,+--1---7. -6_,_3__00__0 0 -+---6-6-,5 -19.6 2 87. 18 lo 01 1210 ITINERANTINSTRUCTION 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1----+---+- 02 1210 ITIN_ERA_N_TINSTRUCTION 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 5,341.07 5,500.00 4,847.98 88.15% 1--,------1--=---=--+ 01 1210 ITINERANTINSTRUCTION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,783.80 1,700.00 1,406.60 82.74% 01 1210 ITINERANTINSTRUCTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1----+---\n- ,__0_2 _,_1_2_1_0--+-1T_INERANINT STRUCTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTC OMPENSATION 0.00 117.10 150.00 60.91 40.61 % 02 1210 ITINERANTINSTRUCTION 00260 WORKERSCOMP 0.00 39.00 50.00 83.55 **********' 1----t----+- -----+-------l--------+------~1---------1- 02 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,164.67 0.00 0.00 1----+------t 02 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 00335 INDISTRICTTRAVEL 0. 00 289. 04 21000. 00 0.00 24.45 1.22% l----+---t- 01 1220 RESOURCEROOM 00110 REGULARCERTIFICATED 0.00 1,132,640.52 1,198,000.00 1,259,807.871**********' ------11----f- - 01 1220 RESOURCEROOM 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I---+----+ --+-------\u0026lt; 02 1220 RESOURCEROOM 00210 SOCIALSECURITYTAX 0.00 83,872.79 84,500.00 93,258.211**********' 1----+---t- ------+----------1---=---,-\"==-:::---:-::--l---=-=--=-=c-::---=-=--+----=--,:-'-,=-~,--:--f----,--,-----,----,----,I 01 1220 RESOURCEROOM 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 31,759.42 32,000.00 33,753.911**********' 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM OQ25Q:NEMPLOYMENTCOMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 - - 1----+---+- ,__0_2__+2-12 ._R..E0 S_OU RCE ROOM 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTC OMPENSATION 0.00 1,444.11 ___ 1,7 00.00 1,136.99 66.88% ,__0_2_-+--1_2_2_0-+RESOURCE_R_OO_M_ 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 716.69 800.00 -1,572.40 !\u0026lt;-*********' 02 1220 RESOURCEROOM 00310 PROFESSIONAL\u0026amp;TECHSERV 0.00 0.00 270.00 0.00 0.00% Page: 33 -- - - -- - - -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fn ct Descr - Object Object Description- Exp-e-n- ses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 02 1220 RES OURCE ROOM 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00% -- - 02 1220 RES OURCE ROOM 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --t-- - 02 1220 RES OURCE ROOM 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1220 RES OURCE ROOM 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,649.09 2,175.54 3,180.00 2,440.09 76.73% 02 1230 SPE CIAL CLASS 115 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 7,836.25 5,391.51 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 15 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 599.90 412.76 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPE CIAL CLASS 115 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 82.77 23.78 0.00 0.00 --- 02 1230 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 15 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 6.67 4.12 0.00 0.00 01 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 640,302.24 676,900.00 434,763.94 64.23% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 12,122.73 **********\" 01 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 46,866.20 47,000.00 32,197.26 68.50% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 950.00 927.70 97.65% 01 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 18,746.86 18,400.00 12,583.04 68.39% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 500.00 1,054.95 **********\"' 01 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 815.20 1,000.00 396.59 39.66% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 25.00 10.77 43.08% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 399.54 400.00 505.35 l,ti,*********11 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 25.00 3.90 15.60% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 136.29 161.27 510.00 95.29 18.68% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 569.70 751.40 1,420.00 1,006.01 70.85% 02 1240 SPE CIAL CLASS 1 10 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 83.87 0.00 0.00 01 1250 SPE CIAL CLASS, 1 6 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 183,255.96 235,900.00 145,795.82 61.80% 02 1250 SPE CIAL CLASS. 1 6 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 12,910.56 60,000.00 11,809.81 19.68% 01 1250 SPEC IAL CLASS, 1 6 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1250 SPE CIAL CLASS, 1 6 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 13,725.38 14,000.00 11,010.68 78.65% 02 1250 SPE CIAL CLASS, 1 6 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 987.56 4,700.00 903.44 19.22% -- Page: 34 C 'lfl1Hl' ~@lRZ'TrlHlLI JI'lf'Jl'lLJflR. ZCDXCTOflCU JIBIL,Il~((CC JHl(O)@lL1~ n  n\" n~ ~9),{\\, )''1TIPJ ~~OJ)['J['llJJRZJ~If~il 'yf JFUJWCC'JI'Il@W#CO)J~Jfl\u0026amp;CC'lr Jt?UJ:f'illl)g (ufil!Dfillli'c~l\") )nI1 ~ i_O\n)(.t'\n)f~1trfi~ ~]~ ID)IlDtr ~fi~ct@,-O,D - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud -- - 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS 1 6 00240 INSURANCE - 0.00 - 4,829.86 5,800.00 3,596.92 62.02% 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 - 00241 INSURANCE NON-CERT 0.00 463.34 2,500.00 380.20 15.21 % 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 231.86 275.00 128.95 46.89% 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP. NON CERT 0.00 19.42 90.00 10.79 11.99% - ~ 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 113.57 125.00 178.11 **********, - 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00261 ~RKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 2.76 90.00 14.77 16.41% 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 - 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS 1 6 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 151.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 140.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 2,753.27 32.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 236.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 388.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS. 1 6 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,529.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RES 00370 TUITION 10,024.76 8,629.20 10,000.00 11,066.61 **********' 02 1272 ACT 591 NON-HANDICAPPED 00370 TUITION 18,486.72 17,571.13 15,000.00 30,291.27 fir******** 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 126,626.49 133,900.00 111,036.62 82.93% 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00% 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 9,188.60 9,300.00 8,110.55 87.21% 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 230.00 ---- 0.00 0.00% 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 4,087.23 4,200.00 3,44-6.25 82.05% 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---0.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 161.21 200.00 99.94 49.97% 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00% - -- Page: 35 C 91-92 -- --- 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud I- -f-- - 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 79.29 100.00 142.50 **********' f-- - f-- - I- - ,_0 2_ 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00% I- - 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I- -- 02 1280 -PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 15.00 350.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 137.97 150.00 190.08 **********'1- 02 -- 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 140.00 150.00 185.00 **********1- -- 02 1280 -PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 564.37 600.00 694.71 **********i - 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 2,289.23 2,456.00 1,434.78 58.42% ~ 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;---- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 23.73 0.00 0.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 290.22 425.00 350.06 82.37% 02 1280 00540 0.00 0.00 269.00 270.62 **********,, PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL EQUIPMENT 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00% 1-- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 11,400.00 11,122.00 97.56% 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 900.00 851.48 94.61% \u0026gt;- 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 100.00 7.75 7.75% 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 25.00 11.10 44.40% 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDIC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 56,683.92 98,512.08 150,000.00 133,382.62 88.92% 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDIC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,219.15 7,292.73 11,475.00 10,011.57 87.25% 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDIC 00240 INSURANCE 1,608.00 2,732.94 5,142.00 3,242.64 63.06% -- - 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDIC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 24.40 124.75 210.00 104.35 49.69% ---- 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDIC 00260 WORKERS COMP 16.80 48.77 105.00 114.43 **********1 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 78,562.32 83,000.00 77,597.76 93.49% f- 01 1320 -DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 - --- 0.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 5,788.66 6,000.00 ,7~8.04 95.80% 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,962.37 2,000.00 1,547.48 77.37% --- 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 00250 -~U NEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Page: 36 Fun 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 01 02 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 ,rnma ~(D)JR\\'ll'HIlLl H'lr'll'll,.,lJ~R {(D)(CIjf~l UJlffi!LIIC(CCJ H((Q)(D')JL n TI,,T I .ef~l~ i~')' k~O)Jl'JrlUJR1l\u0026amp; JB3JY]t'? llJ~CC'lfll(D)~#(Q)lffiJJJECC'lr _ 1GlL[WJID~g-~ fil1TI\u0026amp;md\u0026gt;' @n vQ W)lJl)lrtB.1frfi~~. 1@~I_m\u0026gt;~~IlD11~'w 'ficc@4liD_ Fnct Fnct Descr 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION Object 0 00250 u 00260 w 00326 R 00334 C 00335 IN 00341 T 00410 s 00430 L 00440 P bject Description NEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ORKERS COMP EPAIRS/MAINT-EOUIP AR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY DISTRICT TRAVEL - ELEPHONE - UPPLIES ANO MATERIALS IBRARY BOOKS ERIOOICALSISUBSCRIPTIONS --- ---- 00450 A UOIOVISUAL MATERIALS 00540 EO UIPMENT 00110 R EGULAR CERTIFICATED - --+--------t-- 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1330 BUSINESS EOUCA TION 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 1350 TRADE ANO INDUSTRIAL 00210 s OCIAL SECURITY ,AX 00210 s 00240 I 00250 u OCIAL SECURITY TAX NSURANCE - NEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 00250 uN EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 00260 WO 00326 R RKERS COMP --- EPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 00334 C AR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 00335 IN DISTRICT TRAVEL 00341 T ELEPHONE 00410 s 00430 L 00440 P UPPLIES ANO MATERIALS IBRARY BOOKS ERIOOICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 00450 A UOIOVISUAL MATERIALS 00540 E 00110 R OUIPMENT EGULAR CERTIFICATED - 91-92 92-93 Expenses Expenses 0.00 .... 104.75 0.00 61.43 0.00 0.00 --- f---- 990.00 990.00 0.00 259.33 0.00 0.00 1-- 545.93 607.49 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 156.66 0.00 0.00 2,711.17 -\u0026gt;-- 2,764.81 0.00 356,120.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,192.32 0.00 9,884.72 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 476.71 0.00 280.92 6,850.99 3,642.76 495.00 495.00 0.00 450.46 0.00 0.00 19,594.50 22,171.87 435.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.36 414.78 21,491.60 14,102.63 0.00 252,779.19 Page: 37 - --- 93-94 93-94 Budget Expens~s --- 125.00 64.82 - 75.00 --- 8-9-.50 200.00 0.00 -- - ---- -- 990.00 900.00 0.00 --- 0.00 324.00 0.00 - 1,960.00 425.75 0.00 0.00 ----- 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,150.00 2,405.71 376,500.00 351,132.76 0.00 0.00 26,600.00 26,110.51 9,800.00 8,509.93 0.00 0.00 600.00 290.88 300.00 403.13 - 3,800.00 2,237.66 . 495.00 450.00 -- 0.00 -- 450.45 324.00 0.00 --- 13,462.00 17,456.10 0.00 0.00 - - --- 50.00 0.00 500.00 ---- 52.70 __J_Q,450. 00 15,548.51 267,400.00 2~2.16_1.22 J % of Exp/Bud -- 51.86% i\n-*********\" 0.00% 90.91% 0.00% 21.72% 0.00% **********' 93.26% 98.16% 86.84% 48.48% l,Tr*********' 58.89% 90.91% 0.00% **********\"' --- 0.00% 10.54% **********\"' 94-.30% ~ -- Fun Fnct 02 1350 01 1350 02 \u0026gt;----- - 1350 I--- - 01 1350 ~- 02 1350 of 1350 02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 -- - -02 1350 02 1350 - 02 1350 -02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 02 1350 01 1352 01 1352 02 1352 01 1352 01 1352 02 1352 02 1352 02 1352 02 1352 1l'Hlll' \\(.()1JP-Z1lLl'J,TllT! 1l'1l'IL,]JRa{ @(Cl~I rllJIB3IL,IICCC CTill@@JL, n w n,, n ~P)~rq~J 1:t\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;IP'Jl:h:t11D)H1t'HYrnJRnZrJJ R::l\\il~J~~c c1rH@~1@mJJracc1r ~'LlJfTIIJJ~g L~ ,1:ltaF)' q((J)TTI~ \u0026lt;D)]1J)r~,irfu1rtfilm~ ~W\u0026gt;~@ IID~~ !!fl~~@/41,D - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 Fnct Descr - Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses - -- --~ TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,449.18 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL - 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 18,822.36 19,000.00 19,641.10 f- TRADE AND INDUSTRIA-L 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 7,124.19 7,100.00 6,235.14 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 210.96 - - - TRADE AND INDUSTRIA-L 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COM-P-ENSATION - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRADE AND INDUS-TRIAL 00250 -UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION -- 0.00 339.15 400.00 216.43 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 203.02 200.00 292.98 - ----- - TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I- - - TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 92.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 - TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 3,064.05 1,417.22 1,800.00 1,344.88 -- TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 540.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -f- TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00341 TELEPHONE --- 0.00 0.00 1,620.00 0.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 18,396.23 12,922.43 15,157.00 15,075.31 - TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 194.90 0.00 0.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 14.77 0.00 0.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 603.49 0.00 200.00 0.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 00540 EQUIPMENT 7,902.61 43,415.40 16,312.00 16,582.28 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 61,563.60 65,100.00 60,865.80 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,513.46 4,600.00 4,509.~ PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,574.34 1,600.00 - 1,161.27 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 82.06 100.00 50.82 -- PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 48.08 100.00 70.19 ~ -- - PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 -- --- PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 00342 POSTAGE 10.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Page: 38 J % of Exp/Bud r,tr*********' 87.82% 54.11% r,tr*********' 74.72% 0.00% 99.46% 0.00% **********., 93.50% 98.04% 72.58% 50.82% 70.19% 0.00% -- [ --- -- Fun Fnct 02 - 1-3-52 02 1352 02 1352 -02 1352 ,0--2- 1352 02 1354 ~ 02 1354 02 1354 02 1354 02 1354 02 1354 o-r--1360 01 1360 02 1360 01 1360 01 1360 \u0026gt;-- 02 1360 02 1360 02 1360 02 1360 02 1360 '-- - 02 1360 02 1360 ~ 1360 02 1360 02 1360 02 1360 -01 - - 1370 1r'JU1JMl$@ JR.{1CH1LHJ I1r'1l'lLJlaR {@CCOJCf'U JIIBILllCCC CHll@@lL n  n  n W\"l1,) %.\u0026gt;Xlf)8',~DJJl1['UHJt\u0026amp;JR3 'l'f JFUJ~CC'ITII@~ff(\\J)JIBJJIBCC'IT JFllJ~D)g ~~Ea1n~ur)\n'1@ n 1,?@ wxe\n)ffil1rtfi@~ ~D9I D)Ib)u: in1ficc1@/41J) Fnct De scr Obje__gO_b j ect Description OF TECHNOLO 00410 SUPP OF TECHNOLO 00430 LIBRA OF TECHNOLO 00440 PERI OF TECHNOLO 0 04 5 0 AUOI PRINCIPLES LIES ANO MATERIALS - PRINCIPLES RY BOOKS PRINCIPLES ODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS PRINCIPLES OVISUAL MATERIALS PRINCIPLE S OF TECHNOLO 00540 EQUI PMENT TELEVISION PRODUCTION 00326 REPA N PROOUCTION 00342 POST N PROOUCTION 00410 SUPP N PRODUCTION 00440 PERI N PROOUCTION 00450 AUDI N PRODUCTION 00540 EQU IRS/MAINT-EQUIP TELEVISIO TELEVISIO TELEVISIO TELEVISIO TELEVISIO HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOMEEC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC - HOMEEC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC HOME EC CAREER 0 AGE LIES AND MATERIALS OOICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS OVISUAL MATERIALS IPMENT 00110 REGU 00210 soc 00210 SOCI LAR CERTIFICATEO IAL SECURITY TAX -- AL SECURITY TAX --+- -- 00240 INSU RANCE 00250 UNEM 00250 UNEM 00260 WOR PLOYMENT COMPENSATION PLOYMENT COMPENSATION KERS COMP 00326 REPA IRS/MAINT-EQUIP 00331 PUPI L TRANSPORTATION 00334 CAR 00341 TELE ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY PHONE 00410 SUPP LIES AND MATERIALS RY BOOKS OOICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 00430 LIBRA 00440 PERI 00450 AUDI 00540 EQUI OVISUAL MATERIALS PMENT ---+- RIENTATION 00110 REGU LAR CERTIFICATEO -- 91-92 Expenses 2,361.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 30,963.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,104.23 0.00 200.00 0.00 8,750.09 0.00 89.25 1,383.86 946.82 0.00 Page: 39 -- - - 92-93 93-94 93-94 Expenses - Budget Expenses 2,700.56 __ 1,200.00 947.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --- 104.40 0.00 0.00 -- --- 26,485.15 200.00 0.00 --- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 278,0~6.20 294,100.00 250,197.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,360.89 20,800.00 18,316.56 8,032.83 7,800.00 6,090.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 369.00 450.00 211.35 213.06 250.00 304.76 1,964.25 2,500.00 1,523.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 200.00 425.00 -- -- 0.00 324.00 0.00 8,705.74 9,274.00 8,720.97 134.90 0.00 0.00 ----- 109.98 250.00 56.00 -- - 400.03 900.00 769.05 ------ 1,937.20 8,550.00 7,425.68 47,372.64 _50,100.00 48,398.68 J % of Exp/Bud 78.96% - - -- 0.-00% 85.07% 88.06% 78.08% 46.97% **********i 60.93% **********i 0.00% 94.04% 22.40% 85.45% 86.85% 96.60% [ -------- -- 'ITJHIIR~ @]R{'IrlliJ lLII'1r'1rlLIEm @ccoc If\u0026gt;llJIIBJLII(CC CIHI@@IL, n  Il C, n 41, fR~IR~Jl'JI'UJ!R{lE, IIBlY' IF'llJ~CC'JI'II@~#@JB3JJIRCC'JI' ~fil1)lta11~D@,r ll ~@ .[P)ll'ffl.ltrfiI~IDC~ID ~N] ])ceilDa ll'Wficcceq@\u0026lt;{l,_D= J - - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 01 ~ - -- - 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATIO-N 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX --- -- 0.00 3,583.26 3,650.00 __ 3,515.00 96.30% 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,076.56 1,200.00 1,096.70 91.39% 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION - 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 62.90 100.00 40.76 40.76% 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 36.70 50.00 57.91 plr*********\" 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,716.69 662.47 1,400.00 _1,653.77 ri'r********11 - - 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 004-30 LIBRARY BOOKS 104.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 110.83 150.00 251.62 plr*********' 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 656.46 267.38 550.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 4,507.79 700.00 396.68 56.67% 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,050.00 896.52 85.38% -- 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00% - - 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 3,800.00 3,650.25 96.06% 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 353,914.23 374,200.00 316,202.92 84.50% 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 2,760.00 8,500.00 5,112.93 60.15% -- 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 6,731.59 15,000.00 ~.633.19 f,rt-*********\" 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY\"TAX 0.00 26,600.78 27,180.00 ~.177.95 88.95% 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATIO~ 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 515.03 1,300.00 _1,73!-~~ l,Tt-********11 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 9,191.39 __ 9,000.00 6,621.45 73.57% 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00241 INSURANCE. NON-CERT 0.00 214.03 900.00 -8-43.96 93.-77% 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 453.36 560.00 266.93 47.67% -- - - Page: 40 - -Fun 02 - 02 t--02 02 0-2 02 02 02 - 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 Fnct 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 I- - 1390 --- 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1390 1510 1510 1510 1510 1510 1510 1510 1520 1520 1520 1520 1520 1rrno~ l:'-1@lRZ1l'1HLl[t H1l'1rJL,lJRl1\u0026lt;,. CDXClflU~J JIBIL,Il(~G(C llll(Q)(Q)JL,\u0026amp;33 n TI O TT ~,\u0026lt;fl,l ~1~~l~~D)H1rUJlRZlft~J .IBW]l'? UJWC.C1rII@Wff(Q)LffiJJIBCC11\" h'UJWIDg) L~o .tlu1lH )\n~ (0) J11~ ,( 0)]1Jxe,)ft'a\\rtlhm~ @ ~ D~ _]])lfi~r ~ficcceq_~D -- -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses -- Budget SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP NON CERT 0.00 47.47 20.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00260 - WORKERS COMP 0.00 287.82 310.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00261 WORKERS COMP NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 20.00 ---- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 3,875.00 1,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 167.20 196.68 900.00 \u0026gt;--- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00331 -PUPIL TRANSPORTATION - 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 526.53 0.00 0.00 - - -- -- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,475.00 2,475.00 1,980.00 -- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00335 -INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 228.23 500.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 648.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00410- SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 8,104.82 9,166.28 __ 7,883.00 00430- - SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 100.64 200.00 t----- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 75.60 0.00 0.00 -- SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 472.27 0.00 1,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,519.02 17,605.73 7,480.00 BASIC SKILLS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 600.00 BASIC SKILLS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 BASIC SKILLS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 BASIC SKILLS 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 BASIC SKILLS 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 500.00 BASIC SKILLS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 2,660.00 BASIC SKILLS 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 430.00 DROPOUT PREVENTION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 11,593.20 11,732.78 12,500.00 - DROPOUT PREVENTION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 886.75 897.54 950.00 ---- 93-94 Expenses 17.56 387.53 -- 19.83 0.00 - 115.00 0.00 0.00 1,350.00 557.15 0.00 0.00 4,353.14 244.57 0.00 0.00 4,853.74 54.07 0.00 242.25 35.69 37.50 856.53 0.00 10,71 ~J_!!_ 819.37 -- DROPOUT PREVENTION 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- DROPOUT PREVENTION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 11.71 25.00 9.77 DROPOUT PREVENTION 00260 WORKERS COMP 3.27 7.22 25.00 13.44 -- --- Page: L+l % of Exp/Bud 87.80% ~*********., 99.15% 0.00% 12.78% 0.00% 68.18% r\"***..,..*****., I- 0.00% 55.22% ~*********., 0.00% 64.89% 9.01% 0.00% 3.57% 7.50% 32.20% 0.00% 85.71% 86.25% 39.08% 53.76% [_ - - -Fun- - Fnct \u0026gt;0-2- 1520 t--- 02 1520 t--- 02 1520 \u0026gt;----- 02 1522 02 ~ 02 1522 02 1522 02 - -- 1522 02 1522 11'lH1JB'.,@, JRZ1l'HlHL il1\" l1'JLI!$lP l@CC~J Pl iJlB311llCC(C JH!@(O)Jl, n~ 9\u0026gt;nW n~ wf \\, lli\\~P'H.%~110)Jl1[\"UJ)RlIBZWJ~ JF UJJNYCC'ITll@W#@Il]JlfaCC'IT lFU!f:~m)g \"2l\u0026amp;.1TTf.11Hc'~'m I1?n ( (})liJ)C\u0026gt;-~H'6i111'f@i1m~~ lID~ Il~ @J.FJ'TICCtl@,{_l, n - -- - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget ~enses r- - - - DROPOUT PREVENTIO-N 0033--1 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 3,244.58 6,321.91 5,604.00 -- 0.00 DROPOUT PREVENTION - 0033- 2 TRAVEL EXPENSES 149.20 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 DROPOUT PREVENTION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,114.62 960.65 1,500.00 759.55 f-- - -- ------ TRANSITION PROGRAM 0011-0 -REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 7,920.00 7,712.:QQ_ TRANSITION PROGR-AM 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 7,524.00 0.00 0.00 TRANSITION PROGRAM 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 580.00 589.81 -- -- TRANSITION PROGRAM 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 575.63 0.00 0.00 -- TRANSITION PROGRA-M 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 1,872.40 1,400.00 0.00 ---\u0026gt;- TRANSITION PROGRAM - 004-1-0 SUPPLIES AND MATERIAL--S 0.00 1,643.20 2,850.00 1,940.73 02 1522 TRANSITION PROGRAM 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 183.14 900.00 0.00 ~ - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 24,596.16 25,390.08 33,500.00 20,908.06 02 -f-- 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00120 -REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 89,037.56 101,334.48 72,000.00 86,234.01 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 02 - - - 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER - 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,881.60 1,942.31 3,033.00 1,587.22 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 6,811.41 7,329.94 5,550.00 6,463.20 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX. STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.47 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 0.00 361.94 400.00 78.18 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 677.36 475.00 850.00 - 843.96 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 6,387.92 7,612.23 3,540.00 6,131.29 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 12.20 31.97 45.00 22.78 00251 - -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 94.69 175.08 100.00 77.53 - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 6.11 16.11 45.00 23.91 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL- 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 22.76 68.25 100.00 113.60 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 43,368.57 61,395.24 56,100.00 _89,356.00 J % of Exp/Bud 0.00% 50.64% 97.35% **********,I - 0.00% 68.10% 0.00% 62.41 % **********,! 0.00% 52.33% **********\" 0.00% 19.55% 99.29% hrt-********,i 50.62% 77.53% 53.13% 11r*********, l1r*********1 Fun 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 Fnct 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1l'lllllE ~@m1t'JH[ lL,J1'rr1l'lL.JlR~ Z@CCJJtf 1IJlB31LllC~C CHll@@JL-,~ n( 9)n  n ,11,) l?.1\"\u0026lt;:iP'l~~IT\u0026gt;Jl1r'llJlRrnZn)r~ U1 llJ~CC'1ril@BJ#@TB~JlTRCC'1r IF\\,Q'f::Jll))g (~ ulTTfilll[)r ~ @n 1~, (i)J[P)(f)lffillftfilffi\nS~ @~ D9I JD~IID~~lN 'ficgq@ 41D, = - Fnct Descr Object Ob ject Description ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00326 REPA IRS/MAINT-EQUIP ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00331 PUPI L TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00332 TRAV EL EXPENSES ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00333 INSE RVICE REGISTRATION ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY - ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00335 INOIS TRICT TRAVEL ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00342 POST AGE ---+ - ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00380 FOO D SERVICES ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00410 SUPP LIES ANO MATERIALS -- ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00420 TEXT BOOKS -- ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00430 LIBRA RY BOOKS -- ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00440 PERI OOICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00540 EOU IPMENT ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00541 FURN ITURE ---+ EARLY CHILOHOOD EDUC 00110 REG EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC -- - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC ULAR CERTIFICATED 00120 REG ULAR NON-CERTIFICATED -- 00125 NON -CERTIFIED AOMIN 00150 STIP ENDS-WORKSHOPS 00151 STIPE NOS NON-CERTIFIED 00210 SOCI AL SECURITY TAX 00211 SSTAX . NON-CERTIFIED 00212 SSTAX STIPENDS 00221 TEAC H RETIRE. NON CERT 00241 INSU RANCE. NON-CERT 00251 UNEM PLOY COMP, NON CERT 91-92 Expenses 514.84 230.81 67.20 100.00 -- 0.00 - ---- 0.00 - - 0.00 - 0.00 12,211.35 0.00 86.87 I- 270.64 I- 5,145.76 0.00 -- \u0026gt;- 0.00 ~ 42,894.15 15,257.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,448.56 0.00 0.00 3,094.08 111.87 - -- - - - 92-93 93-94 93-94 - Expense~ Budget Expenses -----\u0026lt;-- -- - 986.43 1,000.00 295.82 229.95 3,000.00 495.48 -- 0.00 3,460.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 1,650.00 0.00 0.00 180.00 -- 67.20 0.00 151.20 - 0.00 0.00 -- 29.00 315.35 0.00 0.00 -- 6,096.78 ~.800.00 11,919.28 4,495.27 5,500.00 8,914.19 0.00 2,500.00 2,957.54 0.00 250.00 339.00 -- 2,420.33 14,000.00 6,540.09 2,810.25 0.00 0.00 399.00 300.00 300.00 75,861.61 62,896.00 62,707.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 30.50 25.00 22.95 5,433.70 5,826.00 4,547.J_Q 0.00 0.00 - 4.59 0.00 2,105.00 0.00 3,037.00 2,950.00 1,096.60 145.08 145.00 49.81 ---l--------+- -- 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00261 WOR KERS COMP, NON-CERT 21.31 39.05 145.00 73.96 - --- 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00310 PROF ESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 550.00 1,450.00 8,425.00 ___1,086.40 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00331 PUPI L TRANSPORTATION 56.67 972.53 1,300.00 127.47 - - J % of Exp/Bud 29.58% 16.52% 0.00% f,rt-*********~ -- 70.95% f,rt-*********l lit*********' f,rt-*********' 46.71% -- ri\"*********' 99.70% 91.80% 78.05% -- 0.00% 37.17% 34.35% - 51.01 % 48.50% 9.81% -- - -- T -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr -- Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 970.08 911.94 1,000.00 1,078.01 r,\\\"*********' - - f- 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 475.00 255.00 500.00 170.50 34.10% f--- -- 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 398.48 330.00 440.00 2,801.06 ~*********' f-- --- ~ 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 1,007.37 500.00 350.00 70.00% -02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00342 POSTAGE - 13.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING - 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 36.55 200.00 191.68 95.84% f- -t- -02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES -- 0.00 0.00 -- -0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 25,415.61 34,866.57 21,325.00 14,808.97 69.44% 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00411 I- 1-- SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 1,834.28 91.71 % 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00% -02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,592.37 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 122.75 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 5,072.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1560 READING 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 58,500.00 49,306.96 84.29% - 02 1560 READING 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 4,500.00 3,675.06 81.67% 02 1560 READING 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 1,406.43 82.73% 02 1560 READING 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 50.00 28.86 57.72% 02 1560 READING 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 50.00 22.93 45.86% 02 1560 READING 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 241.89 02 1560 READING 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 3,837.51 95.94% 02 1565  00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,650.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1565  00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 202.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 02 1565  00220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 318.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 -- -- 1575  00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,417.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- ---- 02 1575  00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 337.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1575  00220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 530.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Page: 44 L 1r'JH[ll1H, @JRtll nrrIL JI'TI'1C'lL..lJJR \"{_@(CjT~M 1JJB3ILI1\u0026lt;C(C Jlll(O)@)L, n w~ n LnJ ~,wI\\ . 1~1\"(JfJf1ixmQ)H1CUJ1IRmZwJ J~t? UJWCC'TI'II@:N'#@I:IBJrIBccir JFtp':RTIQg) ~rnn~ur)(r( (Q)Jl~ @n J)(t'\n)f~\\lllll!il~ (((Q)Jil).LlD)Il11 NllC.C~@~ JI 93-94 % of - 91-92 - - 92-93 93-94 Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Exp/Bud 02 1590 ~THERCOMPEO -00120 REGULARNON-CERTIFICATEO 93,441.84 - 95,820.14 1O0,000.0Q- 82,838.70 82.84% 02 1590 OTHERCOMPEO 00211 SSTAX. NON-CERTIFIEO 7,147.36 _ 7,329.56 __ 8~1_O_O_O_.o_o_ 6,337.23 79.22% Q2 1590 OTHER COMPED 00241- INSURANCE NON-CERT 9,156.65 5,665.85 12,000.00 4,134.51 34.45% --- --- 02 1590 OTHERCOMPED 00251 UNEMPLOYCOMP NONCERT 150.88 199.62 200.00 74.82 37.41% - ------ ---- -------i 02 1590 OTHERCOMPED 00261 WORKERSCOMP,NON-CERT 23.15 61.33 100.00 107.94 **********' 02 159{) OTHERCOMPED-_ 00310 PROFESSIONAL\u0026amp;TECHSERV _ 60,045_35- __ 3_8_,0___03___ 32- +----3,040.00 __ 260.00 8.55% 02 1590 OTHERCOMPED __ 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP __ 0.00 ____ 0_.0_0_-+_ 3,000.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1590 OTHER COMPED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 42.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1590 OTHERCOMPED 00335 INDISTRICTTRA-VE_L_ -- --- 0.00 361.28 ----30_0 __0__ 0_ -- -0-.0-0-+--0-.-0-0_/c__,o t-0-2-1--15_9_0_,0THERCOMPED - 00390- OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES - 0.00 0.00 52,480.00 +-----2-1-,-5-5-2.684 1.07% t-0-2-+--159Q~THERCOMPED - 0041{) ~UPPLIESANDMATERIALS 218,223.68 4,863.32 8,000.00 6,944.73 86.81% 02 1590 OTHER COMPED 00540 EQUIPMENT _ ~.800.97 !-----~O_.O_O-+- ______ O_.o_o-+- _____ o_.o___o__ , -l w02 - 1591 COMPEDPARENT/HOMEW0OO12O REGULARNONCERTIFICATED 77,470.53 76,315.76 75,000.00 66,321.84 88.43% 159T ~p ED PARENTIHOMEW000211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED -t----5~,-9_0_6_.3 -9-+----5-',-5_7_91-_5.- +---5-',-7-0-0-0.- 0-+ 4,882 fl 8 5.6 6% 02 1591 7oMPEDPARENTIHOMEWO 00241 INSURANCE.NON-CERT - --6-'-,3-6__7_7 __ 4-+----4-'-,o-5___13__ 2-+ 4,000.00 3,691.97 92.30% f-0-2-+-1_5_9_1 ~MP ED PARENTIHOMEwo00251 UNEMPL0Y COMP, NON CERT +- 150. 88 ~-1-8_0_.4_1-+----~-1-7-5-. 0-0-+------'--7-7-. 3-7-l 44. 21 % 02 1591 COMP ED PARENTIHOMEWO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 59.51 51.00 75.00 84.70 **********' f---+----,--t- ---,-,---,----+---,------t--------l 02 1591 COMPEDPARENT/HOMEW00O331 PUPILTRANSPORTATION 19,398.53 22,017.72 13,750.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1591 COMPEDPARENTIHOMEW00O334 CARALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOMEWO 00335 INDIS-TR-ICTTRAVEL O.0 0 180. 08 _____ o_ _o__ o-+------0-.-0-0 02 1591 COMPEDPARENT/HOMEW0OO41O SUPPLIESANDMATERIALS 8,702.79 7,377.09 3,000.00 1,436.18 ----1 47.87% Q2 1591 COMPEDPARENT/HOMEWoOO44O PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 93.90 0.00 0.00 f----1---l 02 1591 COMP ED PARENTIHOMEWO 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMPEOPARENT/HOMEWO QQ54Q-~QUIPMENT 207.84 Q.QQ Q.QQ -- Q.QQ f--+----r - - --- 02 1592 COMPEDELEEXTENDDAY 00120 REGULARNON-CERTIFICATED 19,674.81 23,348.66 0.00 464.42 02 1592 COMPEDELEEXTENDDAY 00211 ~STAX.NON-CERTIFIED 1,506.37 1,787.17 -- 0.00 35.51 02 1592 COMPEDELEEXTENDDAY OO251--\n-NEMPLOYCOMP.NONCERT 0.00 23.72 -- 0.00 0.00 02 1592 COMPEDELEEXTENDDAY OO261-~RKERSCOMP.NON-CERT 12.46 13.63 0.00 0.00 ~-~-~ ----- Page: 45 [ ~ -- - -- - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget ~xpenses Exp/Bud 02 - 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTENO DAY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 194.62 99.46 0.00 0.00 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,297.14 4,684.54 0.00 0.00 02 -- - 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ~6,186.00 36,186.00 38,000.00 32,188.18 84.71% 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,688.26 2,726.15 2,900.00 2,449.51 84.47% 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00240 INSURANCE 1,009.35 863.86 850.00 703.30 82.74% 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 12.20 42.80 50.00 29.46 58.92% - 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00260 WORKERS COMP 24.92 23.70 50.00 40.71 81.42% - . - - 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION - 2,642.47 2,044.00 2,000.00 -- 0.00 0.00% 02 1593 -COMP ED TURNING POINT 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES -- - 133.52 '-- 0.00 0.00 -- o.oo 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 133.52 0.00 0.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 712.05 806.06 500.00 440.97 88.19% 02 - -- - 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 47,779.27 52,009.46 21,000.00 9,817.68 46.75% 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,655.10 3,617.04 1,600.00 732.76 45.80% 02 - 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00240 INSURANCE 1,688.08 1,717.09 850.00 351.80 41.39% 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 24.40 65.74 25.00 10.52 42.08% f-0-- 2 1594 f-- -- **********\" COMP ED PALS LAB 00260 WORKERS COMP 33.31 29.63 25.00 48.98 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00326 REPAIRSIMAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 73.32 400.00 0.00 0.00% -- 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -- -- 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00540 -EQUIPMENT 0.00 782.81 0.00 0.00 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 349,719.41 370,200.00 318,466.78 86.03% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN  45,411.36 44,610.96 47,200.00 0.00 0.00% -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 13,628.88 16,000.00 - 0.00 0.00% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 0.00% - - 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 2,862.00 2,289.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00% - - - --- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED __0_0 155 ._S_T IPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 - [ 1['JH1IRX -1CO)lRZ\"JJLrH,Jlll1 l\"1f'1Ll.RJa.Z @CClfP1~U JIB31LlK~CIT IJBICOXO)JL,~ n W n  n WW,11ll l,i\"\u0026lt;JlP~ I1}l))l['Jr'UJIRU~~ l IBYr JF11H~CC1rll(Q)~(Q)IIBJIYE.CC1r n~'UJkillDg ~() llta.ll[))(''( @n r~, J1W\nH'~ttfi@~ @~ D~ _ill)~IIDa\u0026amp;_ 3~fi~__l@D4=1 - - --- -- 91-92 92-93 93-94 93-94 % of Fun Fnct Fnct Descr Object Object Description I Expenses Expenses Budget ~penses Exp/Bud -- - 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED - 00210- SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00210- SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 28,868.47 29,150.00 ~422.98 80.35% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED - 00211 SS TAX. NON-CERTIFIED 218.93 1,153.53 1,500.00 -0.00 0.00% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00212 SS TAX. STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 350.00 0.00 0.00% e-- - - -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.85 --- -- f- 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 11,022.83 10,900.00 8,439.40 77.43% f-0-- 2 1910 - -- -- 0.00- - GIFTED AND TALENTED - 00241 -INSURANCE NON-CERT 0.00 907.90 900.00 0.00% 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 502.75 600.00 291.61 48.60% -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP. NON CERT 0.00 20.68 25.00 0.00 0.00% - ~- - -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 250.83 250.00 400.21 ~*********11 1910- - 00261 -- 02 GIFTED AND TALENTED WORKERS COMP. NON-CERT 0.00 10.14 25.00 0.00 0.00% 02 1910 --- GIFTED AND TALENTED 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,010.00 3,470.00 3,500.00 455.00 13.00% - 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,410.84 2,804.34 2,500.00 917.81 36.71% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 456.31 0.00 400.00 0.00 0.00% I- - 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION - 1,502.50 2,175.00 2,200.00 2,120.00 96.36% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONT-HLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 450.00 90.91% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00335 IND/STRICT TRAVEL 0.00 564.55 700.00 225.41 32.20% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 500.00 30.90 6.18% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00342 POSTAGE 127.53 239.71 300.00 255.24 85.08% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 14,105.36 9,765.87 10,280.00 12,615.80 \"\"*********, - 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 198.14 99.07% 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 430.93 586.92 600.00 391.98 65.33% -- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- ---- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 00630 DUES AND FEES 3,070.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 lir*********l -- 01 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 -- 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 0.00 0.00% -- -- 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 930.00 0.00 _6,975.00 - - Page: 47 L -- Fun Fnct -- 02 1911 - -- 02 1911 - -\u0026gt;---- 01 1911 02 1911 -02 - - 1911 -01 1911 02 1911 02 1911- 02 1911 02 1911 02 1911 02 1911 1l'JH[l~ ~@lRZ'1(H J! JL11'1['1rll--1mllt @ccoc ff'L(J)filJLIICC~ (C]l![@(D)JL,~ n  n \"n W f\\, )~1\"()P'l~A~O)l['1('UYJRlI\\BH'Wi~ W' 'l(J~CC1rn@~ff@IIBJJ1\u0026amp;ca1r JFUJf:ID)g ( fillll uU[)\n' @n }JO @n\u0026gt;)~lffa1rtfillil~ @ ~ llL_ill)Ib)(t ITWficc(Q ),(lD, - - - 91-92 92-93 93-94 - 93-94 Fnct Descr - Object Object Description Expenses Expenses -- Budg~ Expenses GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 272.00 0.00 0.00 -- - GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --- GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX - -- 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 761.26 0.00 0.00 - GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00211 SS TAX. NON CERTIFIED 0.00 90.48 460.00 533.65 1-- - GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00250 rU-N-EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 16.06 0.00 0.00 -- GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON C~RT 0.00 1.77 20.00 8.97 -- GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 6.37 0.00 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.60 20.00 4.47 --- -GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 -f- 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 f- \u0026gt;---- - 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00342 POSTAGE 18.56 16.82 0.00 0.00 ~ 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 39.29 329.27 3,000.00 0.00\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_879","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget,'' condensed version","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget,'' condensed version"],"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/879"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1994-95 REVENUE 'f ~ cl~,u,J /1 cn1 ccwf O t1-/r\nu\n~--i.... NORTHL ITILE ROCKS CHOOLD ISTRICT REVENUSEU MMARY UNRESTRICTEFDU NDS LOCAL REVENUE Current Truces Pullback Accrued Pullback Delinquent Taxes Land Redemption County Interest Excess Commissions County General Severance Tax Interest Tuition-PCSSD Rent Miscellaneous Fund Transfers TOTALS STATE REVENUE , Minimum Foundation Special Education M - to - M Program TOTALS FEDERALR EVENUEUNRESTRICTED 1993-94 BUDGET AMOUNT 8,465,000.00 2,660,000.00 1,585,000.00 1,000,000.00 75,000.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 28,450.00 4,250.00 60,000.00 100,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 40,000.00 14,142,700.00 16,353,053.00 67,150.00 1,070,000.00 17,490,203.00 PL 874 22,500.00 ROTC/TROOPS-TO-TEACHERS TOTALU NRESTRICTEFDE DERA_L__ __ _ REVENUE SUB-TOTAL 31,655,403.00 OTHER STATE Transpottation Magnet/M-to-M Transport Worker' t Comp TOTALO THERS TATE TOTAL LOCAL, STATE \u0026amp; FEDERALU NRESTRICTED REVENUE 494,317.00 300,000.00 .00 794,317.00 32,449,720.00- 1993-94 YEAR TO DATE AMOUNT 8,514,794.30 3,289,950.09 869,400.91 1,203,584.16 102,947.89 50,510.51 30,561.43 28,468.40 6,901.54 68,740.10 117,254.41 19,260.69 13,669.09 33,909.31 14,349,952.83 16,725,472.00 67,150.00 1,034,620.00 17,827,242.00 25,665.00 32,202,859.83 537,899.00 271,430.00 .00 809,329.00 33,012,188.83 1994-95 BUDGET AMOUNT 8,320,000.00 3,250,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 27,939.00 4,280.00 60,000.00 110,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 35,000.00 14,172,219.00 )(+/:\nff)/\u0026lt; 17,693,840.00 67,150.00 1,030,000.00 18,790,990.00 25,000.00 50,700.00 75,700.00 33,038,909.00 582,575.00 275,000.00 141,500.00 999,075.00 34,037,984.00 1 NOR'DLI ITTLER OCKS CHOODL ISTRICT REVENUSEU MMARY RESTRICTEFDU ND 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 LOCALR EVENUE BUDGET YEART O DATE BUDGET AIDUNI AMOUNI AM'.)lJNT Tuition-Sumner School 60,000 78,465.52 70,000 G/T Sumner Quest 16,500 12,610.50 15,000 School Activity Sales 50,000 55,259.04 50,000 Custodial Services 24,000 24,000.00 24,000 Rockefeller Restructuring 15,000 12,000.00 3,000 Levi Strauss 25,000 25,000.00 -0- Toyota Family Literacy 15,690 15,690.00 -0- Miscellaneous 42,700 64,349.10 61,300 TOTALL OCALR ESTRICTED REVENUE 248,890 287,374.16 223,300 STATER EVENUE Vocational Equinent 22,002 22,002.34 19,202 Vocational Start-Up 2,600 2,600.00 9,360 Kindergarten Materials 8,460 8,460.00 8,148 Desegregation Aid 780,000 824,590.51 849,025 Compensatory Aid 234,439 234,439.01 222,000 Curriculum Assessment 100,000 100,000.00 -0- CPEP/ACT 18,538 28,668.95 25,000 K-3 SUIIUlleSrc hool 147,618 147,618.00 145,000 ABC Preschool 234,116 234,116.00 234,116 Special Ed Preschool 314,325 321,255.00 287,638 Special Ed Residential 25,000 41,246.75 35,000 Alternative Education 40,460 40,460.00 -0- Carnegie Restructuring 12,500 12,500.00 12,500 Restructuring Grant 7,800 7,800.00 -0- Miscellaneous Grants 2,000 6,828.67 -0- TOTALS TATER ESTRICTED REVENUE 1,949,858 2,032,585.23 1,846,989 TOTALL OCAL\u0026amp; STATE RESTRICTERDE VENUE 2,198,748 2,319,959.39 2,070,289 FOODS ERVICER EVENUE Meal Collections 636,000 678,216.55 655,500 Federal Reimbursement 1,300,000 1,327,785.55 1,325,000 State Reimbursement 25,000 25,126.57 25,000 Interest 5,000 4,557.75 5,000 Other 3,000 2,756.17 2,500 TOTALF OODS ERVICE 1,969,000 2,038,442.59 2,013,000 2 IDTHL I111.Elil D Em. DISlRICT REDEUINY 1993-94 1\"3-94 1994-95 FEIEIWIIE. 't'EIIE~ICTD IIUDCTY EMT OD ATE 1UD\u0026amp;T AIOlfT AIOlfT NDMT DW'IERI 1,861,105 1,5'3,471.00 1,860,625 DW'mtII ~.593 ~.5'3.00 5',7'?1 11'.ATIIIWrJ.,A . PEIICilli 148,411 148,411.00 147,209 Tm VI-I 320,286 319.~.oo 345,912 fl 19-313 18,410 18,410.00 15,168 IDIDID 29,000 47,344.61 30,000 IE\u0026gt;IDID, PRESDm. 12,000 21,4~.28 15,000 !FEWl ED. PRES0lll. 420,000 359,601.00 434,530 HCIM. EJU:ATIImII : 36,704 36,704.00 36,704 fAD STMT 72,646 71,32:5.00 48,180 MNSTMT 122,396 122,396.00 116,100 JTPA EJU:ATIOI/LITERACY 83,750 77,887.66 0 JTPA POER (HIPPY) 17,500 16,821.87 0 JTPAT RMSm11n1 umu 15,150 12,S78.27 0 Jt'PA11 .TERNATPMRm Wt 37,208 37,208.00 0 JIN I.EMtH-UVI~ 30,000 29,998.17 23,197 J1Pft-aPIIlD. 1f1H+UVK 27,300 2:51, 66.69 85,295 mmt SERVNEU ICA J,000 3,000.00 0 HIV/ADIEBIU :ATillt 500 '500.00 0 JJIU EJU:ATillt 92,900 85,230.00 54,494 M1Hl!CEJl:EI, SEJIDU 42,000 22,000.00 42,000 IOfll9B 16SISTNl:E 21,ffl 21.e~.oo 21,000 Qt I PIBIWt DmJYElNT 6,822 6,822.00 0 eor\ny, EXxtlt 50,000 82,6Z7.00 0 TOTNr.n. EM..R EYEtlE 3,534,556 3,225,999.55 3,251,205 C14PITNllJ..T l.AY1' \\181: WRNT TAXES 200,100 191,251.61 186,900 PW.JIU TAXES 100,000 126,005.60 125,000 PW.JIU - ACCRtD 72,'SOO ~.209.40 37,300 1nI11UHr TAXES 25,000 33,992.35 33,000 EXIDS mtUSSillt 1,000 845.79 800 DflEREBT 1,400 2,199.00 2,000 TOTNr.N. ITN..W Tl.AY 400,000 389,503.75 385,000 IUDJ)l\u0026amp; F\\11) REVEJE: M.EB ~.600 43,279.25 0 IHmlEST 92,000 90,457.74 S0,000 lfAIIVIllSEE T1lBJfT 7,400 .oo 0 ASIIESTlm.O AN/WiNT 40,000 34,6~.oo 0 F1IID1 RMSFER 60,000 .00 0 TUTftI.U D.DKF 1NI 235,000 168,411.99 S0,000 TOTft.RE\\IEJIE 40,787,024.00 41,154,506.10 41,797,478.00 == 3 BUDGET SUMMARY REPORTS IIR1ll Lim.E 11D SlDL. lmmtr llllliETII IIWff 1994 - 999:5 IIIU\"IRJC'IEFJI NIS 19'3-M 1993-M 1994-95 um M:1IJIL llDiET NIUf1' Mlllfl' IIIIU(1' I !BEIi 32,449,720 l1,012,118.II 34,037,914 II EXPENDITIIIES li8EM. 1, l96,o:50 l,18',810.35 l,IS,010 INSTIU:TIIII 25,904,174 26,269,526.41 2.61, 25,S W IIADOBWl:lE O'ERATllll 3,IIB,65\u0026gt; 4, IJ0,447.,0 3,90l,515 k~, i'   f-1...l.)V TIWIF(RTATillt 1,199,780 1,041.,219\"'7 1,041,194 p,1 - -- - t1L1H 90,920 90,400.J.\u0026gt; 94,:IOO DIDIDT 1,176,700 l,188,769.M 1,105,'70 1H TDTM. 33,56,274 l1, 910,174.20 34,16',781 III !UM'( 07/01/93 YEIIRT OD l\\lE f1Nl8 YEM1 0 IIAlE QIIEfT M.NII lf.'a .iuaI mEll'Il\\llES M.NIE lffl-1994 1,02.6,916.18 + :U.012,188.83  34,038,115.01 - 33,flO,i'M.20  128,600.81 07/01/94 lllR1D f1lll8 lllllED PIii.ETD IM.Nl:E REEi A1Mil\u0026amp;E EffJIDI111Ei M.AO: 199+-iffl 128,600.81 + 34,Gn,964  34,W,94.81 - 31,1647, 8B 1,796.11 4 ant UTilE 111:1m m. .JJSIRICT 11ml 9lllllR'f 1994 - 99P.5 STATEIUDILE IIRICIDP IIDMS lff.J-94 lffl-AN 1994-95 llllliET ~ aa\n[T MIUT MIUI' M1IIT I IDEJI 2,191,748 2,319,959.JP 2,060,289 II EXPSeI11JES IESEJilBATllll 1,149,730 1,039,454.11 1,004,990 IDfflliATIIITE JU'.ATlllt 240,134 240,052.61 222,CB\u0026gt; RADD1i 31,890 .12,874.76 0 All: CMRIDWER 23,767 Zi,Ul.:13 0 AIIC BIJIPIEHT/Slffl.JES U,407 11,407.00 0 AIESIIIERPl\u0026amp;Mt 31,576 25,346.04 16,468 ABC PIIESDlll. 234,116 217,647.34 233,S!O SPECWE. D. PRESCIDl. 314,JZ5 321,2:15.00 '2111,638 IP. a. leDEfml. 25,000 41,357. 35,000 \\UATDJW.E. IIUIFIENT 2'l,002 21,916.38 19,202 VIDTIOWS. TMTIP 2,600 2,~.28 9,360 mOL ICTMTY SALES 60,892 45,NB.12 86,791 aJSTmIIL !IEIVICES 24,000 1',5113.40 24,000 1-3 SIIIER SCIID. 147,620 6,656.SZ l40,9'0 rJlfP/tcr 31,046 2'l,:JIM.81 0 fJ'fP/M:T SIIIER 94-95 30,641 1~--~ 29,3:12 IUIERS\u0026gt;Dl. lll,:500 79,\"98.llt 87,745 \"'!UIERaDT 18,250 16,200.SZ 23,400 ftLTEJNUME JU:ATilll 40,460 Zi,769.12 14,690 1.EYSI 1MliS 33,390 33,390.80 0 TOYOFTMAD .L.Ym RICY 15,690 13,102.79 2,517 RIDFB1EJRI ESTIU:TIIUtli 15,000 9,257.IM 5,742 REST1JIC'11.PRIDO\" .IWf 1,800 ~.771.47 2,028 rtlll6IE RESfRll:11.Rm 12,,00 :560.00 11,940 UIC JOMTilllB 3,000 3,290.79 0 l\\1SCEl.UIElSli RttNTS :56,515 77,564.40 136,11' ... TaTM. 2,671,911 2,314,182.45 2,393,Slta III EUMY Vl!011'13 YEART DD ATE RNIIS YEMT DD ATE 1lRDT JIAI.Nl:E REEi fWAIUlll EXPENDITIIEi MI..Na 1993-1994 689,414.17 + 2,319,959.:W 3,009,373..56- 2,314,182.45 695,191.11 Vl/01/94 JUIIEB F1lll6 am\nm PIIJ.E1ED M.Nl:E REEi #MD.All DPENDITIIB M.Nl:E 1994-iffl 69:5,191.U  2,060,289  2,7:15,480.11- 2,393,576  361,VM.U 5 11111U11T 1U 11D IDIIL DlS111tT ll.lmUIIMT 1994 - 9995 ..\n- FEJIEMP.U IWl!i 1993-94 199'3-M 199+-95 UliET M:TIIIL llmT MlllfT NIUfl' NIUIT I EQE 3,SM,556 J,2ZS,999.!5 3,33:5,2115 n EJF811I1\\IEB DW'l'ERI 1,697,117 l,4'7,ffl.10 1,860,625 0W'1EIRI 70,437 64,ta'l.90 65,JZ5. VIDTDIIIL 148,411 1C5,:500.1.5 147,209 TITLEV I-I m,ooo m,m.,s m,s Pl. IP-313 19,09 19,ll.ll 1,,ua IEDD:AD 30,000 48,346.37 30,000 IEDDDPIEDIIL 12,000 13,618.~ ~.ooo fP.O.PIEDIIL 444,949 298,510.IZ 444,949 . o. ~ 43,0!5 42,915.7' 36,704 taD srm 76,667 76,571.90 4,000 E\\191S TMT 122,396 122,396.00 116,100 0W'1ERI SIIERP IUMt 254,400 247,317.JM 114,000 1'llffll !EM AIERICA 3,000 J,000.00 0 JIPA EDl',ATitll/ll1DCT 15,1.50 77,1B7.66 0 J1N POER 17,:500 16,821.17 0 JIN 1U11ll ~.150 12,518.27 0 JIN LTEIIMmt 37,208 37,2G8.00 0 JIN I..EMIH-llVDlr 30,000 29,998.17 23,197 JIPtt-allD ~ 27,300 25,166.69 85,ffl HIV/AIDSE JIDTillf 500 ,oo.oo 0 11K El. CIIRRYIMR 2.6,145 18,$10.90 54,367 JIIKEI. 92,900 71,851.42 ZS,677 EI9EJIIIEMRn tr.l:IEla9 3 30,864 ,,111.10 42,000 mEHIERM nvs:IEIEE94 42,000 32,110.51 30,000 IIIElE!B 21,ffl 3,149.47 0 IIIElE!B Cl1IR'flMJt 18,207 18,217.22 39,12!5 0W'TEI II-IICCEERAlED 1,914 1,914.21 0 Dt II aRWll.1II flWFllR 4,B:111 4,B:111.16 0 atIPIIUMDAIMJENT 6,822 6,822.00 0 EJD.T 50,941 21,015.86 0 1H TOTM. J,m,404 3,290,419.511 3,~.891 III SIMf 07/01/93 YEM 10 DATE F\\NIS YEM 10 DATE QREIT BM.Na l8EII A'lADJllI DFEJIDillJe IIUIEE 1993-1994 .no,170.43  3,2ZS,9'9.,S. 3,5116,169.11-J,2'0,419.511\nm,150.40 V,/01/94 lllXiETEI F\\1116 llllr.E1D PIII.E10 IIUIEE 1091 MA1l.ltllE DFEIIDITIIIS MM:[ 1994-1995 305,150.40  3,335,205  l,640,9'5.40 - 3,524,891  116,064.40 6 1m DD5 IIE!iEIMru e I E\\81 II E\u0026gt;FEJIDITIIES III SJMn' 07,01193 llflUKE lllffll UT1l 11D mm. IISllltT UESIMW 1994 - 9.11!115 . lm-94 19.D-94 aDiET fC1\\IL 1111.Nr miff' 235,000 Uit.U.99 21DO,OOO 93,330.18 YEM1 0 DAlE RIIS '!'EM1 0 DAlE RE\\0 MMJUR EfEJfJl1IIES 1994-95 UliET MUn' 50,000 500,000 QIIDT IIIUIEE l!l!B-1994 l,246,747.IM+ UiB,411.'3a 1,415,159.83- 93,330.18a l,321,829.\u0026amp;5 1994-19!5 07i'Ol/M JUI[[ 1,321,829.65  IDiETED ED 50,000  NE . IUlliE1'ED ~ EfEJIDJ111ES 1,311,829 - 500,000                    CAPITMll.J MY I RE\\81 II \u0026gt;fENDITIIIES III !Ulwrt 01i'01193 wua 19.D-19.H 34,82B.03+ 07/01194 wua 1994-19!5 1,182.64  19.lH4 UGET 400,000 420,095 YEM 10 MlE RED 3119,SB.1a5 amm, RE\\81 3115,00a0 422,449.t RIIS '9110 DATE MMD EIPEleil\\lES 424,331.11- 422,+e.14 a FINIS UliE1EJ) MMD.a E\u0026gt;IPBIII11J\u0026amp; 3116,1112- 384,!IZDa PIID.EC1D IIIUIEE 871,829    199HS UGET 3115,000 384.,920 aJIEIT lfUl:E l,\u0026amp;.64 fllE.EIEJ) IM.MU 1,962 7 - STATE/LOCAL FUNDED PROGRAMS , EXPENDITURE REPORTS ant UT1lE 11D !DUL IISIIJLI 5nlTEAIDIRLa EfBllfflllE .-r l!!M - 9!1115 19.D-94 ..... 19.M-!15 DIE cna ILllliET MUil ... lftllff I.BM. fllltDIIS11WISTilI.MIIII ES 315,550.00 m,cm.a, 332,?.!0.00 lDI if1011ED9t Ml5 47,600.00 47,734.CII 49,200.00 0.\u0026amp;IFJED AIIIDSt fURJE 89,150.00 92,671.3Z 95,500.00 D.EIFJED SMJRIES 244,470.00 256,a\u0026gt;.l 220,100.00 ST1PEJlli .oo .GO .00 IENEFilS 91,610.00 9,51!5.!9 105,640.00 PlllDWD SERVltES 155,190.00 Hl,!87.M 143,890.00 CIIBUIIATIISICJI T 80,000.00 15,ca).9' 15,000.00 LEliM.SEIVICES \u0026gt;,000.00 32,551.71  35,000.00 JFCEilBATJitlltl lITIR 60,000.00 ,0,322.00 60.000.00 IIAlilEITIE VlEUIIm li It 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 SfPUES \u0026amp; MlEmlS 36,180.00 32.546.12 ,330.00 OPI1JL 11111.AY .oo  .oo onER 4,300.00 2.'3'1.30 3,600.00 TOTll l, 196,050 1, 189,810.35 1,145,010 2. INSTIUmlf ltll1DGSTllfllM9 URIES  2,252,575.00 2,407,839.25 i.e,200.00 CSl11F1CilT9ElMDI ES : 17,691,000.00 18,028,81.7.. .. 18,333,400.00 OJISSIFlE9DU RJES 1,208,900.00 1,234,5.IS 1,399,200.00 usrt1UTE 1EIOEIIS 342,000.00 378,002.30 381,000.00 USTI1U1Ea .MSIFJED 22,500.00 24,835.JD 24,800.00 SIJW 3,000.00 4,'33.50 2,SOCl.00 l:Jl:fllS 2,160,335.00 2,285,318.\" 2,a,300.00 fllllHIJ5ESDE RVltES 257,108.00 711,236.92 273,0M.OO TUITJOH'CSSD 130,000.00 110,453.11 115,000.00 1UTIT1lJHWilE' 950,000.00 '84,594.54 950,000.00 !U1PUE'lS M lmllS 823,061.00 461,222.49 411,528.00 Df'ITlt. 11111.AY 47,802.00 49,441.45 34,252.00 UTIER 15,293.00 28,274.11 31,325.00 TOTlt. 25,904,174 216,21\u0026amp;1,52'.44 2', 825,539 8 1111T1HJT 1I.EID !DIil. IJSlllCf SJAlEIUDlF IIIEDf lBIIIlllEI IAm 1994- 9'J5 t!!D-94 lm-tt 19HS DIGET #:TIIL DIE MIUlf Mllll1' MUn 3. MDnEMl:E6 lfBATJII( fdlDISIIIAllllSl M.MIES 58,000.00 '9,442.00 61,250.00 a.\u0026amp;IFID fllllDI ~  l,250,00 42,5'2.216 43,iOO.OO QJISSlFlED 9lMJES 1,723,000.00 l,1!Z,Oll.t2 1,657,800.00 IEEF11S 23\u0026amp;,950.00 2311,233.99 325,800.00 IUDWD SEllVIm 219,800.00 318,061.30 247,015.00 UTILITIES 1,084,100.00 1,CIBZ,2161.9 l, 087,? .IO0.0 9JIPLlES6 MTEJWlS 349,950.00 \u0026amp;,290.18 S,000.00 ttflTM. CIJ1\\JIY .00 7,SIS.80 .oo O'TIER .00 34,281.G:R .00 naw:E ns,000.00 1\u0026amp;6,213.28 193,000.00 TOTM. 3,\u0026amp;,\u0026amp;50 4,130,447.9 3,901,515 4. 11JU\u0026amp;'IRTATml QJISSlFlED fllllDI 9URlE 43,100.00 45,45:uo 45,000.00 toHEmflCATED 745,000.00 743,085.44 695,000.00 EifllS 915,000.00 97,513.23 99,000.00 PllDWD SERVICES 54,730.00 71,818.\u0026amp;2 15,730.00 !IFPUES' tMlERJllS l3',000.00 222.819-'7 75,000.00 am \u0026amp;0,000.00 315.00 .00 O'TIER .00 1937, 44.l!CR 2,I0.00 new:E 15,350.00 53,B.00 '9,064.00 TOTM. 1,199,180 1,041,219-'7 1,041,194 9   5. IEIL1H QJISSIFJD 9URlES  EEFIIS IUDWD SERYICES S\\JIPUEIS MTEJWU 0PITM. IIJIUW TDTfl. 6. IDID JOT DISTRICDTIS PRIICPfL lNTEJIEST FEES TDTM. PCS5DDI IS \u0026lt;INIEXATDII\u0026gt; PRDCDW. oomsr FEES TDTfl. LR BIIS (\"\"8E' SHIL) PRIICPfL nnmsr FEES TOTfl. TDTM11. 11IDD T STATEILll:Wll-litSIRICID Ale TOTM. 8111 um.! 11D IIHIL IISIIJCI SfAlEII.IDI. fllll EfEIIDml1lEIE Plllf 19.M- !B!l5 tm-94 l!ID-94 19HIS IIIICET M:TIII. UliET MUIT MIIIIT Mlll1' 80,000.00 7',620.73 82,500.00 9,200.00 ,.,,uo 10,330.00 720.00 700.00 720.00 1,000.00 915.91 950.00 .oo .00 .00 90,920 90,400.30 94,500 412,150.00 446,840.00 G,000.00 704,515.00 679,315.20 618,525.00 l,SJ\u0026gt;.00 4,101.lD 4,000.00 l,118,2515 1, 130,B.\u0026gt; 1,047,525 16,3'20.00 l\u0026amp;,318.71 li,320.00 7,0J\u0026gt;.00 7,032.19 7,030.00 .oo .oo .oo 23,B 23,351.90 23,B U,\u0026amp;85.00 ll,filS.00 11,'85.00 23,380.00 23,3112,04 23,380.00 30.00 25.00 30.00 35,0!IIS 35,092.04 35,0!IIS 1,116,700 1, t, 159.'4 1,105,970 33,456,27-4 33, '10, 1.14.20 34,164,118 10 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1994-95 tlWMc NCOil)l TIHII LI I'Ir'IrIJLE IffCi.O C)Ci ll : JPTIJII8L3I IC C CCIE I@~ . ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law June 20, 19 94 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: JUN 2 0 1994 Oifice oi Desegrega\\ioMn on\ntori:ig As directed by the June 10, 1994 court order, this document represents the 1994-95 tentative budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains six sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1994-95 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The fifth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees. The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the =inal section of the document. AJ.~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 A final 1994-95 budget document will be produced for board approval and submission to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring once the District's books have been closed for the 1993-94 fiscal year and additional .revenue information has been received from the state. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services VS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET .. 1994-95 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-95ANNUALBUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of Directors, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents ..................................... l REVENUEA ND EXPENID T URES Revenue Graph ........................................................ 2 Expenditure Graph .................................................... 3 Revenue and Expenditures -- Operating, Capital Outlay, Building/Bond, and Federal Programs ................................ 4 Revenue -- Operating Budget .......................................... 5 Expenditures -- Operating Budget ..................................... 6 Revenue and Expenditures -- Federal Programs ......................... 7 EXPENDITUREFSO R SALARY,O PERATIONASN D DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Expenditures by Function ............................................ .8 Expenditures by Object .............................................. 15 Expenditures by Function/Object ..................................... 21 FIVE-YEARR EVENUEA ND EXPENDITURPER OJECTIONS Revenue Projections -- 1994-1999 .................................... 77 Expenditure Projections -- 1994-1999 ................................ 78 BUDGETN OTES Budget Notes ........................................................ 79 SALARYS CHEDULES Admin is tra tors ...................................................... 80 Teachers ............................................................ 81 Classified Employees ................................................ 83 PROGRAAMN ALYSIS Army JROTC ?rogram ...........................\n...................... 86 Reading RecoveryProgram Addition ................................... 91 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Pat Blackstone, President Prentice Dupins, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Lynn Hamilton J. W. Johnson Mable Mitchell Larry Shadid James R Smith. Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Student Affairs Mable Bynum - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $20,567,680 53% 1994-95 LOCAL REVENUE $15,505,500 40% FEDERAL REVENUE $3,025,000 8% TOTAL REVENUE = $39,098,175.00 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES Salar lea 1994-95 Benefits $3,465,000.00 Debt Service $1,200,000.00 Insurance/Other $221,000.00 Equipment $855,000.00 Supp Ilea $1,565,000.00 Services $2,440,000.00 $1,120,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $39,310,000.00 3 OPERA TING BUDGET l'UNDS Ot. 02. ._ 04 TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES Salaries Benefits Tui1ion Services NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 - - 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 --ACTUAL - ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED - -- $32,294,537.77 $34,645,116.10 $34,680,190.72 $35,888,462.00 $~89,901.75 $24 704 357.88 $24 654 619.76 $26 527,859.00 $2,539,762.48 .:.!~.687,g51 .oo $2,624 924.22 $2 774,990.00 _$1,115,205.60 $1,089,105.75 $1,067,374.16 $1,100,00Q_.~ --- -- --- $2,102,210.72 -$2,240,998.57 $2, 15 9,022.38 $2,463,635.00 --- ~~pp..!!!!_ - - --$1,246,073.84 $1,449,719.28 ~1,244,849,46 $1,263,387.00 Equip'!!_ent __ -- -~- $770,454.71 J41!(!,095.~ ~g11!,g~-I!~ _g~,!!l!-00 - lnsurance/O1her - - - _ $3~3,8~~-4! __ $25!',8~!}-!I! ~25!},~0~.Q! __ $2IZ,49~.oo Debt Service - - - $1,169,554.97 $1,194,864.61 $789,641.15 $1,166,700 00 TOTAL EXPENDiTURES $3 i ,526,988.48 $34,111,219.28 $33,015,228.07 $35,813,183.00 ENDiNG BALANCE -- $767,551.29 -$533,696.82 $1,664,962.65 - $75.279.00 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $2,036,196.59 $2,794,03-4.45 $3,560,377.92 $3,663,986.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $778,814.49 $1,181,949.19 $1,644,091.99 $2,020,744.00 Benefits -- $245,764.17 $334,065.01 $441,367.07 $575,744.00 --- Services --$138,083.28 $332,746.29 $472,493:90 $509,001.00 Sup11lies - ---- - --- __ $295,90!.9~ =!g82,309_99 $371 965.64 $323,069.00 t-- Equipment $243,540.22 $233,377.76 $206,103.77 $121,116.00 t-- Other c----$27,446.05 $37,279.48 $42,609.42 $64,278.02._ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,729,552.16 $2,401,747.72 $3,178,631.79 $3,613,952.00 ENDING BALANCE $306,644.43 $392,286.73 $361,546.13 $50,034.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY (05) BEGINNING BALANCE $161,616.30 $2,014.05 $165,463.62 $34,826.00 REVENUE $385,514.64 $494,814.65 $391,650.75 $400,000.00 EXPENDITURES $545,118.69 $311,365.08 $542,288.34 $420,000.00 ENDING BALANCE $2,014.05 $185,463.62 $34,828.03 $14,828.00 BUILDING (03)/BOND (10) FUNDS BEGINNiNG BALANCES ----- --$4,174,273.93 $1,396,597.95 $1,027,0i3.50 $3,277,801.00 REVENUE $38,792.52 $414,325.63 $4,012,465.94 $235,000.00 EXPENDITURES $2,816,468.50 $783,910.28 $1,761,676.00 $2,231,025.00 ENDING BALANCE $1,396 597.95 $1 027 013.50 $3,277 801.44 $1 261 ,776.0Q_ 4 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $36,900,753.87 $35,663,828.00 ($1,236,925.87 $26 905 600.00 $26 650 000.00 ($255 600.00 $3,010,900.00 $2,950,000.00 ($60,900.00 $1,116,220.00 $1,120,000.00 $3,780.00 ~.437,250.00 $2,110,000.00 -($327~50.00 ~!~~:::~~:~~ _ $1,g75,000.00 ($299,250.00 _!!35,000.QQ -=-(~09,~(!Q_.QQ _ $187,850.00 __ $__!~.Q\u0026lt;J:Q.00 _$2,150.00 $1,168,770.00 $1,200,000.00 $11,230.00 $36,665,100.00 $35,630,000.00 _{$.!,~~.!._02-~ $235,653.87 --$33,828.00 ($201,825.87 $3,663 986.23 $3,251,525.00 ($412 461.23 $2,019,900.00 $1,794,000.00 ($225,900.00 $583,650.00 $515,000.00 ($68,650.00 $463,650.00 $330,000.00 ($_!~~~50.QQ $206 250.00 $270,000.00 -~!l..!..750.QQ $106,100.00 $60,000.00 _($46, 100.00 $30,900.00 $31,000.00 $100.00 $3,412,450.00 $3,000,000.00 {$412,~so.oo, $251,536.23 $251,525.00 -/$11.23 $34 828.23 $1,028.00 ($33,800.23 $392,000.00 $670,000.00 $278,000.00 $425,800.00 $680,000.00 $234,200.00 $1,028.23 $11,028.00 $9,999.77 $3,277,601.44 -si:01ii.116.oo _J$2J6i ,025.44 --i 170,000.00 --$50,000.00 /i 120,000.00 $2,431,025.44 $200,000.00 ($2,231,025.44 $1 016 776.00 _ !86!J, 7'._7_6.,__Q_ _0($ J 50 Q_00..:.0-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE 1990-1995 ~ OPERATING BUDGET 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 SAi.ARY (01), 0l'l!RAllNG (02), \u0026amp; IJl!ITTSl!RVlCI! (04) ~TUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED BEGINNING BALANCE $576,482.48 $767,551.29 $533,896.92 $1,664,962.00 REVENUE LOCAL Pro~Taxes $8 318,915.54 $!!_,254 539.36 $8 463 731.24 $8 465,000.00 40% Pullback $3,273,349.66 $3,151,431.23 $2,659,432.57 $2,660,000.00 - 40% Pullback (Accrued) $928,368.16 ~1.039,428.11 $1,584,228.23 $1,585,000.00 - Delin uent Taxes ~693,558.60 $1,236,053.69 $960,646.26 $1,000,000.00 Excess Commissions -$30,328.77 $30,189.65 $31,612.84 $30,000.00 Land Redemption $117,506.10 $84,695.83 $92,073.43 $75,000.00 -- Tuition - Summer School $79,~3.42 $59 645.00 $66,435.00 ~-500:00 - Interest ---- ----- $224,913.67 $58,425.29 $144,538.58 $110,000.00 Pupil Activity Sales --$58,356.00 - $53,040.00 --$56,616.18 -,so,000.00 Rent and Miscellaneous $120,970.79 $130,096.65 $131,122.06 $95,500.00 Desell.!!9!!!on - Sec. VI!!..=_ LR $250,425.00 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $83,475.00 - Tuition - PCSSD $71,675.46 $120,489.78 __ $96,04I:~~ $100 000.00 County General and Severance Tax - -- $35,236.96 --,34,981.02 $35,830.83 ~,ii'1oojio - TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $13,953,123.13 $14,253,015.61 $14,322,314.76 $14,613,600.00 REVENUE, STATE MFPA $13847 114.00 $16 296 020.00 $16 096 402.01 $16 361 513.00 State A ortionment/Workers' Comoensation $28 896.00 $28 934.54 $26 479.49 - Transportation Aid - $368,946.00 $588, I 97 .00 $513,002.00 $494,317.00 - M-to-M lncen1ive $532,463.00 $816,988.00 $1,131,696.00 $1,070,000.00 Com ensatory Education ----- --$337,951A7 - $219,725.48 $251,557.04 $234,439.00 Special Education Supervisor -- $65,734.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 ~67,150.00 Act 591 Residential ---,,, 480.20 ~.867.80 $26,957.82 $25,000.00 Seecial Education Preschool $93 695.00 $156202.00 $314 325.00 Vocational Education $54,959.00 $48,934.00 $80,435.98 $24,602.00 ABC Preschool $161,500.00 $274,585.00 $234,116.00 Deseg.!!9alion - Sec. VIII.B $778,050.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 Desegre11ation - Sec. VIII.C $293,239.74 $471,134.13 $455,368.81 $57,075.00 Ma11net/M -to-M Transoortation $285 798.36 $327 148.98 $260 337.00 $300,000.00 Other State $46,450.56 $61,616.22 $36,039.95 $28,338.00 - Public Law 874 and Olher $55,126.00 $33,240.00 -~.762.00 $22,500.00 TOTAL STATE AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE -m,706,208.33 s1ii.iiii. 176. i's $19,790,000.08 $19,622,40!).~ TOTAL7.~AL~OUNTY\nSTATEANo 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $1,664,962.55 $235 653.00 {$1,429,309.55 $8,514 794.30 $8,320 000.00 ($194 794.30 $3,295,781.35 $3,250,000.00 ___!~45,781.35 $863,568.65 $1,000,000.00 $136,431.35 $1,203,713.06 $1,150,000.00 1$53,713.06 $30,561.43 $30,000.00 1$561.43 $102,961.29 $100,000.00 ($2,961.29 ~ $76,50\u0026lt;:1.00 ~6 500. 00 $0.00 $119,291.03 $110,000.00 ($9,291.03 --,ss,ooo.iiii - $50,000.00 ---($5,000.iiii $129,565.00 $100,000.00 ($29,565.00 $283,862.40 $345,000.00 $61,137.60 $94,620.79 $115,000.00 $20,379.21 __ $ !~54.~! ~!~,000.00 __ _J~,254.4 ! $35,369.94 $34,000.00 {$1,369.94 $14,922,843.65 $14,795,500.00 ($127,343.65 $16 733 932.00 $17 050 000.00 $316 068.00 $141 500.00 $14!~ $541,600.00 $500,000.00 ~~.600.00 $1,034,620.00 - $ 1,~~~:~~~:~~ ($34,620.00 ~82,057.00 --------- $97,943.00 --$67,150.00 ~7.150.00 $0.00 $41,250.00 $40,000.00 -_i!~Q.QQ $321 255.00 $325 000.00 $3 745.00 $24,602.34 $20,000.00 -($4,602.34 $234,439.01 $240,000.00 $5,560.99 $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $(!~ $57,082.32 $0.00 ___ (~~I,082,~ $271,430.00 - $275,000.00 g510.oo $140,000.00 $40,000.00 - ($100,000.00 ~5,665.00 $25,000.00 ___ l$665.oo -$20~64, 107.~7 s20.~~.e'75j\u0026gt;o _ $328,567.3~ - -- - UNRESIBICTED F_EDERAL REVENUE . -- S30 f!59,331.46Il33,885, 191.761$34 !_g,~14.841 S34.236 ooo.QQ.][135,186,951 .film~~ 175.~I _ J~o~~~-~ NON-REVl:NUEliECEIPTS (Sales, Insurance, Retund, M~ ___ !l00,134.01 I J55,135.561 $55,264.44 l7,500.00 ___ $18,840,~l ..J!Q,000.00, __ (~.,_8~Q-QQ TRANSFERS TQl!:ROM OTHER FUNDS $958,589.82 ($62,762.51 ($21,285.48 ($20,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE, Nor-f.=REVENUE, - -- ~ -- -- - --- -- ------ ------ - --- - - - -  BALANCES ANO ( + OR -l TRANSFERS ( $32,294 537 .77 U34 TIS, 1 I 6. l O I $34,680\nl9o:12)fl~888,\"4-~2.:!1fi H_ ~ !_6\n11.QQ\nl.!!3,811! .~,66:J:,628_.Lo o( $ j ,2.?._6,93s.sr 5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 1004-95 ~lU~L=--f------'A~C~T~U~A~L,.__1--_:..:AC.::..:..TU=-A~L=---1--~B=-U=-D=-G=E~TE=-D=---+-----=-P:..:AO=JE=-C=-T~E~D,._+-~B:..:U~D:..:G~E:..:T~E~Dc..--1---\"C~H~IIN=GE~-----l TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES SALAnY FUND EXPENDITU\"n'\"E'\"\"s=c.._--_________ _ $32,294,537. 77 _ $34,645, 11_.c6:..:.1_.c0+-~S~34,.1cO. O:C.7.:~-6-26-+.0 -~_,S :..:3:..:5~,68:..::..:8~,4_62~-:..:oo7-5+3-_~.'8-367~-+,o-$o~o3-~5,~_, 003-~,8_2_8_.oo,-2+__3S6__1,~ 92_5_._8-17 1----r.A\"'D,,,Mc,,l,,,N\"\"IS\n:c,T\n..:RA,,::..:.l:..:O:..:R~S=--------------- _S2,27 ,595.9 ~S2,  34,  17.93 __ S2,389,~63=0~.0=~~S=2,520,025.00 $2,176,450.00 TEACHERS $15,069,059.05 $17,222,527.5 $16,642,870.66 S17,11 4,700.00 S16,0 6,960.00 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS _ $302,765.34 __ S3J26.529.~,_. $341,415.27 $340,000.00 $378,860.00 1----r.T=iOccl~A-=L'=C=,\nE::\nAc,:,T\n,.:l,:..,F\n,:IE='D\n,..S=-A..::LA=R'-\"IE=-S=-----------+--'s'-'1-'.,7\n4.4,606.363~ , $19,963,474.69 $ 19,57, 116. 17 S20, 70, 725.00 S21,202,310.00 ,____ __.-'-F~A\"-'INGBEE NEFIIS i- $5~,099.~-=- S533,289.66 $524,031.13 $525,775.00 _$~_?8,050.00 TUITION $1,115,205.60 $1,089,105.75 S1,067,374.16 $1,100,000.00 __!.!., 116,220.00 TOTAL SAU\\flY FUND EXPENDITURES'----- _ S!._9,:175,745.17 $21,60_!!,670.10 __ $21, 165,521.~ $22,330,500.00 $22,646,560.00 $2,725,450.00 ($51,000.00 $18,124,550.00 S77,570,QQ. $375,000.00 ($3,680.0~ $21,225,000.00 $22,690.00 $525,000.00 ~ (!,!,050.QQ, $1,120,000.00 $3,760,~ $22,870,000.00 $23,420.~ - - O~11NG FUND EXPENDllUnES _ ~ nEGULAA PHOG111\\MS _i_,,., i~53,,,.,.7,=s,9oc=5l-_-.-,i ...,l,=5=19,,.,,=00=5~.2=, ....-.- '~1,.,,62=7\"\"',82=5.=4=5,__s2,.,,.,_05=5c\",863=~0.0.4.= ,.-,6-'7-27,:,=-_c0.c 0, c:-=_o_oS 2, 11155, 50.00 ,_{$3 i02, 150.00 SPECIAL EDUCATION $232,079.61 $269,601.63 $327,404.66 $466,009.00 $4e7,960.00 $394,450.00 $93,510.00 1---+.\nIIO=C~A.i,T\n:IO,c\n.\nN~A.L~E~D\nU~CA:,\n,,,,T~IO\n,,N,\n.,,=----------+---\n',,:3'=,1\n,2,,\n2:,c.\n53=8\n'11- --=:cS2\n.4\n.\n5:.:,3\n,49,\n.:\n.38\n+---,$.\n3,:C19=''=065~.36'==1f---'~26=1:'-:,0\n23~.oo,=l----\nS,~258,ao.oo $234,960.00 ($23,500.00 l---!.\nCO~M~P':-E\nN~SA~TO~R~Y,\nE~D\n,\nUc\n,CA\n,.'='T~IO~N~=~--------+--'S'-\n:58~8,813. 72 S 1,313 139. 75 $782,927.75 $766,024.00 S7i 7,030.00 $815,020.00 $97 ,ll90.00 ___ OTHER INSTRUCTIONALPAOGnAMS $78,334.88 $63,1127.27 _ $82,727.23 $152,082.00 $159,170.00 $144,260.00I ($14,800_.QQ PUPIL SUPPORT $495,775.16 $480,144.36 ~,-~=.,,=00=. 0 7=3..,. ..- ~,~52=3', 05=7~1.=o1o-- --,,.$648, 130.00 $525,110.0011$123,020.QQ STI\\FF SUPPORT ~6,318.68 $758,657.78 $795,427.64 $1,024,808.00 ~091,500.00 ___!960, 110.00 .__{!1_!!_,390.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $406,405.63 $431,209.00 $449,835.91 $467,100.00 $492,830.00 $439,550.00 {$53,280.00 1-~---+P='R:'cl:ccN\n.\ncC\nIP,.\nA.::L~__,..,s_,..O='F,,:,F,:.:IC:\n:E~-------------+~,.,cSc.:115==-=8'-', 1.,::00==.37 $635,281.00 $629,564.22 $666,821.00 $006,560.00 $545,450.00 '---IB!!~I 10.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5,006,876.04 $5,132,953.00 $5,100,194.84 $5,302,290.00 $5,241,300.00 $4,000,750.00 .__(!,!~ 0 550.00 f---+.C\"'E\n:N\n.\n.T:'FIAL:c\n.\n~S~U:'.,,P_',,P_O__~_A_c_,_T_ __ --+---:$265, 134.66 $205,117.23 $186,702.32 $206,330.00 $194,300.00 $175,700.00 ($18,660.00 OTHER SUPPORT $135,915.49 $220,466.79 $225,795.6 $239,010.00 $252.~-.QQ...__..!~,050.QQ __ (!28,430.00 1----+NO=='N~-\nBO=N.::D:c,i.:.:NO:\n::,:.N=,,-:P:no::G\n:RA:\n:M:1\n:\nc\no\nM\nM\nu:N:1rv::::=========--J.~~~S-9-,-8-85.00 $14,1167.~~ $5,604.29 $15,000.00 $12,250.00 $15,000.00 $2,750.00 f---+Tc.:O=.T:..:A..:.:L=.0:::.:...P.:::E.:..,RA:..:..:_Tl::.:N:.::G:..:F:...:U_,::N__ ::D::...,:EX::+.:-:'.$_'-P'1.:C::EC.0:..,:N,,o9:6::D.:.::..::.I1T,\n::.,:6:U6$6:1:=.1R-,:..3:::31E40:_.,:\n:4_S6l: ....._5 7 S 11,059,865.46 $12,246,991.00 $12,629,750.00 $11,560,000.00 1$1,069, 750.00 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES I PRINCIPAL $557,646.62 I INTEREST $610,948.45 l--~l,.:,F.::IS::,:C::::\nIIL.~F~E\"-'E\"-'S\"------------------\u0026lt;-~--- 1 TOTAL DEBT SEHVICE EXPENDITURES $959.00 $1,180,554.97 TOTAL SALl\\nY, OPERATING I\\ND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES ENDING BA.LANCES $31,526,986.48 $767,551.29 $637,259.78 $556,636.89 $007.94 ~1. 194,664.61 $34,111,219.28 $533,800.82 6 $224,285.46 $440,155.00 $474,845.00 $485,500.00 $10,655.00 $564,799.49 $724,985.00 $709,800.00 $710,000.00 $200.00 $756.20 $1,560.00 1-----,,c $4, 125. 00 $4,500.00 $375.00 $789,8  i.15 $1,166 700.00 $1,168,770.00 $1,200,000.00 --,ti,230.00 ----- $33,015 228.07 $35,744,191.00 $36,005,100.00 $35,630,000.00 (!!,Q35, 100. OQ $1,664,962.65 $144,271.00 $235,653.87 $33,828.00 ($201,825.1!! FEDERAL GRANTS BEGINNING BALANCES REVENUE -- EVEN START CHAPTER1- - - ,__ ciiAPTEii 2 MEDICAID NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1990-1995 11190-111 111111-112 111112-113 111113-114 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED $1111,1127 .811 $21111,1144.43 $3112 2111.73 $311,545.00 -- - -------- $134,430.00 $125,571.00 $122,31111.00 $1,1811,!!'!-~ __!!,!52,3111.00 --,reiii.112.00 $1 6111,000.00 $711,1104.00 $102,634.66 $73,515.00 $115,5113.00 $36 771.00 $44:657.76 ~~,.'!!11.78 SP ED PRESCIIOOL !SECTION 8111 AND ec9 __ $298,701.44 $354,585.00 ._!41,000.00 $3116 140.00 --- HEAD START $0.00 $22,061.00 $48,6411.00 $71,325.00 TIT\\.E VI-B .... -,300 32\"i:oo $300, 1115.00 $309,238.00 $3111,554.00 --- Pl.. 111----313 $31 751.00 ~27 4011.00 $21,704.00 $11 351.00 --- HOMELESS ASSISTANCE $21,000.00 $21,175.00 JTPA $41 11111.51f1- -----------!~ 12 4. 111 $114,151.311 $221,587.00 CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL AID $117,172.14 $104 21111.00 $134 571.12 $141411.00 EISENHOWER MATH/SCIENCE $20 777.00 $30 1711.00 $42,740.00 $42,000.00 f------- DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION $!3,207.00 __ $_110,0111.~ $112 111.00 $112 900.00 --- ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY --~!,1110.00 --- EOXTXHOENR _E_N_E RGY $53 020.00 __ !~!,_:!05.00 ._!~!!,~~-00 $0.00 $511,040.00 $10 322.00 TOTAL REVENUE $1 ,841 ,5111. 70 $2 4114,3110.02 $3, 1111 0110.29 $3,212,44i:OO TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $2 031 11111.511 $2 7114 034.45 $3 580 377.02 $31111311111.00 EXPENDITURES --- REGULAR PROGRAMS ~45!_~ $311,173.72 $32,270.110 $31,875.00 SPECIAL EDU~~!ION $~'!,~~\n!! ~3 7 ,531.oi !~H.2111.111 $358,0511.00 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $73 001.04 -. --$134.124.118 $1113,807.13 ~222,780.00 - COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $1152 250.1111 $1,182,323.20 $1,355 723.611 $1 704,518.00 --- OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $12 1104.52 .~~~ :!~!:~~ $14,731.70 $11,1112.00 - PUPIL SUPPORT --~!~711~Q $441,017.06 $1121,01111.00 STAFF SUPPORT $145,3117.44 $2114 ,3112.34 ~~!!,312.43 $508,807.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT $102 11111.51 $1111,101.73 $121 ,7211.51 $114,041.00 OTHER/CENTRAL SUPPORT $5,7113.20 $10 1111.110 $21 71111.11 $15,500.00 NON-PROGRAMMED $27 441.05 $38,144.41 $41,1154.42 $51111111.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $13,170.54 $11,117.711 $101,258.13 $20, 1711.00 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES $1,731,55!-.!.! $2,401,747.72 -\n\"i 71,131.711 $3,1114,052.00 ENDING BALANCE $211111144.43 $3112 2111.73 $311 545.23 $4111134.00 I 7 111113-114 111114-115 111114-115 PROJECTED BUDGETED CHANGE $311 2111.00 $251,5311.00 1$1211 750.00 $122 31111.00 $107,000,~ -1!!~.=!1111.00 $1,5113,471.00 $1 800,000.00 __ !!,5211.00 $85,5113.00 $113,700.00 $28,107.00 $47 188.00 $47,000.00 ,---------,J!! 118 .00 $3116 140.00 $400,000.D!! $3,860.00 $71,325.00 $72,000.00 $675.00 $3111 554.00 $320,000.00 $4411.00 $11,410.00 $111 500.00 1$1 1110.00 $21,175.00 $21,000.00 ($175.00 $210 000.00 $75,000.00 1$135 000.00 $141 411.00 $147,200.00 ($1,211.(!~ $42,000.00 $40,000.00 ($2 000.00 $85,230.00 $110 000.00 1$25 230.00 $0.00 $14,131.00 __(~~.~!.:00 --$10,322.00 $800.00 __ j!!,722.(!!! \u0026gt;---2311 7211.00 $3 000,000.00 ($238 7211.00 $31111012.00 $3 251 5311.00 1$31111.4711.00 $211175.00 $30,000.00 $1.325.00 $375,815.00 $350~.00 ~~?~,!!.!-00 ------$1118,250.00 $170,000.00 _ _j!~!.-~50.~ ___!!,.'!!_5, 770.00 *' 310,000.00 __j_~_?5,770.00 $15,030.00 $5,000.00 __!!10,03~,~ --$543,1130.00 $500,000.00 ...........J!~3,1130.00 .... $425,790.00 ssoo:000.00 ,,._210:00 $43,380.00 $80,000.00 $18,840.00 $23,5110.00 $15,000.00 --iii 5110.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $22,470.00 $10,000.00 =3i ~70.00 $3 412 450.00 $3 000,000.00 41!,450~ . $205 5112.00 $251 5311.00 $45 1174.00 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) FIVE YEAR REVENUEA ND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION 1994-1999 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 1994-1999 OPERATING BUDGET 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-96 1996-:--99 SAi.ARY (01), Ol'l!RATING (01), \u0026amp; l)l!IIT Sl!RVICI.! (04) - PROJECTION PROJECTION - PROJECllON PROJECTION PROJECTION BEGiNNING BALANCE llEVENUE, LocAL - --- -~ -~= ~iop~jty\n- ~~e~ --=- - - - -~~-:------=~:._ __ -_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-- $6,320,000.00 To\n4o6,400.oo - $9,002,5oiioo $9,264,100.00 -$9,449,400.00 40% Pullback $4,250,000.00 $4,615,000.00 $4,707,300.00 $4,601,400.00 $4,697,500.00 - __ 0ei1nquentTaxes - _____ =- - - ----~ =----==- -- $1,150,000.00 -s, .1r~.ooo,oo s1. 115,000.00 s1. 100,000.00 s1.200,ooo.oo Excess Commissions $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 umd Redemption _ _ ~- _ - - --=:__-_-~_- $100,000.00 -$102,000.00 $104,000.00 $106,000.00 $106,000.00 Tuition - Summer School $76,500.00 -- $76,000.00 $76,000.00  $76,000.00 $60,000.00 -- - iriierest - ------- ------- $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 --- PujiiAcilvfiy_s_a,_le_s ___ ---- --------- $50,000.00 --$50,000.00 $50,000.00 --$50,000.00 $50,000.00 Rent and Miscellaneous _______ -$100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 =--..-=_- Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C_- LR___ --$345,000.00 __ $171~560.00 1~~~~-- ,~---------, _____ Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $115,000.00 $57,190.00 ==T uition - PCSSO $115,000.00 --$115,000.00 $115,000.00 g~~'!!Y.en~~! and Severance Tax_ --$34,000.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 T~TAL !-_9CA_L_n~_E_N_U____ _____ -_-_-__ ----- =$14,795,500:00 $1 ~! 24,150.00 $15,565,600.00 REVENUEs, tATE ------ $115,000.00 --$115,000.00 $34,000.00 __ $34\n000:00 $15,676,500.00 $16, 1_73,900.00 --- MFPA--------~~~-~~~--~~-----i s11,05o,ooo.oo $17,400,000.00 -s11,15o,ooo.oo $16,100,000.00 sie\n~ao.000.00 ___ State ~~rtionment/Workers' Compensation $141,500.00 $145,000.00 $150,000.00 $160,000.00 $175,000.00 ,____ _ T!ans~!\"lation Aid - -$500,000.00 $510,000.00 $520,000.00 $530,000.00 $540,000.00 ==M -to-M Incentive __________ --$1,000,000.00 -$1,000,000.00 $1,000,000 00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Compensatory Education ~~-- --$480,000.00 $460,000.00 $480,000.00 $460,000.00 $480,000.00 ___ ~pe~ial Education Supervisor $67,150.00 - $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67,150.00 ==A ct 591 Residential __________ $40:000.00 1_ _ $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 ~peci~I Education Preschool $325,000.00 $331,500.00 $340,000.00 $344,750.00 $351,750.00 Vocational Education $20:000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 ==A BC Preschool --$20:000:00 $244,600.00 $249,700.00 $254,700.00 $259,600.00 De~~egation - Sec. Viii.B $369,025.00 -$309:025.00 $0.00 - $0.00 ---- - - so:oo ,__ __ , Mag~eVM-to-M Trans~rtalion $275,000.00 -$260,500.00 $266,100.00 $291,600.00 $297,700.00 ,__ __ 101her Stale $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 ___ Public Law 674 and Other $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 _ __ TOTAL STA TE AND UNRESTRICTED. FEDERAL Rf:'!'.ENUE ~0,592:675.00 $20,972,975.00 $20,967,950.00 $21,353,400.00 _ $21,776,400.00 77 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 1994-1999 OPERATING BUDGET l'IJNl\u0026gt;S 01, 02, .t. 04 TOTAL llEVENUE AND BALANCE.----EXPENDiTi. JnEs --------- --- saiai,es oeiier.1s Tuilioi, -- - ------- ----- -------- ------- Services ~~PR~~~ - -- -- ----- - ---- --- Equif)lllent Insurance/Other Debt Service TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE ---C--'--'---'-.c._--- - ---- FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) NDBALANCE -- -- -- --- - -------- - - TOTAL REVENUE A EXPENDITURES -- Saliines - ---- -- -- ------- ---------- Benefits --- Services - == Supelie~ __ ___ Equi~nt ---- ---- ----- - - --- ----- ---- ., __ ---- 01her TOTAL EXP ENDING BALANCE ENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY (05) BEGiNN ING BALANCE REVENU EXPEND ENDiNG E iruRES BALANCE. ------ --- BUILDING (03) BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDiru BALANCES AES . - --- - - ---------- - - - 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-96  PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION ------- $35,~63,625.00 _!35J IQ..9 50. oo $36,603:26~~00 $37,341,040.00 - ------- $26,650,000.00 $27,019,700.00 $27,300,995.00 $27,639,410.00 $2,950,000.00 $3,003,100.00 $3,033,100.00 -$3,oaD36o.oo $1,120,000.00 $1,140,160.00 $1,151,560.00 -$1, 169,505.00 $2,110,000.00 $2,147,980.00 $2,169,460.00 $2,204,170.00 - $1,275,000.00 $1,297,950.00 $1,310,930.00 -$1,331 :900.00 $135,000.00 $137,530.00 --siao:oos.oo --$141,130.00 - $190,000.00 $193,420.00 $195,355.00 $198,480.00 -$(200,000.00 $1,221,600.00 $1,233,815.00 $1,253,555.00 $35,630,000.00 $36,161,440.00 $36\ns34~0.00 la1,219:8oo.oo $33,825.00 --$9,510.00 $69,140.00 ----,121 : 150. 00 _ $3,251,536.~ $3,264,000.00 $3,330,000.00 $3,395,000.00 -$1,794,000.00 e-$1$~~=: ~!~:: $1,617, 120.-00 $1,854, 160.00 $515,000.00 $522,200:00 $533:260.00 --$330,000.00 $365,910.00 $369,570.00 $376,595.00 - --$270,000.00 -$270:ti75.00 -$273,300.00 -$278, 575: 00 ---$60,000.00 ---$60:iso.oo $60,750.00 $61,905.00 $31,000.00 $31,075.00 $31,390.00 --$31,985.00 $3,000,000.00 ~.042:985.00 $3,075,01 o:oo $3,136,480.00 ---$251,536.00 --s22i:015.oo --$25(990.00 ~58,520.00 --- $1,026.00 $11,028.00 $2,500.00 $10, $670,000.00 $1, 1 rn:soo.oo $1.137,aoo:oo $1,160, $660,000.00 $1~125:526.00 -Si\nl 30,ooo:oo -,D10, --m:02e.oo -- s,\nooo. oo ---$10,300.00 - $ $1,016,776.00 $866,776.00 $781,000.00 ~741,000.00 $50,000.00 $35,000.00 --$ 0:000.00 $45,000.00 $200,000.00 $120,776.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 __ !666: ??60. 0 -$781,000.00 $741,000.00 ~186,000:00 78 - 1996-99 PROJECTION $36,111,450.00 -$20.312,680.00 $3,134,050.00 $1, 189,875.00 $2,241,640.00 $1,354,545.00 ~-$143,530.00 $201,855.00 $1,274,865.00 ~I,~53,040.00 $258,410.00 $3,464,000.00 $1,693,240.00 $545,!~-00 $365,125.00 $264,150.00 $63,145.00 ~$32,625.00 --$3,203,415.00 ---$260:585.00 BUDGET NOTES BUDGET NOTES 1. Local tax collection in 1994-95 is projected to be less than 1993-94 due to the removal of household property from personal tax collections and the Omega decision. 2. The MFPA revenue projection is based on the state's addition of $27,000,000 to the public school fund for 1994-95. This projection is based on conversations with ADE personnel approximately two weeks ago. This projected MFPA does not equal the amount indicated by the state prior to the special legislative session earlier this year, but our weighted average daily membership has decreased by approximately 160 and the state was projecting the addition of $50,000,000 at that time. If the state does not add the $27,000,000 to the fund, the District will have to consider budget adjustments. 3. Due to Act 862 of 1993, it has been necessary to increase the costs for the fringe benefits. Workers' compensation costs are projected to increase to $360,000 for 1994-95, but additional state revenue for workers' comp will help offset approximately $140,000 of this cost. 4. The increase in capital outlay revenue for 1994-95 is based on the passage of two mills for capital outlay in September, 1994. The major part of these funds will be used for roof replacement, asbestos abatement, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, other facility and grounds improvements, and the purchase of equipmenc. The amount of increase for 1994-95 represents the 40 percent pullback amount. The bulk of the increase would be received in 1995-96 and is reflected on the five year projection. 5. The 1993-94 expenditures shown on pages 8-76 are year-todate expenditures through June 10, 1994. When the District books are closed at the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year, these reports will be updated. 6. The final desegregation payment from the state, L~SD, and PCSSD will be in 1995-96. Passage of a two mill tax increase in September, 1995, will be necessary to replace these funds. Our five year projection is based on the approval of this additional millage. 79 SALARY SCHEDULES NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE SALARY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 I II III IV V VI Steps MA MA+lS MA+30 MA+45 SPEC DOCT 00 26060 28138 30216 31255 32294 34372 01 27137 29215 31293 32332 33371 35449 02 28215 30293 32371 33410 3 4449 36527 03 29292 31370 33449 3448 8 35526 37605 04 30370 32448 34526 35565 36604 38682 05 31448 33526 35604 36643 37682 39760 06 32525 34603 36681 37720 38759 40837 07 35681 37759 38798 39837 41915 08 38837 39876 40914 42993 09 41992 44070 10 45148 POSITION INCREMENTS (% of Base Salary) OTHER INCREMENTS Administrative Asst. Asst. Prin (MS \u0026amp; Elem) Asst. Sr. High Prin. Elementary Principal Jr. High Principal Coordinator Supervisor Sr. High Principal Director Asst. Superintendent 8.0 10.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 23.0 23.0 35.0 Elementary principals are to receive an additional increment based on school enrollment ($1 per student in ADM based on previous year's third 9 weeks report.) Asst. Prin. and Adm. Asst. are to receive an additional increment based on school enrollment (.SO per student based on previous year's third 9 weeks report. ) All amounts are for 207 days of scheduled employment. FRINGE BENEFITS include $129.98 per month ($99.00 paid by state\n$30.98 paid by District) for an individual hospitalization plan, $3.11 per month for $21,000 life insurance coverage, and $16.72 per month for an individual dental/visual plan, $4.69 per month for hospital indemnity, and $15.83 per month to be applied toward other approved coverage. The Superintendent may withhold an increment for poor or unsatisfactory service. An effective evaluation with processes of communication and documentation must support the withholding of an increment for poor or unsatisfactory service. Procedures conforming to the North Little Rock School District evaluation program must be utilized. Steps are based on previous experience. 06/94 80 Steps 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS CLASSROOM TEACHERS' SALARY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 I II III IV V VI VII BA BA+12 BA+24 MA MA+l5 MA+30 MA+45 18200 19028 19856 20684 21512 22340 23168 23996 24825 25653 26481 27309 28137 28965 29793 19110 20020 19938 20849 20766 21677 21594 22505 22422 23333 23250 24161 24079 24989 24907 25817 25735 26645 26563 27473 27391 28302 28219 29130 29047 29958 29875 30786 30703 31614 20931 21759 22587 23415 24243 25071 25899 26728 27556 28384 29212 30040 30868 31696 32524 21841 22669 23497 24325 25154 25982 26810 27638 28466 29294 30122 30950 31778 32607 33435 34263 22752 23580 24408 25236 26064 26892 27720 28548 29376 30204 31033 31861 32689 33517 34345 35173 36001 23662 24490 25318 26146 26974 27803 28631 29459 30287 31115 31943 32771 33599 34427 35256 36084 36912 37740 VIII SPEC 24572 25400 26228 27057 27885 28713 2 9541 30369 31197 32025 32853 33681 34510 35338 36166 3699 4 37822 38650 IX DOCT 26393 27221 28049 28877 29706 30534 31362 32190 33018 33846 34674 35502 36330 37158 37986 3 8815 39643 40471 All amounts are for 187 days of scheduled employment. Steps are based on previous experience. FRINGE BENEFITS include $129.98 per month (99.00 paid by State\n30.98 paid by District) for an individual hospitalization plan, $3.11 per month for $21,000 life insurance coverage, and $16.72 per month for an individual dental/visual plan, $4.69 per month for hospital indemnity, and $15.83 per month to be applied toward other approved coverage. Assigned substitutes will be paid at an annual rate of $11,425. Regular substitutes will be paid $39.80 per day. To qualify for education increments beyond BA, a teacher must have been admitted as a candidate for a MA degree. To ensure salary credit for hours above the MA, prior approval by the Director of Personnel is required. 06 /94 31 II SENIOR HIGH SUPPLEMENTAL PAY SCHEDULE 1993-1994 (PERCENT OF BASE SALARY) Head Football Coach ....................... 30.0 Head Basketball Coach ..................... 27.0 Head Track Coach .......................... 23.0 Head Baseball Coach ....................... 23.0 Head Volleyball Coach ..................... 23.0 Head Soccer Coach ......................... 23.0 Assistant Coach ........................... 20.0 Golf Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 0 Tennis Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0 Swimming Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. O Band Director ............................. 15. 0 Choral Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 0 Drill Team Sponsor. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 0 Cheerleader Sponsor ....................... 7.0 Yearbook Advisor .......................... 4. 0 Newspaper Advisor ......................... 4. 0 Literary Magazine Advisor ................. 4.0 Drama, Debate ............................. 4.0 Senior Class Chairperson .................. 4. 0 Senior Class Committee Member ............. 3.0 Student Council Advisor ................... 3. 0 Department Chairperson .................... 3.0 MIDDLE SCHOOL Al 1 Coaches ............................... 15 . 0 Band Director ............................. 10.0 Chor al Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0 Cheerleader Sponsor ....................... 3.0 Pep Club Sponsor .......................... 2.0 Student Council Advisor. .................. 3.0 Department Chairperson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 0 School Newspaper .......................... 2.0 Literary Anthology ........................ 2.0 ALL AMOUNTS ARE FOR 187 DAYS OF SCHEDULED EMPLOYMENT. 82 Ref: CLSOOlS NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: 6/06/94 CLASSIFIED HOURLY SCHEDULE Time: 10:11:35 SCHOOL YE.AR 93-94 REVISION AS OF: 6/15/94 Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount 001 4.51 051 7.42 101 12.20 002 4.55 052 7.49 102 12.32 003 4.59 053 7.56 103 12.44 004 4.64 054 7.63 104 12.56 005 4.69 055 7. 72 105 12.68 006 4.75 056 7.80 106 12.82 007 4.80 057 7.88 107 12.95 008 4.85 058 7.96 108 13.08 009 4.90 059 8.04 109 13 .21 010 4.95 060 8.12 110 13 .34 011 5.00 061 8.20 111 13. 4 7 012 5.05 062 8.28 112 13. 61 013 5.10 063 8.36 113 13. 74 014 5.15 064 8.45 114 13. 88 015 5.20 065 8.53 115 14.02 016 5.25 066 B.61 116 14.16 017 5.30 067 B.69 117 14.31 01B 5.35 068 B.78 11B 14.45 I 019 5.40 069 B.87 119 14.59 020 5.45 070 8.96 120 14.73 021 5.51 071 9.05 121 14.B8 022 5.56 072 9.15 122 15.04 023 5.61 073 9.24 123 15.19 024 5.67 074 9.33 124 15.34 025 5.73 075 9.42 125 15.49 026 5.79 076 9.51 126 15.64 027 5.85 077 9.60 127 15.80 02B 5.91 07B 9. 69 128 15. 96 029 5.97 079 9.79 129 16.12 030 6.03 080 9.90 130 16.28 031 6.09 0B1 10.00 131 16.45 032 6.15 082 10.10 132 16.61 033 6.22 083 10.20 133 16.77 034 6.28 084 10.30 134 16. 94 035 6.34 085 10.40 135 17 .11 036 6.40 086 10.50 136 17.29 037 6.46 087 10.61 137 17.46 038 6.52 088 10. 71 138 17.63 039 6.58 089 10.82 139 17.80 040 6.64 090 10.93 140 17.99 041 6.71 091 11.04 141 18.17 042 6.78 092 11.15 142 18.35 043 6.85 093 11.26 143 18.53 044 6.92 094 11. 38 144 18. 72 045 7.00 095 11.49 145 18.90 046 7.07 096 11.60 146 19.09 047 7.14 097 11. 71 147 19.28 048 7.21 098 11. 83 148 19.48 049 7.28 099 11. 95 149 19.67 050 7.35 100 12.08 150 19.86 83 Ref: CLS004 Date: 6/06/94 Time: 10:09:43 CLASSIFIED CATEGORIES School Year 1993-1994 From Thru Catno Description Step Step Catno Description 200, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT (35\\) 80 104 711 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN 205 SECRETARY (12\\) ASST.SUPT 63 90 712 ELECTRICAL HELPER 209 SUPERVISOR-BOOKKEEPING 115 127 715 ENERGY SPECIALIST 210 BOOKKEEPER (10\\) 61 89 716 MAINTENANCE ENERGY MNGT 2.15 SECR DIR/PRIN ( 9\\) 50 80 717 EMS HELPER 220 SECR ELEM PRIN (6\\) 47 78 718 MAINTENANCE HELPER 225 OFFICE SECRETARY (St) 47 78 720 LEAD HVAC 227 ELEM SECRETARY (3\\) 45 76 721 HVAC MECHANIC 230 SECRETARY 41 74 722 HVAC HELPER 231 MEDIA CLERK 41 74 725 LABOR FOREMAN 232 GUIDANCE CLERK 41 74 726 GENERAL LABOR LEADER 235 GENERAL OFFICE CLERK 41 74 727 GENERAL LABOR 240 241 245 246 250 251 252 260 265 275 280 400 401 402 403 404 501 503 505 507 509 511 600 601 602 603 SPECIAL ED ASSISTANTS ALC/SAC ASSISTANT COMPUTER LAB ASSISTANT CHAPTER I ASSISTANT HIPPY HOME VISITOR PARENT CENTER AIDE EVENSTART LUNCH AIDES CROSSING GUARDS ELECTRONIC TECH ELECTRONIC TECH LEAD NURSE (LPN) NURSE (ASSOCIATE) NURSE (DIPLOMA) NURSE (BS) NURSE (MS) HEAD MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC'S HELPER BUS DRIVER BUS AIDE DISPATCHER CUSTODIAN LEAD CUSTODIAN LEAD CUSTODIAN W T/C HEAD CUSTODIAN 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 15 15 62 92 66 75 84 99 112 85 75 43 39 15 43 15 24 28 34 74 728 74 729 74 735 74 736 74 737 74 740 74 741 so 742 50 745 97 746 145 747 97 765 108 901 117 902 131 903 142 904 116 905 111 906 78 907 69 908 50 909 87 910 ,so 911 61 912 64 72 604 HEAD CUSTODIAN W T/C 38 75 605 MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAN 43 78 606 MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAN WTC 47 81 607 WAREHOUSEMAN 43 78 608 CUSTODIAL TEMPORARIES 1 14 610 CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR 62 97 700 SUPVR OF PLANT SERVICES 92 149 701 SAFETY COORDINATOR 62 97 705 LEAD CARPENTER 85 136 706 MAINTENANCE CARPENTER 62 97 707 CARPENTER'S HELPER 36 78 710 LEAD ELECTRICIAN 92 136 710 LEAD ELECTRICIAN 92 136 84 GEN LABOR-STADIUM ATTND MAINTENANCE TEMPORARIES LEAD PAINTER PAINTER PAINTER HELPER LEAD PLUMBER MAINTENANCE PLUMBER PLUMBER HELPER LEAD ROOFER ROOFER ROOFER HELPER SECURITY MONITOR FOOD SERV ASST. (WORKER) FOOD SERV MGR/ELM/NON-CER FOOD SERV MGR/ELEM/CERT FOOD SERV MGR/SEC/NON-CER FOOD SERV MGR/SEC/CERT FOOD SERV ASST, MGR HS/NC FOOD SERV ASST MGR/HS/C FOOD SRV WREHSE MGR/NC FOOD SERV WREHSE MGR/CER FOOD SERV WREHSE ASST. FOOD SERV MGR/SUB/NC FOOD SERV MGR/SUB/CERT From Thru Step Step 85 116 36 78 92 138 62 97 36 78 36 78 92 136 85 116 36 78 62 97 21 78 21 74 21 19 85 62 36 92 85 36 85 55 36 21 15 24 28 34 38 24 28 42 46 36 24 28 74 30 136 97 78 136 116 78 97 82 78 97 so 61 64 72 75 61 64 78 80 78 61 64 I  I I  I CLASSIFIED SALARY SCHEDULE LONGEVITY PAY Employees that have reached the top of their salary range and are not eligible for another step will be awarded one percent (1%) longevity pay. Longevity pay is one percent of the base rate of the entry level for an employee's range. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INCREMENTS FOR SECRETARIES Basic.................................................. 3.0 Associate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. O Advanced I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . O Advanced II............................................ 8. o Advanced III............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 0 Professional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 0 Certified .............................................. 10. 0 Associate Degree ....................................... 8.0 Secretarial Diploma .................................... 8.0 (The above increments for secretaries are based on step 43.) 85 PROGRAMA NALYSIS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR ARMY ]ROTC PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North little Rock School district is in the process of implementing an Army ]ROTC program for the 1994-95 school year. After reviewing the objectives of the JROTC program and matching those objectives with the goals of the school district, JROTC was considered to be an excellent curricular vehicle to help achieve some of the district's goals. The positive image and reputation of Army ]ROTC programs will enhance the school climate at both campuses of North little Rock High School. Because the U.S. Army bears the major financial burden in implementing ]ROTC and provides annual on-going financial support, the benefits of the program can be realized with a small annual financial obligation incurred by the school district. BACKGROUND The Congressional Record of October i, 1992, contains the following statement in regard to the nationwide expansion of the JROTC program. \"It is a purpose of the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps to instill in students in United States secondary educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the United States, and personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment.\" By expanding the number of ]ROTC programs, the Department of Defense is assisting schools who are working to meet the President's America 2000 Education goals. The North little Rock School District's goals, approved in the \\lay. 1994, Board of Education meeting, are consistent with the America 2000 goals. Specifically. ]ROTC programs can assist schools in meeting the following America 2000 goals and North little Rock School District goals: GOAL #2- high school completion GOAL #3- student achievement GOAL #5- citizenship GOAL #6- safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools After information about the expansion of ]ROTC programs was brought to our attention. it was decided to study the program. A study cornrninee was formed in late October, 1993. The cornrninee was convened on November 9, 1993, and completed its work on December 6, 1993. Committee composition included students, parents, teachers, administrators. and military representatives from Camp Robinson and Fisher Armory. lieutenant Colonel Teny Riddle of the U.S. Fourth Army's Warlord Brigade met with the committee on November 9 and offered technical assistance throughout the process. At the December 6 meeting, the committee recommended that an application for an Army JROTC program be submitted and. if approved. the program would be implemented in the 1994-95 school year. The Implementation Plan Section of this program analysis will detail additional steps taken by the North Little Rock School District in implementing JROTC. 86 PROBLEM DEFINITION The Army JROTC Program will provide students and staff with a vehicle to improve the school climate. develop student leaders. stress citizenship anc team work. and provide opportunities for \"unconnected\" students to find \"connections\" to school through enhanced self-esteem and participation in extra-curricular activities. After analyzing the JROTC program and considering its purpose in relation to school district goals. the following options appeared evident to us. 1. An application for an Anny ]ROTC program would not be submitted. This option was rejected. :?.. The application process could be delayed until the 1994-95 school year with implementation in 1995-96. Originally, the Department of Defense planned for an orderly growth of 200 programs annually over a five-year expansion plan. A combination of too rapid grov.th in programs and Congressional cutbacks in defense budgets suggests that the opportunity to apply may not exist in the 1994-95 school year. This option was rejected, also. 3. An application for a ]ROTC Program will be submitted for implementation in 1994-95. High schools in urban areas with significant minority populations and with children living in poverty were targeted in the expansion program. The district's JROTC study committee became convinced that North Little Rock High School met the criteria for JROTC expansion. In January, 1994, when Lt. Col. Riddle submitted applications from a four state area, North Little Rock High School's application was given the highest priority by Colonel Riddle. Ours was the first application approved in the four state area and one of only twenty-five ( 25) apprqved nationwide. RECO~TIATIONS The JROTC Study Cornmitte recommended at its December 6 meeting that the North Little Rock School District should apply for an Army JROTC Program. Superintendent James Smith accepted the committee's recommendation and presented the proposal to the North Little Rock Board of Education at their December 21 meeting where it was approved. An application for an Army JROTC program was immediately filed with Lt. Col. Riddle. OBJECTIVES Program objectives are: 1. teach decision making/problem solving skills 2. provide positive role models 3. develop leadership potential 4. strengthen self-esteem 5. promote disciplined environment G. develop responsibility - develop self-confidence 8. teach goal-setting 9. prevent alcohol and drug abuse 10. present career opportunities 87  11. enhance communication skills . 12. recognize student success/accomplishments 13. conduct citizenship training 14. build successful teams 15. promote physical fitness IMPACT ANALYSIS The impact of an Army ]ROTC program should be evident at both high school campuses in the following ways: 1. new and emerging student leaders 2. enhanced self-esteem 3. elevated levels of citizenship 4. improved levels of physical fitness 5. over time, increasing numbers of high school graduates 6. positive alternatives to drug abuse behavior and gangs , . strengthened links to the community through highly visible extracurricular activities RESOURCES ANALYSIS Expenses for an Anny JROTC Program are borne in large part by the U.S. Army. School districts are responsible for personnel costs, providing appropriate classroom and storage space, and providing instructors with teaching supplies. Personnel costs are dependent on the rank and length of service for an officer and a NCO. The U.S. Anny reimburses the school district 50% of the difference in the active duty and retired pay of the officer and non-commissioned officer. Annual personnel costs for two instructors are estimated to be $25,000 to $30,000 for both. One time costs for preparing classrooms to meet JROTC specifications are estimated to be approximately $5,000. Approximately 190 students in grades nine through twelve have enrolled in JROTC for 1994-95. Shifts in student course selections brought about by the introduction of JROTC into the high school curriculum should result in reduced staffing needs in other areas. In summary, ]ROTC can be implemented in 1994-95 at a cost of approximately $35,000 and can be funded through reduced personnel costs in the secondary program. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS FOR: Surveys we!\"e conducted with students and parents to determine interest in enrolling in the JROTC Program. Students in grades eight through twelve were surveyed with 310 students indicating that they would enroll in JROTC. The following table details student interest by race and gender. BM # students f:B percentage 22% BF 88 28% WM % 31% WF 53 17% CM CF 1 3 0.3% 1% TOTAL 310 99.3% One hundred parents were selected by computer for the survey. Even though only thirteen ( 13) parents returned the survey with ten (10) indicating their support of the program, parents in the community have expressed their support of the program . 8.8 AGAINST: Some secondary students indicated on their survevs that they did not support a ]ROTC program and saw no reason for it to be included in the high 'school curriculum. Because of the overall positive image of ]ROTC programs across the country and in the schools in Pulaski County. no negati\\E'. telephone calls or letters have been received. IMPLEMEJ\\TATIOK PLAJ\\ enroll students for 1994-95 interview applicants for the position of Senior Army Instructor employed Lt. Col. Artis Lofton for the position of Senior Army Instructor interview applicants for the position of non-commissioned officer prepare classrooms for ]ROTC implement ]ROTC program RESPONSIBILITY WHE~ principal/counselors Feb - April 1994 Director of Personnel April. 1994 Director of Sec Education high school principals Director of Personnel May 26, 1994 Director of Sec Education high school principals Director of Personnel May - June Director of Sec Education 1994 high school principals Director of School Plant June - July Services 1994 high school principals ]ROTC instructors August, 1994 high school principals 89 EXEClJITVES UMMARY NORTII UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DIS1RICT PRCXiRAMA NALYSIS FOR READINGR ECOVERY The North Little Rock School District has an extraordinaryl egacy of servicet o children. Since 1989. this tradition has expanded to include extensive efforts on behalf of very young children. The nern.ork of preschool programs is being supplemented in kinderganen and first grade with compensatory programs and the Early Prevention of School Failure. In 1991, the District began the Reading Recovery Program for first graders in mo elementary schools. The program has expanded each year until, presently, eight teachers are v.orking in eight schools implementing Reading Recovery. Believing thar Reading Recovery helps at-risk first graders deYelop strategies that will enable them to become independent readers, the North Little Rock School District proposes to expand the program by employing and training three additional teachers to teach in at least three additional schools at an approximate cost of $110,000. BACKGROUND The North Little Rock School District serves large numbers of disadvantaged children. Knowing that disadvantaged children come to school already functioning below peer level, District planners have emphasized early learning opportunities such as the Reading Recovery Program, 'Mlich was initiated in 1991 and has expanded each year until eight teachers now v.ork in eight of the fifteen elementary schools. Results of the Reading Recovery emanating from Ohio State University indicate that 85 percent of the children exiting the program stay on or above grade level through their elementary education years. Pretest/posttestr esults and student observationsi n the District indicates ubstantialr eading improvement for the students participating in the program. PROBLEM DEFINTTION Additional Reading Recovery teachers will help selected children move closer to grade level in their academic ability. Because larger numbers of minority children reach first grade without necessary readinesss kills. the selection processw ill automaticallyt arget disproportionaten umbers of minority children. The outcome should be improvement in the learning disparity gap bern,een black and 'Mlite children. RECOrvtMENDATIONS That three additional Reading Recovery teachers be employed. This will bring the total number of Reading Recovery teachers to eleven serving at least eleven elementary schools, with the goal being to serve all 15 regular elementary schools. 90 OBJECTIVF.S Program objectives are: ... to teach selected first graders in at least three schools using the Reading Recovery method ...t o reinforcet he District's objectiveo f reducingt he disparityg ap in student perfonnance Ilv1PACTA NALYSIS The Reading Recovery Program will impact the North Little Rock School District in multiple \\vays including: ... compliance with the Desegregation Plan v,hich requires itinerant reading and/or math specialists, as needed, to deliver supplementary instruction to students scoring below the 20 percentile. See North Littie Rock Plan at page 36.  ... improved reading instruction for selected students ... improved general reading instruction by teachers as Reading Recovery techniques are disseminated to classroom teachers ... improved learning opportunities for the children v.ho avoid remediation through their school careers. RESOURCES The three Reading Recovery teachersw ill be funded from desegregations ettlementm oney at an estimated cost of $110,000. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces for Principals of the elementary schools are unanimously supportive of Reading Recovery. Both classroom teachers and existing Reading Recovery teachers are unequivocal in their support of expanding Reading Recovery to all elementary schools. North Little Rock's limited experience with Reading Recovery also suggests substantial reading improvement by participants. Fore es against: The only negative consideration is the cost of Reading Recovery on a per student basis which would be approximately $1,800. IMPLBvlENTA TIONP LAN Announce 3 Reading Recovery positions Interview applicants for Reading Recovery Positions Identify schools to be included Hire Reading Recovery Teachers Arrange training at UALR Implement in at least three scliools Person Responsible Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Director of Elementary Education Director of Personnel Director of Elementary Education Principals and Staff 91 May, 1994 June, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1994 August, 1994\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_283","title":"Business cases","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/283"],"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\nB4062202 1000/08/11 LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 94-95 1. Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $40,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 2. Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 3. Rockefeller Incentive school Alternative Room Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 4. Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 5. Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme. * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools* * * Addition, 4- $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 6. Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 7. Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. * 8. Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher). * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,5(X) * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 9. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research, * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 For half-time Spanish Teacher 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. * 10. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, 4- $75,000 * 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. * Withdrawn. 11. Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 12. English As a Second Language (ESL) Program. *4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Addition and Modification, + $75,880 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1595. * Budgeted. 13. Language Arts and Mathematics. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Modification, + $21,100 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 67, function 1570. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. 14. Applied Biology and Chemistry. * *  * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, + $93,000, Carl Perkins Funds 8/9. Federal grant\nin the Federal budget but not in the operational budget. Located at Fund 06, source 81. Budgeted. * * 15. Science Curriculum Revision. * 4/15 Court Submission * * * * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Modification, + $10,000 8/ 9. Included in the 8/ 8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. 16. Foreign Language Program.* 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, -I- $7,500 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Also Deseg * program #12. Budgeted. 17. Science Program. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category 11, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Addition, + $25,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. * 18. Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative. *4/15 Court Submission * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 1120. * Budgeted. 19. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 142. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -I- $15,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Includes an FTE. Budgeted. 20. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation - Staff Development. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 143. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -(- $7,500 8/9. An ADE grant which has yet to be received. Is not included in the 8/8 as either a revenue or expense. Pending ADE funding. * * 21. Social Studies Department Secretarial Position. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 149. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, + $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 128, function 2212. Includes an FTE.* Budgeted. 22. Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 155. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $40,670 * Use existing position within the District. No position identified. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. No cost transfer of position from King. * Budgeted. 23. Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 159. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $3,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1120. * Budgeted. 24. Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 164. Category III, Related Desegregation/ ADE Addition, + $16,000 from 93-94 and -I- $48,750 from 94-95 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 64, function 2324. Also in Deseg Program # 06. Only $16,000 included for 94-95. Other items were purchased out of 93-94 funds. Budgeted. 25. Student Assignment Office Reorganization. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 173. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $26,000 from 93-94 and approximately $23,000 from 94-95 8/9. No dollar expenditures are included in the 94-95 budget. This business case linked to # 24. All of the furniture items were purchased from 93-94 funds. Budgeted at no cost for this year. * * 26. Safety and Security Department. * 6/28/93 Court Submission. Original Business Case submitted. * 5/18 Court Submission, page 23. Revises the original for 94-95. * No category. * * Addition, + $128,500 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 87, function 2586, object 310. There is a total of $257,000 which includes carrying forward last year's* program and an increase for this year. Budgeted. n. Teaching Assistants/Substitutes. * * * * * * * 5/18 Court Submission, page 32. No category. This proposal was not in the Business case format, and had no cost/savings information included. Nonetheless, it was listed as a Business Case. Addition, + unknown. 6/14 Board meeting. Proposal put into loose Business Case format\nstill no financial analysis provided. Does not address the problem. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 28. Stephens School Relocation. * * * * 5/18 Court Submission, page 33. No category. Deletion, - $1,300,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Stephens school removed for the year to the total of the $1300,000. Budgeted. * 29. Baseline School Relocation. * 6/14 Board meeting. * No category. * Deletion, - $1,000,000 * Draft Business Case only, handed out at Board meeting. * 8/9. Issue dead for this budget cycle. * Dead. 30. Staff Attorney. * * 4c * * * 6/14 board meeting. No category. Addition, + $94^55 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/23 Board meeting. Approved by the Board. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Discussed but no action taken. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 75, function 2315, various object codes. Budgeted. * *31. Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. * 6/14 Board meeting. Handed out. * No category. *  * * * * Modification, no cost. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 14. Discussed. Will require plan modification. More information in the July hearing. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Letter from Mayo to Williams stating the business case must be modified, however, no modified business case is submitted. Modification still needs to be done. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Updated and revised business case included. This involves no new position, but rather a restructuring of Arma Hart's old position. No additional cost involved over last year. Budgeted. 32. Great Expectations Program. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Williams says the district is working on a business case for the Board. ODM has not seen one at this point. Should result in $2,000,000 savings. 8/4 meeting. During a meeting with Matthis and Ingram, they provided a copy of a business case dated June 30, 1994, and entitled \"Great Expectations Pilot Program for Selected Incentive Schools\". They indicated the business case would be filed with the Court on Monday, August 8. This program wiU have no additional cost. 8/9. Business case included in the 8/ 8 budget document. No additional cost to the budget. Active. * * * * 33. Incentive School Plan Double Funding. * * * 6/20 Court Submission, page 118. They are working on modifications to the Incentive School programs. Do not have them ready at this point. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11 and A-1. Judge is expecting a business case on these changes. No business case has been prepared at this time. 7/21 Notice of Filing. District submitted the business case for Incentive School Plan Doub le F unding. This was a much improved version * * * of the older business case just referencing plan modification. 7/26 Special Board meeting. Matthis made a short presentation to the Board on this business case. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at various line items. The total reduction stands at $812309.17, and these have been pulled from the 8/8 budget. Revised business case included in the budget document. Budgeted.34. Academic Progress Incentive Grants. * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Recommends modifying the desegregation plan. Would modify program structure with no additional cost ($320,000 already budgeted). 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. $320,000 located at function 1580, object 310. Also in Deseg Program #13. Budgeted. 35. Incentive School Plan Modifications - Spanish Program. * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Additional cost of $149,000 for 4 FTE's, plus other costs. Not sure how this business case relates to Case #2, 4, 6, 11,33. * 8/9. Draft budget document contained a reduction of $149,000 resulting from pulling this business case. The $149,000 was never added into the budget document. Budget document 8/8 does not include in money. This business case pulled by the business case on double funding. * Inactive. 36. Outsourcing Transportation. * * * * 6/30 Board meeting. 'Tosition Paper\" prepared in modified business case format. Not a business case at this point. Milhollen reads the paper to the Board. No action taken. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Case included in the budget document. Would save $1 million over 3 years. 7/18 Board meeting. Issue dropped due to lack of quorum and the drop-dead date of 7/18. Standby. 37. Transportation. * 8/5 meeting. Morgan/Mooney meet with Milhollen on the budget. $13M is being added to fix the transportation problem. $1M for purchasing buses, and $300K for support personnel. A business case should be prepared for the $13 M and what it will be used for\npossibly a budget cover letter. Mayo informed on 8/5. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget document. $1.3 M\n$1M for buses, $300K for personnel.B4062202 1000/08/11 LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 94-95 X Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition. + $40,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. X Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X Rockefeller Incentive school Alternative Room Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, -I- $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme. * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools* * * Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. % Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. X- Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher). * * * * 4/ 15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. Dead X- Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 For half-time Spanish Teacher 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, 4- $75,000 * 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration* at this time. Withdrawn.  Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X- English As a Second Language (ESL) Program. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category 11, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Addition and Modification, + $75,880 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1595. Budgeted. o * Language Arts and Mathematics. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Modification, + $21,100 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 67, function 1570. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. iX- Applied Biology and Chemistry. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, + $93,000, Carl Perkins Funds 8/9. Federal grant\nin the Federal budget but not in the operational budget. Located at Fund 06, source 81. Budgeted. Science Curriculum Revision. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, + $10,000 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. * Budgeted. Foreign Language Program.* 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, 4- $7,500 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212, Also Deseg program #12. * Budgeted. Science Program. * * * * * 15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, 4- $25,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. iX Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative. *4/15 Court Submission * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 1120. * Budgeted. * Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation. * * * * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 142. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $15,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Includes an FTE. Budgeted. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation - Staff Development. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 143. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $7,500 8/9. An ADE grant which has yet to be received. Is not included in the 8/8 as either a revenue or expense. Pending ADE funding. Social Studies Department Secretarial Position. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 149. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 128, function 2212. Includes an FTE.* Budgeted. X- Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 155. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $40,670 * Use existing position within the District. No position identified. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. No cost transfer of position from King. * Budgeted. X Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 159. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $3,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1120. * Budgeted. Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 164. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, + $16,000 from 93-94 and -I- $48,750 from 94-95 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 64, function 2324. Also in Deseg Program # 06. Only $16,000 included for 94-95. Other items were purchased out of 93-94 funds. Budgeted. Student Assignment Office Reorganization. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 173. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -h $26,000 from 93-94 and approximately 4- $23,000 from 94-95 8/9. No dollar expenditures are included in the 94-95 budget. This business case linked to # 24. AU of the furniture items were purchased from 93-94 funds. Budgeted at no cost for this year. Safety and Security Department. 6/28/93 Court Submission. Original Business Case submitted. 5/18 Court Submission, page 23. Revises the original for 94-95. No category. Addition, 4- $128,500 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 87, function 2586, object 310. There is a total of $257,000 which includes carrying forward last year's* program and an increase for this year. Budgeted. Teaching Assistants/Substitutes. *5/18 Court Submission, page 32. * * * * * No category. This proposal was not in the Business case format, and had no cost/savings information included. Nonetheless, it was listed as a Business Case. Addition, + unknown. 6/14 Board meeting. Proposal put into loose Business Case format\nstill no financial analysis provided. Does not address the problem. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. * Withdrawn. Stephens ' ' * * ' * * * 1 School Relocation. 5/18 Court Submission, page 33. No category. Deletion, - $1,300,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Stephens school removed for the year to the total of the $1300,000. Budgeted. 29 Baseline School Relocation. * 6/14 Board meeting. * No category. * Deletion,-$1,000,000 * Draft Business Case only, handed out at Board meeting. * 8/9. Issue dead for this budget cycle. * Dead. Staff Attorney. - 6/14 board meeting. * * * * * * * No category. Addition, + $94^55 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/ 23 Board meeting. Approved by the Board. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Discussed but no action taken. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 75, function 2315, various object codes. Budgeted.Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. * * * * * * * 6/14 Board meeting. Handed out. No category. Modification, no cost. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 14. Discussed. Will require plan modification. More information in the July hearing. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Letter from Mayo to Williams stating the business case must be modified, however, no modified business case is submitted. Modification still needs to be done. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Updated and revised business case included. This involves no new position, but rather a restructuring of Arma Hart's old position. No additional cost involved over last year. Budgeted. / Great Expectations Program. * 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Williams says the district is working on a * business case for the Board. ODM has not seen one at this point. Should result in $2,000,000 savings. 8/ 4 meeting. During a meeting with Matthis and Ingram, they provided a copy of a business case dated June 30, 1994, and entitled \"Great * * Expectations Pilot Program for Selected Incentive Schools\". They indicated the business case would be filed with the Court on Monday, August 8. This program will have no additional cost. 8/9. Business case included in the 8/8 budget document. No additional cost to the budget. Active. 33 Incentive School Plan Double Funding. * * * 6/20 Court Submission, page 118. They are working on modifications to the Incentive School programs. Do not have them ready at this point. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11 and A-1. Judge is expecting a business case on these changes. No business case has been prepared at this time. 7/21 Notice of Filing. District submitted the business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. This was a much improved version * * * of the older business case just referencing plan modification. 7/26 Special Board meeting. Matthis made a short presentation to the Board on this business case. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at various line items. The total reduction stands at $812,309.17, and these have been pulled from the 8/8 budget. Revised business case included in the budget document. Budgeted. - X Academic Progress Incentive Grants. * * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Recommends modifying the desegregation plan. Would modify program structure with no additional cost ($320,000 already budgeted). 8/9. Included in the 8/ 8 budget. $320,000 located at function 1580, object 310. Also in Deseg Program # 13. Budgeted. Incentive School Plan Modifications - Spanish Program. * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Additional cost of $149,000 for 4 PTE's, plus other costs. Not sure how this business case relates to Case #2,4, 6, 11,33. 8/9. Draft budget document contained a reduction of $149,000 resulting from pulling this business case. The $149,000 was never added * into the budget document. Budget document 8/8 does not include in money. This business case pulled by the business case on double funding. Inactive. 36. Outsourcing Transportation. * * * * 6/30 Board meeting. Tosition Paper\" prepared in modified business case format. Not a business case at this point. Milhollen reads the paper to the Board. No action taken. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Case included in the budget document. Would save $1 million over 3 years. 7/18 Board meeting. Issue dropped due to lack of quorum and the drop-dead date of 7/18. Standby. Transportation. * 8/5 meeting. Morgan/Mooney meet with Milhollen on the budget. SUM is being added to fix the transportation problem. $1M for purchasing buses. and $300K for support personnel. A business case should be prepared for the $13 M and what it will be used for\npossibly a budget cover letter. Mayo informed on 8/5. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget document. $13 M\n$1M for buses, $300K for personnel.DRAFT Little Rock School District Baseline School Relocation Business Case I Executive Summary Baseline has become inadequate as a public school because of its declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. It is one of several schools annexed from Pulaski County in 1987. It was built in 1975 and experienced minor renovations in 1991. The building sits on 8 acres and houses 50,455 square feet It is located in the southwest area of the City of Little Rock near the boundary between Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, this location prevents the proper desegregating of this school under our plan. Further, student enrollment has declined and costs increased during the last five years at Baseline. In recent years, enrollment at Baseline School has declined. Since the 1989-90 school year, the number of students attending Baseline School has dropped from 389 students to 344 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 282 next year while its capacity is 390. Parallel to dechning enrollment is the increasing costs per pupil at Baseline. The cost for 1993-94 is $2,841 per pupil. If the same amotmt is budgeted for 1994-95, the per pupil cost will be $3,455. By closing this school, a savings of almost $1 milhon can be realized. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Baseline's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. On the south and east side of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Baseline are not possible because PCSSD needs the whites in that area of the county for their own desegregation purposes. Surrounding the Baseline attendance zone within the city are neighborhoods and attendance zones that are predominately black. These two circumstances cause Baseline to be \"zone locked\". Additionally, Baseline's attendance zone is 72% black. Though the current enrollment of the school does not come only from the attendance zone, the school is at 77% black. The recommended solution is to: Z Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the -problem. addresses all three areas of the problem. This alternative a) b) c) d) A plan to redraw attendance zone lines in this area will be devised\nAn immediate savings of approximately 1 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Baseline will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. To implement this solution, the desegregation plan must be modified. The district is aware of the concern that will rise in the Baseline community about the closing of the school. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. This and the fear that city services such as potice and fire will not be as efficient are of paramoimt concern to many in the commuiuty. Some will want to know if a plan 5/4/94Baseline School Relocation Business Case 2 DRAFT 5/4/94 exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. While these understandable, we believe we can offer economical way. concerns are our students equal opportunities in a more Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some their friends\ndisappointment in being separated from 2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the 3. community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency oc the community\n4- Criticism of closing a relatively new facility (1975) may arise\nand. 5. The general southwest community may react to the redrawing of attendance in that general area of the city. zones Positives 1. 2. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\nSpecial activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school 3. to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n4. Patrons will be included tn appropriate school correspondence and activities currently eruolled patrons in that school\nas are 5. Baseline is not located in a residential area emotional reaction\nand therefore its closing may receive less Children who walk will no longer have to cross school\na major thorough fare to get to 6. 7. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Baseline\nImmediate and million\nand. year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $1 8. The ^asAine. School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools. transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment No additional personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating __3________L T* .1 ..... students, staff, and equipment Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the total budgeted cost of Baseline School for 1994-95 is expected to be saved. This savings is a year-to-year savings. SutauR^ 67 Dr. Hmry P. W.Uunu, Supwutiwtexi n/0/4 BC_B5LNKBaseline School Relocation Business Case 3 DRAFT 5/4/94 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ________________________Milestone______________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval__________________ Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation____ Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately___________ Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Baseline School______________ Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.______________________ Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process__________ Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Baseline School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Baseline School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone._________________ Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: Date 5/12/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/18/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/18/94 10. 11. a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-tOHdoor delivery in the neighborhood Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-to\u0026lt;loor delivery in the neighijorhood 5/20/94 5/20/94 SrZAIQA, Person Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Williams Modeste Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting Conduct community information meeting by____________________________________ Inventory building ______________________________ Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest.________________________ Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment________________ Remove materials and equipment from school_________________________ Reroute transportation of students______________________________ Secure building_________________________________________ Reassign staff ______________________________ Send final assignment notices iubmittad by Dr. Henry P. Willuinfc SuperMit\u0026gt;s\u0026gt;4a\\t 5/24/94 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/1/94 6/15/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Mayo Williams Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Montgomery Eaton Hurley Mayo (H/tA/n BC_BSLNIBaseline School Relocation Business Case 4 DRAFT 5/4/94 I Background   Baseline Elementary School was one of several schools included in the annexation of Pulaski County land by the City of Little Rock in 1987. It was built in 1975 and experienced minor renovations in 1991. The building sits on 8 acres and houses 50,455 square feet It is located in the southwest area of the City of Little Rock near the boundary between Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, this location prevents the proper desegregating of this school under our plan. Further, student enrollment has declined and costs increased during the last five years at Baseline. I Problem Definition  Baseline has become inadequate as a public school because of its declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. In recent years, enrollment at Baseline School has declined. Since the 1989-90 school year, the number of students attending Baseline School has dropped from 389 students to 344 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 282 next year while its capacity is 390. This decUne is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Baseline Elementary Enrollment (October of each year) Schoa^ Baseline 1989 389 1990 370 1991 1992 337- 1993 344 Proj, 282 Parallel to declining enrollment is the increasing costs per pupil at Baseline. The cost for 1993-94 is $2,841 per pupil. If the same amount is budgeted for 1994-95, the per pupil cost will be $3,455. By closing this school, a savings of almost $1,000,000 can be realized. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. T ...... Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Baseline's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. On the south and east side of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary Une. M-M transfers across that line to Baseline are not possible because PCSSD needs to keep whites in that area of the county for their own desegregation purposes. Surrounding the Baseline attendance zone within the city are neighborhoods and attendance that are predominately black. These two circumstances cause Baseline to be zones \"zone locked\". Additionally, Baseline's attendance zone is 72% black. Though the current Subciuntd by Dr. Houy P. Willumi. Swpvuilwolatl BC.^SU\u0026lt;EBaseline School Relocation Business Case 5 DRAFT 5/4/94 enrollment of the school does not come only from the attendance zone, the school 77% black. is at I Amihjsis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, percentage of black students in the school as well as in the attendance zone has been reviewed. Upon careful consideration, three aspects had to be considered in resolving the problem. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. 2. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nRedraiv the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Baseline School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Baseline but will increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Baseline'i s. This does not address the imbalanced attendance zones surrounding Baseline created bv its location. schools. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other 3. Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the problem. addresses all three areas of the problem. This alternative a) b) c) d) A plan to redraw attendance zone lines in this area will be devised\nAn immediate savings of approximately 1 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Baseline will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant If the enrollment of Baseline were increased by this effort, the location is still a problem. [Recommendation  Alternative 4 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. Submined by Or. Henry P. Willumi.Supui(ndait 06/O4/X ac.asU'JEBaseline School Relocation Business Case 6 DRAFT 5/4/94 jOb/ertipe____________________________________ By the opening of school for 1994-95, Baseline students loill be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Using this proposal will require a modification in the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports the school district goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to fully support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria are met 1. New attendance zones will reflect a reasonable racial balance for the area\n2. 3. 4. 5. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nPatrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities currently enrolled patrons in that school\nas are 6. Key members of the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand. 8. The relocation of students and staff at Baseline will be complete before the openin\nof school for 1994-95. o Most of these benefits will occur when the process begins. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered and parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. I Impact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that will rise in the Baseline community about the closing of the school. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient are of paramount concern to many in the community. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nS\u0026lt;ibaund bf Or. Hoff P. WtUiim* SupwuUMdait 05/OV 8CJBSUJIBaseline School Relocation Business Case / DRAFT 5/4/94 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. Criticism of closing a relatively new facility (1975) may arise\nand, 5. The general southwest community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be plarmed and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. Patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n4. Baseline is not located in a residential area and therefore its closing may receive less emotional reaction\n5. Children who walk will no longer have to school\n6. Elementary schools in contiguous population of Baseline\ncross a major thorough fare to get to areas are capable of absorbing the student 7. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $1 million\nand, 8. The Baseline School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs and not realizing the expected goals of desegregation. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for abandoning another school building tn the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timehne included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment Suboiittad bf Dr. Hmrf P. WilUami, Suptnntendenl 05/04/M BC_8SLJilBaseline School Relocation Business Case 8 DRAFT 5/4/94 I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to impletnent this proposal. positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial Instead, some A savings of approximately 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the budgeted cost of Baseline School is expected to be saved. See attachment. This savings is a year-to-year savings. Revenue Source A source of revenue is uimecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget I Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those not directly affected by the solution. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunity and cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They will argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities. That schools which are closed are those located in the black community, and that a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community that is already experiencing economic difficulty removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The Joshua Interveners may oppose the relocation of these students. The position of the City of Little Rock is unclear at this time. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. Subauttad by Dr. H*iy P. WiUtanu. Supanntmdani 05/W/M BC.B5LNBBaseline School RelocaKon Business Case 9 DRAFT 5/4/94 I General Inipletnentation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Milestone_________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________ Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation__________ Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately___________ Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Baseline School______________ Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers._______________________ Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process__________ Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Baseline School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Baseline School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone._________________ Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to\nDate 5/12/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/18/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/18/94 10. 11. 12. 13. 3} b) c) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) d) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood____________________________ Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the infomnation meeting Conduct community information meeting by 14. Inventory building 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest.________________ Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment Remove materials and equipment from school_____________________ Reroute transportation of students________________________________ Secure building _______________________________, Reassign staff _______________________________ Send final assignment notices juenuned brDr. HmryP. WilIi*mj.Supin(andl 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/24/94 5A27/94 5/30/94 6/1/94 6/15/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Person Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Williams Modeste Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Montgomery Eaton Hurley Mayo 05/04/94 BC JSLNSBaseline School Relocation Business Case 10 DRAFT 5/4/94 Attachment 1 Copy of pages from 1994-95 Tentative Budget relating to the cost of Baseline School SubouUtd Dr. P. WiUUbm, SupwuMtdail IB/04/94 BC.B5LMZDate: 03/23/9*. Time: 13:44 Little Kock XII District KOC\nWJDCM? Department Budget - OOH Finction Department Code - Deicriptlon Object Code - Description Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Actual 01/31/94 Budget 1994/95 FTE 1994/95 BASELIME ELEMENTARY 0022 Page 59 1105 1120 1124 1195 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 0110 I 0120 I 0210 ! 0240 0380 1 0410 ! 0416 0540 I 0548 I REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATEO SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE FOOD SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLY CENTER EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER TTISS FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN OTTo TOcy 0410 605\" 1110 . KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY 1120 TOTALS *0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 16?6o $0.00 $41,754.00 $20,822.00 $3J89.0a $3,149.37 $0.00 $3,955.87 $0.00 $7,200.00 *0.00 *80,076.31 ioToo $8,570.80 $655.60 $835.24 $1,548.90 $5,039.19 $370.63 $490.26 $1,836.11 $19,346.73 $62,510.00 $20,822.00 $6,374.90 $5,200.00 $0.00 $689.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95,595.90 2.00 2.00 4.00 REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE SUPPLIES 04(5 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER TOTALS $106,176.00 $8,122.76 ~K7T3or $4504 $0.00 iOJ $120,085.55 $112,575.00 $8,027.78 ---*5738^37 ----iunsT $206.00 -----59Or $126,225.27 $46,906.29 $3,531.36 $1,855.50 $0.00 i110.00 $119.51 152,522.66 $62,570.00 $4,786.61 $2,600.00 $480.00 $0.00 srar $70,436.61 2.00 2.00 --------------ony oi5o' 0210 0240 0326 6331 0347 0360 04j0^ 0416 0418 0473 Oslo' 0548 ELEMENTARY REGULAR CERTIFJCATED REGULAR HON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT PUPIL TRANSPORTATION POSTAGE _________________ PRINTING S BINDING-INTERN SUPPLIES SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CENTER TOTALS ELEMENTARY MUSIC OHO REGULAR CERTIFICATED erfy 0240 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC ACCELERATED LEARNING 0120 TOTALS REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED $358,855.38 $30,2U.90 $29,766.31 $27,052.57 $295.40 $429.40 $260.18 $76.00 ~5i\n49in^ $2,662.55 $0.00 $0.00 \"TOzJTTT $258.98 $452,916.17' *3il,W5.93 \"$5S\nS57r7 $28,558.61 $24,097.44 $515760 Jaros' $257.So $257.So -^1795175? j2o.oo $1,892.19 ' $257.50 $772.50 $0.00 $433,424.71 *110,532.33 $10,889.46 $9,250.37 $5,970.37 $5Too $65.97 $111.28 ioToo $131.22 $1,933.50 $0.00 $0.00 $1,864.19 $0.00 $140,748.69' $347,000.00 $36,416.70 $29,331.38 $23,400.00 $500.00 $0.00 $200.00 $0.00 $1,689.00 $2,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $441,437.08 13.00 T?00 18.00 $00 IRTW $0.00 $0.00 $10,206.00 $30,512.00 $1,185.00 $34,031.00 $10,411.00 $0.00 '55766 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ISTW $0.00 $0.00 $4,Jjr.9O $0.00 0.60Date: 05/25/94 Time: 13:44 Little Rock School District Depertnent Budget - OOM PROG: JD002 Function Department Code - Description BASELINE ELEMENTARY ( Object I Code - Description 0022 Actual 1992/93 Budget 1995/94 Actual 01/51/94 Budget 1994/95 FIE 1994/95 Page 60 1210 1580 1910 2120 2154 2222 1195 0240 INSURANCE ACCELERATED LEARNING ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 0110 I 0210 ! _______ 0240 1 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCT I OH RESOURCE ROOM 1220 QUO ~ 6210 5215 RESOURCE ROOM TOTALS *1,404.00 Tl2,390,96 *1,292.94 *12,500.58 1551.M *417.94 *5,087,64 ~M,B5 *780.00 *780.00 0.60 REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  TOTALS *28,006.00 ~*2,l42.4y *1,526.28 lynTor *29,649.00 *2,114.28 *1,502.75 155 066.05 *12,555.75 *746.28 *467.16 *15,547.19 *15,224.00 *1,144.79 *650.00 *17,040.79 Bo REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1580 B17 0250 WT TOTALS *17,121,12 *1,509.92 *781.99 *19,215.05 sTs\n750 *1,286.20 ~*445.41 119,988.11 T7\nX41.46 *1,528.58 UM.sr 119,298.55 *59,108.00 *4,521.76 *65,579.76 I3o 1750 STIPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS TOTALS GIFTED ANO TALENTED *8,167,59 *624,80 *1,720,62 110 512.81 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 729.15 S51.89 : lOo S781.04 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 15^5\" ^210 0240 GIFTED AMO TALENTED GUIDANCE SERVICES 0110 ________________0210 0240 2120 REGULAR CERTIFipiTED SOCIAL security TAX INSURANCE TOTALS Jii,4o?.gr *887.6^ *476.05 1127044.42 Hi,248.M *1,160.08 ssiny Tf77W6.42 J. 'K.ZW.ST ~ *517,86 *180,77 177444,4r 12'0,555.66 tl,555.65 *659 00 i?J7510.iS J. GUIDANCE SERVICES NURSING SERVICES 0120 0240 2154 67 5S REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE TOTALS *267429.50 1,5.85 *915.80 122,908. ly *29.500.80 *27165.72 *1,502.09 *52,906,60 *15,692.1'0 *944.76' *474.28 ~*15,111.08 155,664.00 *2,575.50 *1,500.00 *57,559.50 1.00 1.00 nursing services REGULAR NOH-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 0110 0120 0210 0240 0410 0416 TOTALS *11,514.02 *880.87 *605.85 *15,000.69 111,175.65 {840:i4 *517.01 112,550.84 15,075.55 1548.5(5 *184.77 *5,648.40 *12,502.00 ~'154.46 *520.00 *15,978.40 0.40 0.40 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NOH-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  SUPPLIES  SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTEY TOTALS *51,154.21 115,606.00 *5,422.66 *2,940.46 12,965.07 *97.44' *54,165,84 *52,892.84 *9,598.42 *2,420.19 ~ *2,724.45  17^6.85 *257750 *48,070.23 *16,446.42 *0.00 *1,197.54 *605 86 *222.55 *70.55 118,540.28 *55,716.76 *4,855.20 *2,949.22 *1,820.00 *5,000.00 *300.00 1467^1.18 1.00 0.40 1740 9W1 JL.l-TWfiDate: 03/23/94 Time: 13:44 Little Rock School Dlitrlct Department Budget - OOM K. -j: BUD002 Furtctlon Department Code - Description BASELINE ELEMENTARY I Object Code - Description Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Actual 01/31/94 Budget 1994/95 FTE 1994/95 2410 0022 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 0110 0120 0210 0240 0410 REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER *57,566.86 *14,929.83 S,S45\nW *3,071.64 ioZoo iOo 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 6125 0210 6235 0240 5321 B4? TOTAL* ial,114:2? *60,344.09 *14,561.65 *5,370.54 *2,559.52 *176.85 *257.50 *83,270.15 *29,325.12 *8,026.62 *2,796.52 *1,135.09 *0.00 *0.00 *41,263,35 *59,816.94 *16,239.25 *5,818.30 *2,600.00 *300.00 *200.00 *84,974.49 1.00 1.00 2.00 REGULAR HON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET IRENE INSURANCE UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL 15352 UTILITY SERVICES-ELtCTRlC ^353 UTILITY SER-UATER/SEUAGE/ UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU on? TOTAL* *31,620.?? *2\n373.14 *i\n624:36' *2:667:25 *7,530.85 *36\n176743 *1,496.63 *82:27772T 3t\nt?? 1T7l5lT?y 2'\n433::5r *9,300.00 i46\nAM:M *1,800.00 *94,837.81 *19,572.44 *1,497.25 *782:85 *945.30 Y31755J3? *991.76 *57,341.75 *36,276.70 *2,775.17  to.60 *3,900.00 *9,300.00 *46,000.60 *1,800.00 *100,051.87 Too 3.00 SUPPLIE* - SUPPLY CENTER \"2596' BASEL Ine kEMENTARY ~ OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU TOTAL* tOTALS : *1,661:3? *i:6?T3? Wli 68739 ------*2,565750 *2:i6o:65 I1\n631,461:B? *1,635.56 -1175353^ *397 ME 19 *2,500.00 *2,500.00 1999^57?755' Page 61Date: April 10, 1994 To: Staff v From: ('/Y^Ann Subject: Upcoming Hearing on LRSD 1994-95 Budget As you Icnow, the April 22 hearing on LRSDs proposed 1994-95 budget is less than two weeks away. Weve received some of the districts business cases for proposed changes that will have an impact on the budget. You may have seen some of them before. Polly is running off the copies youll need. Read and review each of the cases which is in your area of responsibility. Some of you will share certain cases, like Melissa and Horace on curriculum areas, for example. You are, of course, free to ask each other for help, advice, input, etc., on any case. By no later than noon of next Tuesday, April 19, I need your brief write-up on the cases according to the guidelines below. Use the general hearing format that is very familiar to all of us by now, writing the following for each case: (1) the title of the business case\n(2) a very brief summary of what it proposes for which school, department, or program\n(3) proposed implementation date or timeframe (some cases are for \"as soon as possible,\" some for the next fiscal year, etc.)\n(5) and the financial bottom line. Then if the case raises significant issues or is relevant to the budget to the extent that the ludge should bring the case up during the hearing. (5) list the main issues and (6) add any questions you believe are important for the Judge to pose. Keep in mind that the hearing is scheduled for one day only and will deal primarily with the big budget picture and how the district plans to balance its budget. That means there wont be time to go into business cases to any great extent, so any questions on them will have to be brief and to the point. Look for ways to keep things as condensed as possible. For example, several of the cases can probably be combined (e.g. Spanish teachers at the incentive schools). Also, deal only with issues that are the most important at this phase of budget development and review. The district has also finally sent us their Fast Track Evaluations book, which covers certain desegregation areas. Skim through the evaluations to see if they contain anything presently relevant to the business cases or the hearing. Polly has a copy at her desk. Reminder: Get your final interdistrict report changes to me as each school is finished. This report is way behind schedule and so is developing the incentive school guide and school monitoring. 1 must have everything on the interdistrict report no later than the beginning of the workday on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. Be sure to also review and (revise if necessary) your recommendations because the Judge thinks she wants us to put them in the report. Thanks.ASSIGNMENTS FOR BUSINESS CASE REVIEW April 22 Hearing Proposed Funding of Business Cases................................................. Student Assignment Office Reorganization....................................... Theme Specialist, Romine.................................................................... Multimedia Technology, Phase II, Garland....................................... Computer Science Theme Infusion, Rockefeller................................. Executive Assistant for Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Dialogues (District and Community)................................................. English as a Second Language (ESL) Program................................. Language Arts and Mathematics....................................................... Applied Biology and Chemistry.......................................................... Science Program................................................................................. Science Curriculum Revision.............................................................. Bob Melissa and Bob .Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Connie Connie Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Horace and Margie Horace and Melissa Horace and Melissa Secretarial Position, Social Studies Department. Foreign Languages K-12 Curriculum Articulation Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program, 1st Grade Pilot Project . . . . Melissa and Horace Spanish Program, Franklin . Spanish Program, Rightsell Stephens Mitchell Garland Rockefeller Melissa and Horace Melissa and Horace Communications Technology Theme, Franklin . . . Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme, Rightsell Alternative Room Specialist, Rockefeller................ Alternative Room Specialist, Rightsell................... Alternative Room Specialist, Stephens................... Alternative Room Specialist, Franklin...................... Alternative Specialist, Garland................................ Horace Horace Margie Margie Margie Margie Margiet 12. Date: April 10, 1994 To: From: Staff 6^'Ann Subject: Upcoming Hearing on LRSD 1994-95 Budget As you Icnow, the April 22 hearing on LRSDs proposed 1994-95 budget is less than two weeks away. Weve received some of the districts business cases for proposed changes that will have an impact on the budget. You may have seen some of them before. Polly is running off the copies youll need. Read and review each of the cases which is in your area of responsibility. Some of you will share certain cases, like Melissa and Horace on curriculum areas, for example. You are, of course, free to ask each other for help, advice, input, etc., on any case. By no later than noon of next Tuesday, April 19, 1 need your brief write-up on the cases according to the guidelines below. Use the general hearing format that is very familiar to all of us by now, writing the following for each case: (1) the title of the business case\n(2) a very brief summary of what it proposes for which school, department, or program\n(3) proposed implementation date or timeframe (some cases are for \"as soon as possible,\" some for the next fiscal year, etc.)\n(5) and the financial bottom line. Then if the case raises significant issues or is relevant to the budget to the extent that the ludge should bring the case up during the hearing, (5) list the main issues and (6) add any questions you believe are important for the Judge to pose. Keep in mind that the hearing is scheduled for one day only and will deal primarily with the big budget picture and how the district plans to balance its budget. That means there wont be time to go into business cases to any great extent, so any questions on them will have to be brief and to the point. Look for ways to keep things as condensed as possible. For example, several of the cases can probably be combined (e.g. Spanish teachers at the incentive schools). Also, deal only with issues that are the most important at this phase of budget development and review. The district has also finally sent us their Fast Track Evaluations book, which covers certain desegregation areas. Skim through the evaluations to see if they contain anything presently relevant to the business cases or the hearing. Polly has a copy at her desk. Reminder: Get your final interdistrict report changes to me as each school is finished. This report is way behind schedule and so is developing the incentive school guide and school monitoring. 1 must have everything on the interdistrict report no later than the beginning of the workday on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. Be sure to also review and (revise if necessary) your recommendations because the Judge thinks she wants us to put them in the report. Thanks.ASSIGNMENTS FOR BUSINESS CASE REVIEW April 22 Hearing Proposed Funding of Business Cases................................................. Student Assignment Office Reorganization....................................... Theme Specialist, Romine.................................................................... Multimedia Technology, Phase II, Garland....................................... Computer Science Theme Infusion, Rockefeller................................. Executive Assistant for Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Dialogues (District and Community) ................................................. English as a Second Language (ESL) Program................................. Language Ans and Mathematics....................................................... Applied Biology and Chemistry.......................................................... Science Program................................................................................. Science Curriculum Revision.............................................................. Bob Melissa and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Connie Connie Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Horace and Margie Horace and Melissa Horace and Melissa Secretarial Position, Social Studies Department. Foreign Languages K-12 Curriculum Articulation Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program, 1st Grade Pilot Project .... Melissa and Horace Spanish Program, Franklin . Spanish Program, Rightsell Stephens Mitchell Garland Rockefeller Melissa and Horace . Melissa and Horace Communications Technology Theme, Franklin . . . Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme, Rightsell Alternative Room Specialist, Rockefeller................ Alternative Room Specialist, Rightsell................... Alternative Room Specialist, Stephens................... Alternative Room Specialist, Franklin...................... Alternative Specialist, Garland................................ Horace Horace Margie Margie Margie Margie MargieLittle Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation A Business Case Addition  Modification Deletion June, 1994 (Revised August 8, 1994)Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 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. The 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 supervision 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nThorough 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\nQuicker response to parent inquires\nand. 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 registration and assignments are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes overwhelming. Time forDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 2 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 budget. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Milestone Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Discuss this modification with all parties Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 6. Court approval 7. 8. Advertise the position Interview 9. Report for work Date 6/14/94 6/14/94 6/16/94 6/17/94 8/5/94 8/12/94 8/17/94 9/1/94 9/15/94 Person Mayo Willicims Williams Mayo Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation August, 1994 8/5'94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 3 Background 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 cind 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. Problem Definition 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 pcirents 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. 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 4 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 2. 3. position and personnel costs. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less than adequate attention. 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 the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel do most Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart Associate Superintendent i3irector of Transportation Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Director of Communications SUff I (2) Recruiters Community Deveiopment Coordinator (VIPS) sun Student Assignment Coordinator SAO Information Coordinator  Programmer (5) Student Assignment Assistants Figure 1 D1RSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 5 of the functions of the Desegregation Facilitator. Additioneil 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) b) c) d) e) 0 S) h) i) j) k) 1) m) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office\nKeeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nAssists 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\nAssists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\nAssists in ensuring that desegregation assessments, studies, surveys, and evaluation results are used to improve the operations of the schools\nAssists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nProvides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\nObserves the progress of desegregation implementation by reading and writing performance reports relating to implementation\nStays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nProvides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\nCoordinates the appeals committee and monitoring groups such as the Parent Council, Bi-Racial Committee, and others as assigned\nAssists in monitoring all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not lirnited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement\nand. Performs other duties as assigned. In the LRSD Plan, at the conclusion of the Educational Equity Monitoring section, the Desegregation Facilitator is explained as follows: 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 6 Office of Desegregation 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. The use of a desegregation facilitator will allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. 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. 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 runeline Develop Job Description Aimounce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The tasks as described above will be the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent as follows: 1. Work directly with building principals\n2. 3. 4. 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building\nProviding technical assistance to building principals\nWorking very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed\nand, Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation. Recommendation 1 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 * All p\u0026gt;aragraphs appearing in bold print in this section represent a revision of this business case as of August 8. They address the question from the Court of who will be responsible for the specific items in the plan. 8/5/94 niRSAODOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 7 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. Objective 1 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nThorough 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\nQuicker response to parent inquires\nand. 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 districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. Positives 1. 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\n8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 8 3. 4. 5. 6. bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nprovide 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\nallow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 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. Timing 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 Personnei This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of positions existing. 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 budget. ently used line item of the 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 9 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. General Information Plan The following cire milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Milestone Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approveil Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approved Discuss this modification with all parties Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification Submit plan modification to the Court for approved 6. Court approval 7. 8. Advertise the position Interview 9. Report for work Date 6/14/94 6/14/94 6/16/94 6/17/94 8/5/94 8/12/94 8/17/94 9/1/94 9/15/94 Person Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee 3'5/94 DIRSAO.DOCreceive JUL 1 4 1994 Little Rock School District Office of Desesrcgatiwi S^so\u0026amp;h^q Outsourcing Student Transportation June, 1994 A Business Case ^^ass, i?_ stop' iSSS! -\u0026gt;^.v.-rz.\u0026gt;^-if.. a rr-r -Tn -ri-iaSSSSSjJ^JMfcgLittle Rock School District Outsourcing of Student Transportation Business Case Executive Stamnary One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a Lability. Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The crurent fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year.Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 2 The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are imavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Alternative 3 is recommended. By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n07/xv BCjwrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 3 2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. 4. 5. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1 million doUars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facihty already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs. The money currently allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. ______________________Milestone______________________ 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________________________ 2. Notice to employees Date 7/14/94 Person Williams 3. Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9, Property transfer and occupancy_______ 10. Complete bus routes_________________ 11  Retrain current employees____________ 12. Train new employees_________________ 13. Notify patrons_______________________ 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs 7/15/94 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor 07/14/94 00,057\nOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 4 Background One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a hability. The District expends an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on Support Services such as transportation. Educational issues often take a back seat to transportation operations because of the time required to respond to these concerns. Often these issues are the focus of media attention which results in poor public relations. The District's transportation operations have frequently been in the media this year. In fact, it was the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Many of these stories have revolved around labor and safety issues and poor operational performance. The accuracy and voracity of the stories is not as important as the resulting poor public perception of the operations, and the fact that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. Service in the Little Rock School District has been the subject of much debate. According to a recent study only 69% of the buses are \"on-time.\" At present the district is not employing the best \"state-of-the-market techruques\" for managing and providing student transportation services. The Little Rock School District is facing a $7.2 million budget deficit for the 94-95 academic year. Management in the Transportation Department is concerned that the fleet is aging and a large proportion of it must be replaced. For the last several years, the District has been unable to meet its targeted goal of replacing 10% of its buses per year. As a result replacing the aged fleet now represents a prodigious capital expense which the District virtually cannot incur in a single budget year. To return to an acceptable fleet replacement cycle, the District would have to expend approximately $1 million per year over the next six years. \u0026gt;17/14/^ KjmOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 5 Problem Definition Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The current fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. To bring the fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on type of engine and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses used to service the District be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Using these parameters, along with the fleet's current mileage as of the close of school in June, 1994, a replacement schedule for the District's current vehicles School Year 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2003-2004 Buses 128 29 22 18 10 1 25 was established. Listed here is the number of buses that will need to be replaced prior to the start of each Replacement Schedule of Buses Based on 1994 Fleet \u0026amp; RFP Standard corresponding school year. Fundamental to the success of District 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 128 +$900,000 in 1994-95 to meet standard 94-95 29 22 18 10 95-96 96-97 97-96 96-99 transportation operation is improving the level of service in the area of vehicle 0 25 1 a 99- 2000 0 2000- 2001 0 2001- 2002 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 School Year a fleet of 281 buses with only eight mechanics. maintenance. Because of the age and condition for the existing fleet it has become necessary to add additional maintenance staff and to service the older high mileage buses much more frequently. The District currently services The workload has increased dramatically over previous years because heavy maintenance previously covered under 07/14/M 0C_OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 6 warranty must now be performed in-house. In fact, a recent study of the operation conducted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. yielded this finding: The high ratio of one maintenance person to 44 vehicles is unsatisfactory. With many of these vehicles having over 100,000 miles on them, the need for quality preventative maintenance is crucial. This is not presently possible and Mr. Viner and his staff are doing an excellent job of keeping the fleet running. Add to this the fact that no new buses are being bought this year, the situation is going to become more difficult to manage. Mr. Viner recently had one mechanic resign citing stress and the heavy maintenance workload as the reason. A replacement has not yet been hired, but even with this individual replaced, the bus vs. mechanic ratio is not consistent with national standards. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/ materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Parts/Materials/Supplies $1.200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year. 07AV** 8C_OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 7 Wrecker Experienc $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 400 299 fI r 160 60 I i 60 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 LRSD Wrecker Calls  Normal Wrecker Calls Several factors are used in determining performance levels for transportation services. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because unwarranted absenteeism harms the program for children, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and a fairly accurate indicator of the unsatisfactory performance level of the current operation. The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are unavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) Vehicle accident rate is commonly used as the indicator when assessing the level of safe operation of the driver, the conditions in which operations are performed, and r 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Quality of Performance Accidents per Million Miles J the condition of the vehicles operated. Preventable accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to unnecessary down-time for equipment In 1993, the District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1994, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 accidents per million miles respectively. By contrast, the prospective contractor has an record established, documented safety of only 8.8 preventable 07/14/94 BC.OUr Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 8 accidents per million miles. Typically/ a high vehicle accident rate manifests in increases for both Workers Compensation and Property and Casualty insurance costs. Analysis of three previous years claims for Workers Compensation indicates an extreme upward trend in the frequency of claims and the cost per claim to the District In 1992 there were 31 Workers Compensation claims processed for the Transportation Department at a cost of $66,439. In 1993 there were 42 claims processed at a cost of $169,587, and by March of 1994, there had been some 45 claims totaling $57,662. Bus driver claims account for 65% of all claims by district employees. The composite data indicates an urgent need for improved driver training and the initiation of a vigorous and sustained safety awareness program. That has not been possible in LRSD because of the eUmination of supervisory/training position by budget cuts. Regarding these same issues, the Gallagher study referred to previously provided the following recommendations: 93-12-22. The Director of Transportation should develop, implement and manage an aggressive Loss Prevention Program. Supervisors and employees must be held accountable for their actions. Fair, Swift and appropriate discipline or corrective measures must be taken to handle unsatisfactory conditions prior to them becoming uncontrollable. 93-12-23. No driver should be allowed to operate a vehicle without first, having been trained in defensive driving. AU drivers should after initial training, attend annual defensive driving training including, hands-on evaluations. While the foregoing factors taken individually do not threaten the collapse of transportation, taken together, these signs reveal a dysfunctional system. Consider the comments of the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand staff in their findings at the transportation terminal: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand spent two days talking with customers and employees of the Little Rock School District's Transportation Department. While almost all of the people we talked to spoke favorably of the department's operation relative to the constraints placed upon it, all indicated a concern that something needed to be done to ensure that things didn't get worse. All interviewees, customers and employees alike, expressed a concern that the department was beginning to show signs of stress, like cracks in a dam, and many were fearful of the department's future. It is C\u0026amp;L's opinion that these concerns and signs are real. We also feel that these symptoms reflect the fact that the current mode of operation was conceived long ago without any vision of the desegregated , inner city environment in which the department now operates. What is frightening is that the interwoven complexities of this environment combined with the bankrupt methods of the past have created a semi-self defeating situation that cannot be escaped without vigorous redesign of the process. Analysis of Alternatives J Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals, support staff, and administrators in the LRSD. Upon careful consideration, several 07/14/M BC.OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 9 aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet, increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Proposals have been requested from private sector transportation companies on this alternative. Of the responses received, only Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. proposed to contract the LRSD student transportation system as appear tn the proposal submitted by the contractor. specified. Details 07/14/94 0C_OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 10 Objective By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. Impact Analysis The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 80 drivers. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. Negatives 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n07/14/94 BC_0UTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of- 11 Quality of Performance Bus Availability, Driver Absenteosm, Not-oo-'nine Buses service decrease\nfor repairs will 6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%  LRS  Contracto 14% 5% Out-of-Service 23% 12% Absenteeism 30% 1% Not-on-TIme Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presiunptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capabiUty given the delays in implementation of outsourcing when considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timehne included must be addressed. Resources Analysis Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. 07/14/94 BC_OUrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 12 Financial A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District wiU maintain the special education routes and a smaller v. Three Year Bottom Line Cost Comparison LRSD V. Contractor a LRSD  Contractor -$1,018,614 savings over 3 years $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,327,775 $7,760,438 $6,562,449 $6,463,981 $6,997,680 !7,170,387 x $1,000,000 $0 94-95 95-96 96-97 School Year maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs (See Attachment 1). Revenue Source The money currently allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution  patrons and administrators within the District The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service and cost savings. BCJWTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 13 Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of outsourcing is that costs will be reduced while improving service. General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 7/14/94 Williams 2. Notice to employees 7/15/94 3, Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9. Property transfer and occupancy 10. Complete bus routes 11. Retrain current employees 12. Train new employees 13. Notify patrons 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor 14/94 BC.OOTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 14 Attachment 1 Comparison of LRSD costs to Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. Costs EXPENSE CATEGORY Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Materials / Supplies Capital Outlay Other Objects SUBTOTAL Budget Yr 1994-95 3,679,789 800,604 676,500 964,664 11,000 1,000 6,133,557 Budget Yr 1995-96 3,790,183 809,049 686,648 984,041 11,000 1,000 6,281,921 Budget Yr 1996-97 3,985,519 852,142 700,381 1,003,722 11,000 1,000 6,553,764 TOTAL 11,455,491 2,461,795 2,063,529 2,952,427 33,000 3,000 18,969,242 Fleet Insurance Workers Compensation Fleet Disposal Bus Payment SUBTOTAL 512,680 236,473 537,000 522,933 243,565 533,392 251,357 1,286,153 1,155,391 1,921,889 1,317,297 2,102,046 1,569,005 731,395 537,000 2,472,688 5,310,088 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 7,419,710 8,203,810 8,655,810 24,279,330 Mayflower Proposal Special Education TOTAL 6,463,981 857,261 7,321,242 6,997,680 876,035 7,873,715 7,170,387 895,372 8,065,759 20,632,048 2,628,668 23,260,716 SAVINGS Regular/ M-to-M Special Ed TOTAL 98,468 6,562,449 857,261 7,419,710 330,095 7,327,775 876,035 8,203,810 590,051 7,760,438 895,372 8,655,810 1,018,614 21,650,662 2,628,668 24,279,330 .T/IVW BC.OOTRECEIVED ZntA^ JUL 2 5 1994 Office of Desegregation Mannoiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 * iyj J By:l Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in the District and the state. time, At that as well as today, Cairver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Teriry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents, academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure excellence in schools that have difficult been to desegregate. Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool The IS for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. classes. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools Since that according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. B. C. Greater emphasis must be placed implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. on The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. Problem Definition programming has Current not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. limited. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated The District must now decide if it will continue to schools. triple fund Incentive School programs, while reducing the funding for Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools in There the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase District is now asking the following questions: in enrollment. The  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the in Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are educational or some other standpoint? questionable from an  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are:  Keep doing what we are doing.  Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed.  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. ~ . . . . Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, these schools remain an important and relevant component of Court approved desegregation plan. as our Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. that data show that The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waitina lists for oarents who wish -t-n 1 their There are waiting parents wish to enroll Financial excellence. students where resources alone educational will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be ongoing monitoring of programs to ensure double funding is providing for the needs of the children attending these schools. ISIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 E. The District recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic further need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). Objectives a X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria The incentive evidenced by: school will be successfully operating as Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests. Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next Quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile. Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting increase in letter grades of C\" or better in the core areas an for each student. Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction students. of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 F. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted, recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching learning will be enhanced. Successful an The This and implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement.  The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis to \"doing more with less.\" Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis, monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not Such suffer irreparable harm as we\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_278","title":"'Business Cases for Review by Board of Directors (Exhibit 313 on July 6, 1995)","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["'Business Cases for Review by Board of Directors (Exhibit 313 on July 6, 1995)"],"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/278"],"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\n1 u p h 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION tr 1 Q  BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS o i 1994-95LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95 1 a rf n J. I T I c IBUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Conmunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation Neu Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive _________Schools Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive _________SchooIs Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering _____the program_____ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Connercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modi fy Modify Modify Delete Modify Modi fy Modify Modify Modi fy Modify Add Add Modify Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90 1BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Additional Costs Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SUJH and CJHS Modify No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades Modify No 30,000.00 Beacon School Implement Beacon School Concept at CJKS Add No 12,000.00 Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal Add No 3,000.00 New Comers Center Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Modify No 52,117.00 Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation Add No 30,000.00 Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Modi fy No 36,500.00 Social Studies Curriculum Revision Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculun to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides Modify No 13,200.00 Total Savings S 5,815,550.08 Total Expenditures S 211,782.00 Net Savings $ 5,603,768.08 Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative School 1 0 IQ DB I tr X 1 Q H 5 2 o in a (I h 1 c S  2 0 I Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters m i Cl I Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) 2 0 i Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational EducationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 13, 1995 m X 1 a e  memorandum TO: FROM: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sadie Mitchell, Actii^Assistant Superintendent Margaret GremilponfD^sistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Business Case - Academic Progress Incentive Grant 2 0 iBUSINESS CASE ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS January 13, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons, equity issues regarding adequate resources and an overwhelming percentage of our students attend area schools, the Little Rock School District proposed in the Tri-District Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. The District, in its May 11, 1992, request to modify the settlement plan, proposed to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The proposal did not clearly explain the Districts intent. The Court approved the continuing of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to schools for application the last five years. It is now time to evaluate and assess the program for continuation. B. BACKGROUND tn CL e 5 2 o i 1990 - 1991 The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying times and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The District established two goals that were to be the outcomes of this initiative: (1) to improve the education of all students and (2) to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the schools annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the districts Desegregation Plan.Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some tutoring assistance to their at-nsk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. 2. 3. Identification of local school grant goals. A description of the results. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the schools annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991.1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their at-risk students. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992.1993 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to changes in the districts central office staff and a new superintendent. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. -2- 1c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial. socioeconomic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school district, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Opportunities for academic achievement are enhanced by commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can and will learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with availability of financial resources and adequate quality instructional time, educational excellence prevails. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, informal and formal m o. e  1 D. observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to discontinue the implementation of APIG. APIG is a complementary addition to the Plan. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of district schools. Achievement disparity still exists. However, data show that some schools utilize the current curriculum (revised July, 1994) with emphasis on the acquisition of basic skills. Thematic and interdisciplinary approaches have been used by the teachers to successfully integrate and ensure designated themes to support the curriculum. Students in these schools tend to perform at or above grade level. I [ 1. 2. 3. 4. Change nothing. Continuing to offer the APIG and Focused Activity Grants to the Area Schools will not aide in the reduction of the budget. The Chapter I Extended Day Program has been considered in order for all schools to continue the quality after school programs. This program is federally funded and is consequently no expense to the district. Grant solicitations from focused activities, private resources and support from some local PTAs where possible could be considered. K-4 Special Summer School programs are funded by the state. -3-E. RECOMMENDATION Evidence from the principals narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as \"it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program were identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students were those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, were used to select targeted students form the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. implemented to encourage good behavior. An incentive program was There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Extended Day was a widely - used activity that was funded by APIG. This activity was in some instances a duplication of efforts already funded through Academic Support Program. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum that is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Education frameworks and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Academic Support Program and the Special Summer School for K-4. -4- IObjective To discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant. Evaluation Criteria Summer School Extended Year Program and Academic Support evaluation will be utilized for documentation. A pre and post test will be used in the K-4 program to determine the progress of students. There will be a shift from sole emphasis on the products or outcomes of student learning to a concern for the learning process. Evaluation will include assisting products such as: 1. projects with rating criteria 2. student portfolios with rating criteria 3. student demonstrations/investigations 4. objective tests, where appropriate, perhaps with a section for explaining the answer chosen. Evaluation should reflect the following process-oriented factors: 1. collaboration among students 2. student self-evaluation f \u0026gt; I c c 8 2 c 1 I 3. 4. higher level thinking and problem solving \"learning to learn\" skills Expected Benefits I The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support program. The focus of Extended Day can be more structured. The K-4 Summer School Program and Regular Summer School will be offered. -5-1 The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed communities of learning,\" will continue to provide enrichment opportunities, and will ensure equitable opportunities for participation in area schools. The District will implement programs that are comprehensive, effective, and efficient. Quality equitable desegregated education will be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The District will channel its resources into area schools in a manner that eliminates duplication of efforts. Activities appear to provide a broader range of opportunities in a more comprehensive and focused manner. G. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. (90-91 - 94-95) The timeline for implementation of three years will support the Desegregation Plan and address court orders favorably. Funds were available for building administrators to submit applications. Some applications were turned in late which caused a delay in program implementation. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed resources for our area schools. Schools should be encouraged to implement innovative practices that build upon effective schooling principles by underwriting demonstration projects through business cases. Students could be introduced to curriculum materials, in exciting and innovative ways, that they might otherwise find difficult. Extensive tutoring could be provided through academic support programs to targeted students. -6-Financial Analysis The District will save a total of $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) APIG $10,000 Focused 5,000 TOTAL Elementary Area Schools (25) $250,000 125,000 Junior High Area Schools (4) $40,000 Senior High Schools (3) $30,000 Total Schools $320,000 125,000 $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 B II h Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administrators who are indirectly involved in the decision making process for the 1995-96 budget cuts. The primary detractors will be principals and patrons of the area schools who feel that there are already many inequities between them and the magnet schools. General Implementation Plan I i The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. If this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented and monitored. January - April, 1995 June, 1995 Continue to read and approve grants as they are submitted from schools Evaluations submitted from principals regarding programs implemented through APIG proposals End of Academic Progress Incentive Grant and Focused Activity submissions Conclusion of programs implementation with APIG and Focused Activity funds K-4 Summer School will start -7-r July, 1995 November - December, 1995 Business Case process reviewed with principals in Principals Institute K-4 Summer School Ends K-4 Summer School Evaluations submitted Information shared with principals regarding Extended Day for the 95-96 school year Compile information from schools in order to organize and implement Extended Day for the 95-96 school year January, 1996 Extended Day will start -8- I 1Little Rock School District B w E X 2. 11 h CL Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 z o I I Addition Modification Deletion $523,000 savings 1/9/95Badgett School Relocation Business Case 2 \\ I Executive Summary I For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one timp cuts. A vacant seats. comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows many While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. 1 Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\nI I I 2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 495 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. 5Mt wJby O HT r Wdla m/9i/n K ntiocrooc IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students Tvill be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. CD II h 2\na [ Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will Want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. 2. 3. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\nCommunity reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n'\"iilUdb,! 01/W/9S IC.RADCT.DOCBadgett School Relocation Business Case 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\n6. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. 4 The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.______________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo *iMfe\u0026gt;nnd by t\u0026gt; P W. \u0026lt;n/9/*5l( ADCTtX\u0026lt; 1Badgett School Relocation Business Case 5 ___________ Milestone______________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)_____________________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting_____________________ 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School______ 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. 14, Inventory building ' ----------------------- 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment 17. Remove materials and equipment from school 18. Reroute transportation of students 19, Secure building 20, Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices \" Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo S! 18 I Background azV I a h For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A vacant seats. comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. [Pmb/cw Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining ^^rollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. 01/W/9S ir BADCTOCV r T 1 Badgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School closing: is considered for 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was fUled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadUy from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. pie school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257) students must come from elsewhere to fUl the school. Successful recruiting has not been achieved for this school. experience in 6. The per pupU cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations, population to fill the school must come from other attendance negatively impact other schools\nThe additional zones which will 8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school the most expensive to operate annually\nand, one on 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 1 illustrates some of these trends. Sobnuiwd by Dt P WtU. 01/W/ Bc 8ADCTOOC IBadgett School Relocation . Business Case 7 Figure 1 Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity Attnd. Zone TtU AZ % Black 1989-90 1990-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 220 202 189 177 74.77 14.77 86.38 73.18 13.18 85.60 76.24 16.24 78.60 69.84 75.14 9.84 73.54 135 65.931 15.14 68.87 160 61.25 One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. To the is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help l^ause that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the south of the attendance zone zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexe\nSee Attachment A. !S. ir CL 777 a h 5 [ ^Analysts of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a conunittee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n1 2 Enrollments are for October of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two years only. 0I/W/X5 dr RApcTixrr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 8 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Badgett but will increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all three areas of the problem. a) b) c) d) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible scenario appears in Attachment C\nAn immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. The curriculum offered at Badgett will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts in LRSD and PCSSD. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in LRSD. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort, it would have a negative impact . - - on neighboring attendance zones. To the south of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. See Attachment A. Recommendation ] Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. I Objective ] By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students null be relocated, faculty null be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. SufeMtH D H*nn f Wdlt 01/0/ RC RADCTOOr IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 9 Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to  securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 2. 8. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met\nNew attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and unplemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Il' Q. D W E M . h i Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. [iwpact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will Want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students equal program in a more economical way. Negatives Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nHtnrt r WJluuM.SupnwMfMtevM DI/(n/9S M BArXTTrXVr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 10 \\ 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. Positives zones in that 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2, Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. 5. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\nImmediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand. 6. The Badgett School facUity may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. The risks of unplementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. SvbMMd Or. Hmrv P SupmMxicM 0l/(RZ5 RT BADcrncc 1Badgett School Relocation Business Case 11 I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions. Financial A savings of approximately $523,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. S?i, II 0 Revenue Source A source of revenue is urmecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. [force Field Analysis [ Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key conununity people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. 01/0*/S K* BAOCrOOCr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 12 I General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. ________ Milestone________________ 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contact^ immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste I 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance 2/10/95 Mayo zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone._________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to' a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_________________ 7 Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)_________________________________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting____________________________ 10. Conduct community information meetings by__________________________ 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy____________ 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School______ 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment._______ 14. Inventory building______________________________________ 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest.___________________ 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment_____________ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school______________________________ 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building______________________________________________________ 20. Reassign staff_________________________________________________________ 21. Send final assignment notices 2/10/95 2/10/95 2I2QIQ5 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Dr. HawT WiM\u0026gt; Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo BC BADCTIX*' IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment A \n Copy of map of Little Rock, eastern most area, with Badgett Elementary and other schools l**D H.n P WJ], RC BAncTDor Cd s?s.  c. II Q. 5 Ihool ichool' uff SchooI l  -J. ^Student Assignment Office' - -  11 T z:br. kingInteroislnctS^ool fchool iv r High School / 111Tf I [ITL L X L I X I T itSsMagnetS^ool, iRocke ^^IfNorth Little Rock / 7^ I - / i\n^^Ca'rveH^agnet School -fIt /i- jfAMlte'rnaiive Learning Cntr. \\ I eller Incentive School ^htsell In^ntive School t  Booker ftJiagnet School Mitch^Incentive School. lh--rnH 1-^  [X Mann1 MMaaggnneett JH Sc ^^ooW T Wasfcngtoh School. School / / / I ! \\ \\ A / \\ 7 I T 21 \\ / h I I I  I I BADGm SCHOOL CoH^e^St^^i ScEwl (PCS^D) \\ I Little Rock School District- I I I I J I I \\ Badgett School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Badgett Elementary School * t\u0026gt; Hwa r W4i\u0026gt; 0l/0*/5 nC BADCTtXr CO ?i. II 11 z o IMl AMI L Unit Func Ob] - Description Little Rock School District Department Budget 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY _________1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM________ ________________0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ ________________0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0380 FOOD SERVICES 0410 SUPPLIES ________________0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY______________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT _______0342 POSTAGE_____________________ 0360 PRINTING  BINDING-INTERN _______0410 SUPPLIES____________I_________ _______0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date: 8/ 5/94 Vape-. 6t Prog. BUD002 .a. Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 29,078.00 9,960.00 2,966.54 2,935.05 2,510.10 325.76 0.00 0.00 47,795.45 66,968.40 5,123.11 3,118.29 135.41 0.00 0.00 75,345.21 238,811.46 0.00 31,323.81 20,665.95 15,867.18 25.00 86.31 0.00 43.42 987.23 0.00 0.00 500.01 308,330.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 11.00 30,753.00 9,643.93 2,935.42 2,512.86 103.00 176.85 139.50 0.00 46,264.56 70,319.00 5,014.49 2,633.57 282.95 461.44 0.00 78,711.45 241,781.40 0.00 29,868.37 20,919.72 14,759.75 515.00 257.50 257.50 979.74 1,030.00 3,581.96 257.50 257.50 314,465.94 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 34,367.00 10,411.00 3,176.87 2,137.62 2,431.35 35.00 237.47 0.00 52,798.31 40,670.00 3,049.48 1,127.13 145.86 0.00 71.05 45,063.52 215,094.04 0.00 22,217.80 18,030.14 10,238.22 0.00 102.47 21.00 3,221.22 1,365.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 270,290.56 17,233.50 1,318.32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.50 4.00 11.50 0.50 59,359.00 20,318.00 5,757.61 4,420.00 5,400.00 3,078.00 178.00 3,600.00 102,110.61 40,670.00 2,938.90 1,105.00 240.00 0.00 0.00 44,953.90 206,775.00 300.00 22,893.30 18,018.24 11,602.50 500.00 100.00 0.00 200.00 1,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 262,281.04 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 7.50 3.00 10.50 0.50Unit Func Obj - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM___________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_ _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION _______0380 FOOD SERVICES___________ _______0410 SUPPLIES__________________ _______0416 SUPPUES - SUPPLY CENTER _______0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE______ 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Dale: 8/ 5/94 Prog: BUD002 p I....- Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015.00 Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461.84 FTE 94/95 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 796.44 1,292.94 12,500.38 4,390.97 336.00 425.11 5,152.08 1.00 1.00 4,164.40 300.93 442.00 4,907.33 0.40 0.40 14,782.56 1,130.89 768.03 16,681.48 34,784.58 2,661.27 2,809.43 40,255.28 3,199.49 244.79 575.76 440.15 165.00 0.00 0.00 4,625.19 11,888.24 909.40 636.56 13,434.20 29,058.00 2,223.10 1,532.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 posswj JON 15,627.50 1,11442 654.92 17,396.84 15,627.60 1,195.44 561.04 17,384.08 1.00 1.00 16,029.00 1,158.29 552.50 17,739.79 0.50 0.50 24,892.00 1,775.06 1,776.20 28,443.26 33,886.02 2,385.81 2,662.61 38,934.44 1.00 1.00 13,218.50 955.20 552.50 14,726.20 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.10 172.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,162.72 11.49 0.00 9,174.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,095.50 1,076.46 652.55 16,824.51 15,366.50 1,095.79 653.77 31,413.98 2,381.85 1,218.64 35,014.47 15,366.52 1,154.68 563.86 sainjipmdxg swwisna 2.00 2.00 0.50 32,322.80 2,335.70 1,105.00 35,763.50 15,768.00 1,139.42 552.50 1.00 1.00 0.50Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func ObJ - Description______ 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES Actual 92/93 32,813.74 FTE 92/93 0.50 Budget 93/94 17,116.06 Actual 93/84 17,085.06 _____2134 NURSING SERVICES -------------------0130 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ____________P24O INSURANCE 3134 NURSING SERVICES ------ 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES ~ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ------------ 0130 regular NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES--------- _________ 3410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL __ 0110 regular CERTIFICATED _______ P^30 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL------------ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS -------------0130 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED -------------0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX -------------0330 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME _______ 0240 INSURANCE ________0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL _______ 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGF/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU ------------0^16 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU D.-rte\n8/ 5/94 Pave- A'K Prog. BUD002 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 17,459.92 FTE 94/95 0.50 90.62 6.94 0.00 97.56 32,692.33 1,152.12 2,569.07 1,701.25 1,456.63 0.00 39,593.60 54,411.43 24,502.13 6,036.72 4,230.79 0.00 0.00 89,181.07 22,766.15 1,743.24 552.51 2,481.37 6,901.65 18,764.99 2,493.27 55,723.18 893.05 893.05 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,139.00 371.35 221.00 5,731.35 0.20 0.20 34,540.67 0.00 1,770.37 1,420.74 176.65 257.50 38,166.13 34,455.67 0.00 2,614.46 1,166.64 1,553.84 0.00 39,790.61 1.00 1.00 35,364.56 0.00 2,555.51 1,105.00 1,607.00 0.00 40,632.09 1.00 1.00 56,104.28 25,304.67 6,099.61 3,769.99 176.85 257.50 93,712.90 57,067.14 15,229.39 5,478.64 2,220.15 0.00 0.00 79,995.52 1.00 2.00 58,150.38 21,275.48 5,739.47 2,652.00 200.00 1.00 1.40 _____________ 200^00 3.00 88.217.33 2.40 21,511.93 1,656.04 573.66 2,421.06 6,400.00 17,500.00 2,700.00 54,762.71 23,571.00 1,803.16 573.60 1,884.73 7,358.75 19,225.15 1,382.67 55,799.26 2.00 2.00 23,106.65 1,669.74 0.00 2,210.00 8,000.00 18,200.00 2,700.00 55,886.59 2.00 2.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,253.66 1,253.66 2,000.00 2,000.00 Unit Func Obi * Description 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/ 5/94 Pace- 64 Prog: BUD002 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 724,769.38 24.05 737,551.84 686,853.56 27.50 711,871.49 24.50 pesswj JON 99Jnjipo9dx3 :saso BsaatsngBadgett School Relocation Business Case 15 Attachment C A possible scenario for relocating students 3 I \u0026lt;iii\u0026lt;iii| bv O Hmy P WUi I m/W/W C JAOCT.OOC Badgett School Relocation Business Case 16 Possible Scenario for Badgett Relocation 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Two four-year-old classes must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate these classes. Work with Dr. Kohler, Special Education Dept., to relocate self-contained class of six resource students (5 black and 5 non-black) to another building. Send the twenty-eight black students currently attending Badgett who are not living in Badgett's attendance zone back to their area school. Encourage the thirty-seven non-black students to apply to either Booker Magnet School or to Booker T. Washington Magnet School. For each white student assigned to Washington Magnet School, a black student who is currently attending Badgett because he/ she could not get into their attendance zone school, Washington, can be assigned to Washington if they are on Washington's waiting list. Badgett will lose twenty-seven sixth graders to jr. high school thereby leaving a total of 104 students to reassign (85 black and 37 non-black) if we are unsuccessful in convincing parents to select Booker or Washington. If successful, we are looking at reassigning only about thirty black students. a) PLAN FOR 85 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Enlarge Chicot and reconstruct the attendance zone to include the former Badgett attendance zone. n S? 6. X 2. 18' 0 I 5 b) PLAN FOR 30 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Reassign to Pulaski Heights Elementary School Pulaski Heights currently has 26 vacant seats. iii) Offer Brady as the overflow school 6. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools:^ a) b) c) Booker - Will remain the same 53.8% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Booker). Washington - Will remain the same 57.3% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Washington). Pulaski Heights' current percentage black is 47.6%, this will increase to 54.8% by including Badgett's thirty black students. 5 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the affected magnet schools. oi/o'5 K KAncrni*Little Rock School District n STS 18 o. II Fair Park School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 I Addition Modification I I / Deletion $637,000 savings 1/9/95Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 2 Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total budding capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buddings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 10 STS 11 II \u0026gt; 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\nThe per pupil cost has increased\nI 5 6. Operational costs for the budding have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buddings\nBy the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\noi/w/w K- MrwcnrcFair Park School Relocation Business Case 3 2. 3. 4. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nI 5. New pafro^ are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. 8. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96.  Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. Ihese are of paramount concern to many community members. Some wiU want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will u 1 un-'i 1 receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will their friends\nexperience some disappointment in being separated from 2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto UMUed bt Dr Hnwr P WBi (n// BC.PIPWtDOC 1Pair Park School Relocation Business Case 4 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. a II o. h I I Milestone 1  Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval______________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.________________________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone._____ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to\na) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_________________________________ 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)__________________________________________________ 3 Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting__________________________________________________________________ 10. Conduct community information meetings by_____________________________________ .11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________ _12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 21201^5 2I22IQ5 2J2ilQ5 3/3/95 3/15/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Di Hmn P Wallim. K* ntPXK.ocx'Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 5 1 Nhlestone 13. Develop letter to parents and students with 14, Inventory building announcement and reassignment 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment 17. Remove materials and equipment from school *---------- 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20, Reassign staff________________ 21. Send final assignment notices Date 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total budding capacity and total enrollment shows vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of desegregation, the number of vacant many seats are necessary for seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buUdmgs. The financing of any school is a major expense Therefore, ^rious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savmgs are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing, ecause it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used. Fair Park Elementary School is a school that must be con^dered for closing. It is located north of 1-630 and just west of University Avenue in the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion this business case. are explained in Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. 2. 3. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\noi/o*/95 ^^Probl^ Definiti^ SMbBMtM*bv t\u0026gt; Hwm r Wdlt 3Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 6 4. 5. 6. 7. The school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\nThe per pupil cost has increased\nOperational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\nThe building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings\nFigure 1 illustrates some of these trends. S?1 11 Q. n h Figure 1 Fair Park Elementary Enrollment History Criteria 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Enrollment % Black_______ % Out of Balance Capacity_______ A.ttnd. Zone Ttl7 AZ % Black 332 72.00 12.00 94.59 345 80.87 20.87 98.29 320 80.31 20.31 91.17 243 79.01 19.01 69.23 263 76.05 16.05 74.93 343 49.27 282 72.34 12.34 80.34 348 53.44 I I ^Analysi^^lternatix^ Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were age of building, increasing costs, and low capacity. Addressing only one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency 1 2 Enrollments are for October of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two years only. WiUiaoa. buprfWMHtdaM I 01//* ir TOTUCCXVFair Park School Relocation Business Case 7 for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: areas of I 1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow to grow annually\n2. Redraw the attendance  costs zone to increase the number of students attending Fair Park School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Fair Park but wiU increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Fair Park's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all three areas of the problem. a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. Attachment C\nb) An immediate One possible scenario appears in savings of approximately $637,000 wUl be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff WiU be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. d) The curriculum offered at Fair Park will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. fnfeusi^ recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Fair Park were increased by this effort, it would have a negative impact on neighboring attendance Recommenda tion zones. 3 Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of i the problem areas. Objective 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed zoith a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met\nSalwillMil b* O. Hmy P Wgli oi/OM/95 nc rnnuDf^ 1Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nn w E M 2. II Cl 7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. II Impact Analysis ] z a I The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. 2. 3. 4. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\nCommunity reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nThe general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Wd oi/(n/*s K* ntnuLDcrFflzr Park School Relocation Business Case 9 Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned mmAaKkPe nnoeiAwZ sctfuiiddaennkts and ^p,a,1t_ror*n _si _f eeli welcom, ed\nJO school to 3 included in appropriate school correspondence and activities 1wX71i4t-1h^ those who Th___a__v___e_ 1 been enrolled\n* 4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of and, approximately $637,000\navaUable to the community for use pending court Risks 1 The risks of not implementing this solution is inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal increasing district costs thus The risks of implementation of this solution management. , --------------- are several. .S-nojmiiiec cauree curriitnicciissmm lfoorr abandoning another school buUding in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will benefits exactly as anticipated. not realize all oi the Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96 If this solution is to be implemented, patrons wiU need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools. transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition wiU be used to eliminate positions. nt/o/95 K nrwon 1 1 Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 10 Financial A savings of approximately $637,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis to S B' 5 P 5 I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. I i I General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval______________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. y Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by. I) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo a 'okoMIted In O r Wt oi/oo/MS (r ntPiutorcFair Park. School Relocation Business Case 11 ______ Milestone 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhnnH /. Conduct informational meetinr ----------- community information meeting to send to: _Date 2/10/95 Person Mayo I ...Jstaff about th?^\n?\n^ aa)) ppaarreennttss \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ssttuuddeennttss\n- community information meeting to: b) community groups and churches\n_ c) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, meeting 10. Conduct community informatinn 11. Notify finance announcing the relocation and date of the information meetings by ^rson to include this as a budget reduction strate. 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court '13. Develop letter to parents and students 14. Inventory buildinn 15. Design plan for ly to relocate students at FairPari\u0026lt; School with announcement and reassignment new attendance zones in southwest 16. Mail letter to parents and students with an^ .Remove materials and equipment from schooT 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure buildinn -------------------- announcement and assignment 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 20, Reassign staff 21. Send final assii inment notices 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 0 Hmr. r. W. Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo n/w/w Rc ntPRx.Dnr Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 12 Attachment A Copy of map of Little Rock with Fair Park Elementary and other schools oi/0tzs ar nmiKDoc a 5*1. X s. ii I II I ,  erson School Little School District \\ \\ Ji -L w ZForreesstt PPaark School ^qWil jams Magnet School5ff^ hall'nigh'dchooP I  'AIR PARR SCHOOL H-W-, i.-VU I / .1 ^..LPJ-tu aski Heights J \"School B  t I f r High School^^ T7 i I- 630 T Fran iklin Incentive \\et H \\ T I I I I I I \\ '' \\ \\ ' \\ ' ' \\ \\ \\ \\ chooL - ^ulasIcfWeights School \\ Li Ovoodruff Sch\n. oIol  rr School F le JjStejne^ School ^LRSD Adm r. King Interdistrict School^ ool itibs Magnet^ 1------- 111 , 'ni77rr\nrrrF  Dunbar Junior High School t l-H \\ I ki 1 rr rr-~rr--ti -ti -ir+i- Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Fair Park Elementary School **^**01 Hwr wii oi// Bc nnKDOc 0 gl. . M. 1! h I iUnit JIM Little Rock School District Department Budget Func ObJ - Description 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM _______________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______________ 0 i20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _________ _____ 02i0~ SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______________0240 INSURANCE _______________ 0380 FOOD SERVICES _______________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _______________ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER _______________ O548_EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM __________1110 KINDERGARTEN ________________0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX______ ________________ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES ___ ____________ 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ~ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______ 0240 INSURANCE___________________ 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT _______ 0342 POSTAGE_________________ ____ _______ 0360 PRINTING A BINDING-INTERN 0410 SUPPLIES _______ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _______0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES _______0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT  SUPPLY CENTER 1120 ELEMENTARY __________1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ --------------------------- 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date: 8/ 5/94 Vape- 7t Prog: BUD0()2 Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,488.31 4,703.86 3,081.67 256.47 0.00 0.00 69,530.31 406,546.70 35,187.90 33,793.04 25,237.13 2.84 282.92 109.00 605.15 3,560.75 239.27 1,347.06 469.90 507,401.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.00 17.00 0.00 10,411.00 667.75 1,000.68 0.00 1,977.93 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 17,677.36 68,212.00 4,664.25 2,624.26 212.22 412.00 45.32 76,370.05 421,628.06 33,567.28 35,039.40 23,663.51 515.00 257.50 257.50 1,414.77 1,701.68 257.50 772.50 0.00 519,074.70 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 0.00 9,907.00 745.82 997.20 2,572.65 2,849.60 209.03 245.13 918.07 18,444.70 68,212.00 5,188.08 2,229.66 436.68 0.00 0.00 76,066.42 398,563.85 23,948.98 31,403.34 17,078.75 4.05 163.68 302.80 906.46 3,246.82 0.00 472.75 0.00 476,111.48 17,233.50 1,318.32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 13.50 4.00 17.50 0.50 24,089.00 20,066.00 3,190.73 3,315.00 5,400.00 3,233.00 0.00 3,60000 0.00 62,893.73 69,014.00 4,987.08 2,210.00 200.00 200.00 44.00 76,655.08 352,097.00 28,721.70 31,300.44 17,127.50 300.00 100.00 96.50 1,200.00 1,700.00 257.50 500.00 200.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 10.50 3.00 433,600.64 13.50 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 0.50 Unit Func ObJ - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM _______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1220 RESOURCE ROOM___________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1220 RESOURCE ROOM Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015.00 Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461.84 FTE 94/95 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 796.44 1,292.94 12,500.38 6,246.71 456.12 600.11 7,302.94 1.00 1.00 6,246.60 451.39 663.00 7,360.99 0.60 0.60 14,392.56 1,101.13 765.59 16,259.28 1.50 1.50 15,226.00 1,065.78 653.15 16,964.93 30,452.00 2,046.64 1,117.88 33,616.52 0.50 0.50 25,004.00 1,806.84 1,105.00 27,915.84 1.00 1.00 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0117 STIPENDS _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0380 FOOD SERVICES _______0410 SUPPLIES_____________________ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ _______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES______________ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES Date: 8/ 5/94 Pape- 72 Prog: BUD002 4,703.31 751.69 940.37 29.00 2,585.83 1,079.24 10,089.44 18,044.54 1,380.55 845.79 20,270.88 26,719.00 2,043.86 1,518.67 30,281.53 15,144.45 1,158.26 1,273.28 17,575.99 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 POSSBJ )ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,222.67 4,428.44 7,651.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,438.00 1,314.83 665.41 20,418.24 14,162.00 1,009.90 648.44 15,820.34 14,803.67 1,139.61 1,089.98 17,033.26 11,043.59 644.81 358.48 12,246.88 25,557.47 1,604.61 933.42 28,095.50 10,950.49 837.66 700.94 12,489.09 S9jn)ipii9dx3 sswuisnff 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 18,438.00 1,332.37 552.50 20,322.87 32,058.00 2,316.57 1,105.00 35,479.57 15,432.65 1,115.19 331.50 16,879.34 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Obj - Description_______________ 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_____ __________ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED __________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX __________0240 INSURANCE ~ __________0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 40,513.26 12,269.00 4,037.91 2,990.07 2,090.60 180.95 62,081.99 1.00 1.00 2.00 41,729.11 6,696.61 2,804.26 2,732.79 176.65 257.50 56,399.12 41,729.11 12,983.00 4,022.20 2,175.10 2,048.39 184.18 63,141.98 1.00 1.00 2.00 41,729.11 5,372.40 3,403.65 1,547.00 1,141.00 1,141.00 54,334.16 1.00 0.40 1.40 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL _______ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICAT^ _______ 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES ~ _ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS ------- _______ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL _______ 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC _______ 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU _______ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/ 5/94 Page: 7.1 Prog\nBUD002 44,209.33 16,996.66 0.00 4,682.36 3,01054 24.95 0.00 68,925.86 25,945.41 0.00 1,984.69 696.30 1,686.80 7,304.82 28,873.70 2,327.05 69,022.77 1,917.66 1,917.66 873,357.37 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 31.00 47,375.24 16,059.30 0.00 4,621.13 2,566.65 176.85 257.50 71,056.67 21,574.11 0.00 1,660.80 394.30 1,202.79 5,500.00 43,500.00 2,000.00 75,832.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 918,162.05 46,125.49 31,731.99 135.52 5,966.42 3,136.92 0.00 0.00 87,096.34 15,432.56 780.21 1,240.28 187.45 1,064.62 8,606.37 37,247.41 1,662.45 66,241.35 2,395.52 2,395.52 910,017.61 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 47,631.90 17,194.65 0.00 4,684.49 2,210.00 180.00 260.00 72,161.04 22,982.97 0.00 1,660.80 0.00 2,210.00 9,000.00 37,000.00 2,500.00 75,353.77 2,000.00 2,000.00 904,418.87 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 27.80 Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment C A possible scenario for relocating students m/o/s ir FwtK-Ooc SMkanOMd D t Wii tB II Ii IJ L 11 ':i I T Fflir Park School Relocation Business Case I Possible Scenario for Fair Park Relocation 15 1. One four-year-old class must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate this class. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Reassign the one hundred and thirty-two students (85 black and 47 non-black) who are not living in Fair Park's attendance zone back to their area school. Fair Park will lose thirty sixth graders to jr. high school (25 blacks and 5 non-blacks) thereby leaving a total of one hundred and twenty-one students (99 blacks and 22 non-blacks) to reassign. Encourage twenty-two non-black students to apply to magnet schools, interdistrict schools. Reassign 22 non-black students to Brady. Offer 99 black students seats in Incentive Schools. or Encourage M-to-M transfers. Reassign zone blocks 511, 512, 513, and 554 to McDermott. McDermott current capacity is 494 however, in past years it has been higher in to warrant an assistant principal. 9. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools: 3 a) b) c) Magnet and Interdistrict school's racial balance will remain the same. Brady's racial makeup will improve. Brady is currently 64% black and 32.2% non-black. The new balance will be 62.2% black and 37.8% non-black. McDermott racial balance will shift to 69.3 black if all former Fair Park black students transfer to McDermott. 3 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the affected magnet schools. SobMMrd Ot. Hton' I W\u0026gt; 01ZW/W BT FRPUK-CXf r BUSINESS CASE FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 M 2. The four-year-old program addresses the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. The program was established in 1988 as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan was drafted and submitted to the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year. At that time, the Little Rock School District proposed to have a four-year-old program in all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. This goal included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan.\" The District proposed modifications to the 1989 settlement plan regarding the four-year-old program in 1992. In May, 1992 the court issued an order addressing the proposed changes. The result of this court order is that the District must now \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the District had a four-year-old program\"(720). r 11 z 0 1 5 1 As of this school year, 1994-95, the District is in compliance with this court order. We are currently providing 720 four-year-old seats located in 20 of the 36 elementary schools for a total of 40 four-year-old classes within the District. The District is currently funding the four-year-old program through desegregation money and ABC grant money. The District is facing serious financial problems along with a decrease and discontinuation of desegregation funding sources. To ensure continued implementation of the program, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds in order for the program to continue. In an effort to assist the District with its financial difficulty, alternative 6 would save the District the most money. Elimmate the program completely in all schools except the five Incentive Schools. This alternative addresses the following areas: a.) A plan to continue the program in the Incentive Schools in an effortFour-Year-Old Program Page 2 to address the needs of at-risk students and as a recruitment tool to improve racial balances at these schools. b.) A plan which would produce an immediate savings of $1,321,520.48 will be realized by eliminating the four year old programs in all schools except in the five Incentive Schools. Prior to implementing any alternative, the District must consider current filings before and court orders from the U.S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court. Negatives of this alternative: 1. The District would be out of compliance with the May 1, 1992 Court Order which states: The District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\" (720). 2. Potential loss of some or all of the $183,600.00 supplied through the Arkansas Better Chance grant monies. The grant was written for the following schools: Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Fair Park Geyer Springs King Rightsell Romine Watson Wilson Woodruff Positives of this alternative: 1. The program will students. still be available and provide services for 180 2. The District will realize an immediate cost savings. A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old J 1 IFour-Year-Old Program Page 3 students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. as a tool to Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year, 1989-90, four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. In the ly^U-Vl school year Badgett and Garland were added. 1 tt, 1988 through 1991 the class size was twenty (20) students per class, i ne During the time period of n lyoo LUIUUtU VUV V1U.JU -------------------------J , following year 1991-92, in order for the District to be in compliance wi h O J . .4  ____________urOTlTV I /III TO X S. North Central Accreditation, the class size was reduced from twenty (20) to eighteen (18) students per cUss. Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff were added during the 1991-92 school year. Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Spring^ II h added during the 1992-93 school year. In 1993-94 Watson, and Wilson were added dunng the scnooi year ru the District closed Ish and classes were expanded at Romine and Cloverdale. Classes were added at Baseline, Brady, Chicot, Fair Park and IGng dunng the During the 1994-95 school year the District closed 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year me i^i.uiLf Stephens school and classes were expanded at Franklin, Washington, Badgett, Woodruff, Bale, Geyer Springs, and Watson. Mablevale added a four-year- old class during the 1994-95 school year. was drafted and submitted to Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year At that time, the Little Rock School District proposed to have a fou^ear-old I XI j 1! program in 'all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. Thisi g.^ included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, ... t ____2___________nftncfmpfinn affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan.\" The Court held hearings on the parties proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19,1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. The Court issued an order May 1 1992 addressing the proposed changes. According to the May 1 court 'the Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both . . __J___ tkori itnnarf ni\u0026lt;inaritv Ol order. II. they impact disparity of compensatory and desegregatory in nature since academic achievement by better preparing children for kindergarten and also acaaciniv auuicvcui^ut MJ ----o act to attract white children to the public schools. The parties convinced the desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs ,n scnoors u. areas which have proved difficult to desegregate. Therefore, the Little Rock School District will not be requited to place four-year-old programs in every elementaiy school. However, the parties have made Llemn promises regarding early childhood education, Coud^viewshe Court that, as a in schools or areas four-year-old program \"as a which holds great promise to substantive component of the settlement plan reduce achievement disparity between black andFour-Year-Old Program Page 4 white children and to promote racial balance in the schools.\" Now the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\"(720), (page 16). As of this school year 1994-95 the District is in compliance with this order. We are currently providing 720 four-year-old seats located in 20 of the 36 elementary schools for a total of 40 four-year-old classes within the District. The expected outcomes of the program are: * To provide Early Childhood Education experiences that will increase the opportunity for success of disadvantaged students. * To improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. * To meet our desegregation obligations and to be in compliance with Court orders. During the 1994-95 school year approximately $2,177,675.64 has been allocated to operate the program. The district is receiving $233,992.00 from the State through the Arkansas Better Chance monies, $183,600.00 of the grant is allocated to the four-year-old program and the remaining $50,392.00 is allocated to the HIPPY program. The balance of $1,943,683.64 is funded through desegregation money. 1 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The District is facing serious financial problems along with a decrease and discontinuation of desegregation funding. The District does not receive any state reimbursement for the students in the four-year-old program\ntherefor, the district must prepare a plan of action for alternate funding sources to continue the program. Individual schools in the Little Rock School District have limited operating funds\nconsequently, they have a difficult time supporting the current programs in operation. To ensure continued implementation of the program, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds for the program IFour-Year-Old Program Page 5 continuation and should seek outside funding sources vigorously. The District needs to cut its budget in order to eliminate the deficit it is currently experiencing. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Possible alternatives for continuation of the four-year-old programs are. CD S?!. 1. Continue funding the program through desegregation funds until the 11 2. 3. Develop a plan of action to seek desegregation money runs out ot scex outside funding sources, such as Goal 2000 money that the state will be receiving. The program should be eligible under the first national education goal set by the President and the 50 governors in 1990. From a cost point of view, this will not assist the District in resolving its current financial problems. in 1990. Explore the feasibility of contractual services with Head Start The draw back of this alternative is that in the May 1 Court Order the Court ordered the District: \"to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the District does not contract and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the District is encouraged to continue its Head Start and the City cooperative relationship with agencies such as of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the 1989 plan\". Charge a weekly fee for the program based on not shift to such the amount the state allocates for vouchers. Currently this amount is $60.00 per week. This would allow the program to generate the following revenues if the program were filled to capacity: $60.00 a week times 720 = $43,200.00 weekly $43,200.00 times 36 weeks = $1,555,200.00 yearly This alternative would conflict with the cunent grant we are receiving in Arkansas Better Chance monies. We would have to discontinue the not charge a fee in the 13 schools for the children grant monies or not charge a tee in tne u scnoois lui me Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. Approximately who meet Arkansas Better cnance eiigioimy ------ 306 of this years children in the 13 schools meet Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. The District could still take in h o. z a IFour-Year-Old Program Page 6 approximately $894,240.00 in revenues and. continue to receive $183,600.00 in Arkansas Better Chance grant money for a total amount in revenues of $1,128,232.00 and not charge for the children who meet Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. From a cost point of view this is attractive because it gives the District additional revenues which would provide immediate assistance in resolving a part of its financial problems. However, since there is currently a two year waiting list for the voucher system, this would not be meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and this alternative would cater to the more affluent clientele. I I I 4. Reduce the number of certified staff to 1 certified teacher for every site where the programs exist, and add an additional certified teacher for sites that have 3 or more programs. This would reduce the number of certified positions from 40 to 25 certified positions. This number does not take into account the new Stephens school. The District would have to add 15 instructional aides to the programs in order to meet the adult to child ratio required by the Department of Human Services for Licensing. The certified teachers would be the lead teacher. They would be responsible for seeing to it that the curriculum is being properly implemented in every classroom that they are responsible for and the instructional aides would work directly with the certified teacher who would rotate among the rooms daily. One of the Early Childhood Teachers at Rockefeller needs to be placed on a 12 month contract in order to meet the needs of the infant, toddler, and three-year-old classes which operate year-round. This individual would be responsible for administering, planning, managing, and controlling the centers daily activities, and for ensuring that the licensing requirements are met. This would be an additional expenditure of approximately $8792.85 to extend a certified teachers contract at Rockefeller to a 12 month contract. The District is continually being criticized by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for not employing a certified teacher during the summer months of operation for the program. This was mentioned again this year in the December 21,1994,1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report page 100. This alternative would be in compliance with licensing standards, and would produce a net savings of $294,188.10 in the operation of the I I program. It would have a negative impact on the quality of the program, however, this would be minor compared to the major impact of totally dissolving all certified teaching positions and operating the program with non-certified personal. This would be a very short term solution if the state approves the new 11 1Four-Year-Old Program Page 7 levels for licensure. In February, three levels of licensure will be presented to the State for approval: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, and Adolescence/Young Adulthood. Upon approval, the timeline for implementation would be a minimum of one year, therefore we would be out of compliance with State standards within one year. A reduction of 15 certified teachers would provide the District with a immediate short term savings of $294,188.10. a w E M 2, Cost of Certified teachers salary (15) $460,419.75 Cost of 15 additional instructional aides - $157,438.80 Q. Cost of extending 1 teacher to a 12 month contract TOTAL SAVINGS $302,980.95 -$ 8,792.85 $294,188.10 W s. II B 5. Eliminate all 40 certified teaching positions and fill the certified positions with 40 non-certified instructional aides. Hire 4 Early Childhood Specialist to help provide staff development activities and assist in the supervision of curriculum implementation by spending one day a week at each site. I i One of the Early Childhood Specialist needs to be placed on a 12 month contract. The specialist on a 12 month contract would be assigned to Rockefeller during the summer and would be responsible for administering, planning, managing, and controlling the centers daily activities, and for ensuring that the licensing requirements are met. This is necessary because Rockefeller early childhood classes for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds operate year-round. This will address the concern of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as previously stated in their 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report page 100. This alternative would be in compliance with licensing standards, and would produce a net savings of $676,377.36. The certified instructional aides hired for the schools that are receiving ABC money would need to have a Child Development Associate Degree. Though this may be attractive from a cost point of view, it would definitely take time to provide the necessary training to ensure that quality developmentally appropriate activities are taking place in all forty classes. Cost of Certified teachers salary (40) $1,227,786.75Four-Year-Old Program Page 8 Cost of Non-Cert. instr, aides (40) - $419,836.80 6. $807,949.20 Cost of 3 - 9 1/4 month certified specialist and 1 - 12 month specialist TOTAL SAVINGS - $131,571.84 $676,377.36 Eliminate the program completely except at the five Incentive Schools. This would provide the District with $1,321,520.48 in immediate savings which would assist in reducing the deficit the District is currently experiencing. Item Cost Regular Certified Salaries (40 FTE) Regular Non-Certified Salaries (49.5) Stipends Social Security Tax Insurance $1,227,786.00 519,548.22 2,926.00 127,229.30 98,345.00 Total Salaries + Benefits $1,975,834.52 Food Services Supplies Equipment Control Budget 79,000.00 76,011.12 34,200.00 12,630.00 Total Operating Expenses $ 201,841.12 Total Program Budget Less ABC Grant 4YR Less ABC Grant HIPPY $2,177,675.64 (183,600.00) (50,392.00) Total Desegregation Money $1,943,683.64 Less Operating Costs at 5 Inc. Schools (622,163.16) Total Potential Savings $1,321,520.48 Though this may be attractive from a cost point of view, this alternative would 11Four-Year-Old Program Page 9 receive a negative reaction from the community, principals, teachers, instructional aides, the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. D. RECOMMENDATION In an effort to assist the District with its financial difficulty, ALTERATIVE 6 is recommended as the alternative which would produce a potential savings of $1,321,520.48. Eliminate the program completely except for the five Incentive\nSchools. Programs at the following schools would be eliminated (30 classes). STS II II X S. Badgett - 2 Bale -1. Baseline - 2 Brady - 1 Chicot - 1 Cloverdale - 3 Fair Park - 2 Geyer Springs - 2 King - 4 Mablevale - 1 Romine - 2 Washington - 3 Watson - 2 Wilson - 1 Woodruff - 2 E. OBJECTIVE z a B I n The objective of this recommendation is to allow the District to reduce the budget deficit while continuing the implementation of the four-year-old programs as an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economically disadvantaged children and to attract white students to the Incentive Schools. GOAL SUPPORT The objective supports District goals #1,2, 3,4, 5 and 6. The four-yey-old prograin will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally while closing disparities in achievement (goal #1). Administrators, teaches, and instructional aides will receive on going training during the year (goal #2). The curriculunrcover strategies that will lead students to demonstrate in their daily behavior at in the community, that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and that they view cultural diversity in people as a valued resource (goa Outside funding will be used to help support the program (goal #4) through the ABC (Arkansas Better Chance) Grant. Within the Early Childhood curriculum, skills are Uught which focus on student behavior. The goal is for students to help provide a safS and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students (goa #5) Finally the Early Childhood coordinator monitors the programs to ensure thatT Four-Year-Old Program Page 10 equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (goal #6) which includes program and technical support. EVALUATION CRITERIA * Familiarize parents with four-year-old program through orientations and parent conferences. * Evaluate effectiveness of four-year-old program by analyzing data to determine if measurable growth in student achievement has occurred and to analyze the impact of the program regarding racial balance. EXPECTED BENEFITS The District will be able to continue to utilize the program as a means to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for students in the five Incentive Schools which will result in a reduction of the disparity between white and black students. The five Incentive Schools will be able to continue to use the four-year-old program as a recruitment tool which will result in an increase in white enrollment The District will expend its funds in a more cost-saving manner which can result in the elimination of deficit spending. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Program Students in the five Incentive School Programs will still have the opportunity to participate in meaningful learning experiences and the program will continue to be utilized as a recruitment tool to help improve the racial balance at the Incentive Schools. ! The community will have limited access to the four-year-old programs because of the decreasing number of programs which will create limited services and cause a reduction in the number of students who can participate in the programs. \u0026lt; I Four-Year-Old Program Page 11 Desegregation Plan The District will be out of compliance with the Desegregation Plan. T^e four-year-old program - the Districts preschool curriculum model, will be implemented in all Incentive Schools and other selected schools in the Little Rock School District. Effective the 1990-91 school year, this model will be an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economically disadvantaged children and to attract white n S?!. students to the schools.\" Court Order By eliminating the four-year-old program at all but the five Incentive Schools the District would be out of compliance with the May 1, 1992 Court Order which states the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\"(720). Political Factors I I The Early Childhood community in Central Arkansas has been very supportive of this program. Included in the Early Childhood Community are representatives from the Governors office, the Early Childhood Commission, the State Department of Education, U. A.L.R., Headstart, D.H.S., Professional Associations as well as the hundreds of parents whose children have benefited from the program. Risks The risks of implementing this alternative are: 1. Reducing the number of programs from 40 to 10 would lunit the availability of services for students, participants would be reduced from 720 to 180. The number of 2. The differences that exist in the readiness exposure that students are entering school with will continue to exist in a This has a direct affect on the academic larger degree. achievement of the students.Four-Year-Old Program Page 12 Tuning All certified and non-certified personnel must be notified that their contract is being altered 30 days prior to the current contract expiration elate. G. RESOURCE AIWCATION Personnel Analysis Site^Programs Teachers Students Sites Before Modification After Modification Amount of Change (Difference) 20 15 Programs 40 10 30 Certified Non-CerL 40 10 30 49.5 13 36.5 720 180 540 5 Financial Analysis Total Program Budget 1 Before Modification After Modification Amount of Change (Difference) $1,943,683.64 $ 622,163.16 $1,321,520.48 The resulting savings would be $1,321,520.48. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary Supporters Primary supporters of the recommendation will be the financial managers because we are going to save $1,321,522.48. J Four-Year-Old Program Page 13 Forces Against Forces against this alternative would be the community, the parents, the principals, the teachers, the instructional aides, the Court, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN n S?1 Activity Completion Date Responsible/Participating Person(s) M. II II Identify the 30 Certified Teachers affected by the program modification Notify the 30 Certified Teachers of the displacement Identify the 36.5 noncertified instructional aides affected by the program modification Notify the 36.5 noncertified instructional aides of the displacement April 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Dr. Hurley, HR Director Dr. Hurley, HR Director May 1, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Dr. Hurley, HR Director I I May 1, 1995 Dr. Hurley, HR Director P. Price, ECE Coordinator Develop Staff Development Plan for monthly in-service Conduct pre-school inservice July 15, 1995 August 15, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Staff Dev, P. Price, ECE CoordinatorBUSINESS CASE Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters executive summary The Little Rock School District is committed to quality education for all students, reducing the disparity between sub-groups, balancing the budget, and implementation of the current Desegregation Plan. The HIPPY Program is an intervention program that focuses upon the parent as the first teacher of four and five year olds. However, there has been a decline in recent years of the enrollment of five year olds in the HIPPY program due to the mandatory kindergarten program in public schools. The HIPPY USA guidelines advocate teaching a specific curriculum to young participants. The earlier that we begin with an educational program, the sooner students will experience learning that is valued and needed in early schooling. Further, research has proved that early learning impacts a childs motivation and ability to achieve as he/she progresses through school. Restructuring of the HIPPY Program, its staff, and responsibilities will allow the District to continue to provide quality services to designated students, incentive schools, and portions of Southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce and/or realign our spending. to STS II h I 5 [A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District was one of the first of four (4) sites to begin implementation in Arkansas in 1986. Those programs included the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County School District, Pine Bluff, and the Early Childhood Development Center in Harrison. The following chart reflects the participation of families in the HIPPY Program since 1986. I 300 -1 250 !I-23 3....... 220 230 ------- 230..... 175 ti II zco -i! ICO - 1' 50 -i. 125 _-140_____  ^112 132~ ^100 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP [150 i 125 219 I 4-YEAR OLD FAMILIES .'5-YEAR OLD FAMILIES i! ISO - : 11 I 0 ' 2 1 h B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There exists a need to improve the delivery and quality of the HIPPY Program, as well as reduce the budget. After a study of the decline in five-year-old student participation, high turnover of Home Visitors, delivery ot services, and utilization of resources, it was determined that some problems existed and the District needed to improve the effectiveness of the program at a reduced cost. There has been a decline in the participation of five year olds as a result of mandatory kindergarten. Many parents of five year olds are not participating as they did in earlier years. The quality of Home Visitors services are difficult to maintain as a result of high turnover of staff. There is a need to review the current pay schedule in order for us to attract and maintain highly skilled Home Visitors. This will Further, there is a need to restructure the program, allow the resources, human and financial, to be used in a more efficient and effective manner. Annual reviews for several years of the program indicate a need to reorganize. The HIPPY Program productivity is affected by a high turnover in Stability is lacking when time and effort are being used staff. to train beginners. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Ideas were generated that were designed to improve the quality of the HIPPY Program. Issues were used as inservice topics, others were assessed for the purpose of developing alternatives i^^^t would be cost effective, saving the district money, and would maintain a high quality program. Weekly staff meetings were held: alternatives were discussed and developed. Parent requests and suggestions were considered. Group meetings and Home Visitor reports during weekly inservices have been helpful in gathering   Some suggested alternatives included: parental input. Q) STS tl h \u0026amp; I I 1. Assignments of Home Visitors to one specific geographical area to save mileage. Each Home Visitor would be allowed several days to recruit the required number of families and would be limited to a specific 32. T location. Most Of the Home Visitors recruit in areas across the city and may not reach the required enrollment number. assignments would be made based upon Additional enrollment. Consequently, the family assignments could be dispersed across the city. Fundraisers were suggested with the emphasis on securing private donations. Initially, not enough donors were identified. This option will be pursued in order to expand services. 3. Salary increases for Home Visitors were discussed. This alternative is in direct conflict with reducing the budget. This alternative was rejected because of the Districts current financial condition. 4. Provide services to HIPPY families in the incentive schools and designated families in southwest Little Rock. D. RECOMMENDATION Given the Districts current financial condition and the need to continue to provide services to designated four year olds, the following recommendations are proposed: Eliminate the HIPPY program except for parents within the incentive schools. Continue to provide service to designated families in southwest Little Rock using Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) funds\nseek funding from the citys Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)\nand refer families to appropriate city and state agencies for services (Headstart, Children \u0026amp; Family Services private daycare providers etc.) I E. OBJECTIVE The objective of these recommendations is to continue to serve families in our incentive schools and southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce spending to maintain a high quality HIPPY program. 4 1 I Evaluation Criteria 1. Maintenance of enrollment of four year olds in the incentive schools will be evidenced by enrollment numbers for the 1995-96 school year. 2. Restructuring of staff responsibilities will be evidenced by a more efficiently managed office. 3. Align staff development activities as in Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock and narrow the focus to be more effective. S! II n 4. The numbers of students entering kindergarten ready to learn will be maintained and/or increased. h The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students which will result in reducing the disparity between black and white students in our district. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS I [ The recommendations will promote savings for the District and enhance the quality of services provided by the HIPPY Program. Human Resources will be better utilized as a result of restructuring the staffs responsibilities. Spending will be decreased as a result of the reduction of positions. More time will be available for home visits as a result of decreasing the weekly inservice time. Negative Impact Fewer families will be served in the HIPPY Program. Impact on the Desegregation Plan All recommendations will impact the Desegregation Plan in a positive manner. Each recommendation is in harmony with the components of the Desegregation Plan that outlines the expectations of the HIPPY Program. Early intervention can assist in reducing the disparity and provide quality achievement for all students. 5Impact on Court Orders This modified plan will assist in balancing the budget. Further, the plan will improve productivity by maintaining number of families that can be served and adequate utilization of resources. Further, it will assist in meeting the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Political Factors The success of the recommendations will depend upon how well central office and the Board of Directors communicate the programs vision to the community. There are no major risks for implementing the recommendations. against implementing these recommendations could result in the HIPPY Program not improving the quality of services to families as well as assist the district in reducing its spending. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of personnel before and J needed peirmspolennmeenlt ecda.n be?\n.s. elected from^paren.trso m awnnd nn? currently participating in the program. expense for training because the Regional ppovides training at the beginning of each year as part of the program. Additional training will be done weekly by trained central office staff. weeKiy after the The recruiting pool from which There will Program Year 1994-95 Supervisor Home Visitors In-Office Aides Secretary Coordinators 1 20 212 Salary $27,801.00 143,004.00 19,671.35 17,915.00 42,516.00 Fringes Total Salary and Fringes 26 $250,907.35 Materials/Supplies: 5,665.85 28,702.73 4,009.02 3,651.08 8,664.76 33,466.85 171,706.73 23,680.37 21,566.08 51,180.76 I $50,693.44 $301,600.79 296 families x $100 29.600.00 TOTAL Home Visitors working 40 hours per week $331,200.79 NUMBER OF FAMILIES SERVED 1994-95 296 6 I i Program Year 1995-96 (Desegregation Fund) Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Superyisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 1 3 1 0 $29,191.05 23,133.60 18,810.75 44,641.80 5,949.14 4,714.64 3,833.63 9,098.00 35,140.19 27,848.24 22,644.38 53,739.80 5 $115,777.20 $23,595.41 $139,372.61 Materials/Supplies: 70 families x $100 7.000.00 TOTAL $146,372-61 ms II (B o. Home Visitors working 40 hours per week h TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 185,828.18 Salary Program Year 1995-96_______________ (Arkansas Better Chance Grant (ABC) Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 0 3 0 0 $23,133.60 4,714.64 27,848.24 z o I Materials/Supplies: 60 families x $100 6,000.00 TOTAL $33,848.24 Home Visitors working 40 hours per week PROJECTED NUMBER OF FAMILIES TO SERVE 1995-96 130 7H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The supporters of the recommendations are those who are inclined to promote and advocate early intervention programs. The recommendations are philosophically sound and designed to improve services when reducing the budget for the 1995-96 school year. Among the supporters are: Parents of HIPPY participants Home Visitors Regional HIPPY office HIPPY USA Community Early Childhood Education Task Force Early Prevention Advocates HIPPY Advisory Board The possible detractors may be families of the city. not served in other areas 8 I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE 1. Restructure program 03/95 Supervisor 2. Restructure of staff, responsibilities \u0026amp; schedules 03/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent n II 3. Parents will enroll four year olds 07/95 Supervisor/ Home Visitors h \u0026amp; 4. Reduce Inservice time to accommodate additional families 08/95 Supervisor 5. Maintain or increase the number of families that Home Visitors serve each week 07/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent I i 6. Monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the program 06/96 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a STS II ho. TII3 INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN STAFFING January 31, 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN - STAFFING BUSINESS CASE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Incentive Schools were designated to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. remodeled facilities, The D 5*1. 11 h Cl The current staffing configuration at the Incentive Scho\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_251","title":"City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School administrators","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative"],"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/251"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSchool based centers managed by community-based organizations that offer children and adults a mix of recreation, social services, education enrichment, vocational activities, health education, and referrals.\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term Beacon\" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. I am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When 1 am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, 1 am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown   c Eif?\n: \u0026gt; Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 11, 1994 RECE5VEP Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 2 2 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the Rock Beacon School Initiative. City of Little The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools organizations to meet the needs of youth and community-based society. in today's complex The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. community-based A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will nrovide the soace for the DT-DCT \"r a-m provide space program. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sil X\nC 2. re^ I P. Williams, Su^rintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-3000RATIONAL BEACON SITE-SELECTION The Little Rock School District carefully examined the site-selection criteria that were developed by the Beacon Initiative Steering Committee and provided to the district for use in the selection process. The school characteristics were reviewed and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Listed below are the site-selection criteria and the specific characteristics for Cloverdale Junior High School. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ADEQUATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES  Cloverdale Junior High School has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track, and several outside recreational activity areas. SUFFICIENT HEALTH FACILITIES  In the recent building renovations of Cloverdale, the health services area was expanded and updated. It is sufficient to handle expanded health care services. AMPLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES  Ample educational classroom space is available as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. ADEQUATE OFFICE SPACE  Office space for the director of the Beacon Program has been identified by the building principal. TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY  Cloverdale Junior High is located less than a block from Geyer Springs Road which serves as a main traffic artery for the Southwest Little Rock community. Cloverdale Elementary is located adjacent to the junior high which will enhance accessibility for elementary age students. SATISFACTORY DAY CARE FACILITIES  Space within the building could be adapted and designated for a child care area while parents are participating in Beacon activities.CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS INITIATIVE MISSION STATEMENT: To establish comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe havens for children and families support, located in public school buildings and operated by community organizations. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that stress youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. STRUCTURE: Beacons school-based community centers are managed by non-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Little Rock School District (LRSD), principals, City of Little Rock and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon must have a Community Advisory Council whose membership must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils may also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, districts School Board member and Wards City Board member. These councils work closely with the coordinating agency to plan and assess programming and community events.SCHOOL/BEACONS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT A viable School/Beacons Partnership Agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative. This agreement will be a result of collaborative efforts between the LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the parties as well as a spirit of collaboration, belief in negotiations of issues and a commitment to flexibihty will provide a sound foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. Listed below is an initial list of major points that are recommended for inclusion in the final School/Beacon Partnership Agreement which will be formalized in the early stages of the implementation process. The LRSD will ensure that facilities are available and suitable for the accomplishment of the Beacons goals and strategies. LRSD will commit to office space on full-time basis. The use of selected school facilities and equipment will be agreed to mutually between the two entities. A schedule of dates for the use of school facilities will be developed in advance by the Beacons and the LRSD. This schedule will be arranged in order to avoid conflict between the two entities. The Beacons will supply all consumable materials and supplies necessary for the operation of the program. Arrangements to protect the daily work of teachers and students wiU be developed by the Beacons. The Beacons will develop adequate security measures. The Beacons will insure that school facilities are cleaned and ready for school the next day. The LRSD will insure clean space will be available for Beacon programming. The Beacons will be responsible for repair or replacement of school property damaged by Beacon program participants during operational hours. The LRSD will provide adequate space for programming, office space for the director of the Beacons program, access to educational and recreational equipment, utihty costs, and phone services. The issue of insurance coverage and liability is still under review by the LRSD in consultation with its earner. scbeagrDATE: TO: FROM: RE: Proj ect. LITTLE ROCK BOARD SCHOOL O F DISTRICT DIRECTORS MEMORANDUM November 30, 1994 School Board Members John Riggs, IV Beacons Project RECEIVED DEC 21994 Office of Desegregation Woniioring Attached for your review is additional information on the Beacons The committee that is putting together this proposal is moving ahead with as much of the detail work as possible prior to submitting this proposal to both the LRSD Board and the City Board. ODM has been informed of this initiative and has an understanding of the concept. I assume they will pass along information to Judge Wright it becomes available to them. as Funding is still a major source of concern. The goal we have for funding is fairly straight forwardredirect existing funds that are being used for similar projects to this specific project. Attached are some funding ideas developed by the City staff on how they may be able to contribute funds. We need to be investigating the same avenue. particularly since we all understand that new revenues will not be available for next year. I have asked that this initiative be placed on the agenda for I apologize in advance for missing the agenda meeting, but my \"REEl\" job has certain needs that I can not avoid this time of year. I am December. always available to answer any questions you may have between now and December 15. It is my understanding that the City Board will vote similar resolution at their December 20th board meeting. on a CC Dr. Williams Vice Mayor MasonCITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS SCHOOL INITIATIVE AGENDA NOVEMBER 29, 1994 I. Subcommittee Reports A. School/Beacon Partnership Agreement Linda Young B. New Futures' Role Don Crary C. Community Involvement John Riggs D. Funding . Brenda Donald n. Resolution of Support A. Little Rock Board of Directors B. Little Rock School Board m. General DiscussionSCHOOL/BEACONS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT A viable School/Beacons Partnership Agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative. This agreement will be a result of collaborative efforts between the LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the parties as well as a spirit of collaboration, belief in negotiations of issues and a commitment to flexibility will provide a sound foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. Listed below is an initial list of major points that are recommended for inclusion in the final School/Beacon Partnership Agreement which will be formalized in the early stages of the implementation process. The LRSD will ensure that facilities are available and suitable for the accomplishment of the Beacons goals and strategies. LRSD will commit to office space on full-time basis. The use of selected school facilities and equipment will be agreed to mutually between the two entities. A schedule of dates for the use of school facilities will be developed in advance by the Beacons and the LRSD. This schedule will be arranged in order to avoid conflict between the two entities. The Beacons will supply all consumable materials and supplies necessary for the operation of tiie program. Arrangements to protect the daily work of teachers and students will be developed by the Beacons. The Beacons will develop adequate security measures. ^e Beacons will insure that school facilities are cleaned and ready for school the next day. The LRSD will insure clean space will be available for Beacon programming. The Beacons will be responsible for repair or replacement of school property damaged by Beacon program participants during operational hours. The LRSD will provide adequate space for programming, office space for the director of the Beacons program, access to educational and recreational equipment, utility costs, and phone services. The Beacons will provide a general liability insurance policy. KbeagrTHE NEW FUTURES ROLE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A BEACONS PROJECT The proposed Beacons Project seeks to address critical issues around youth development, family involvement neighborhood and community life, and multi-level partnerships. These notions are central to the New Futures mission of systems reform and improved outcomes for at-risk youth. New Futures has promoted a model of broad based collaboration across diverse constituencies in order to achieve better planning, resource allocation and service provision for youth and families. The New Futures experience in this regard can be particularly helpful in moving the Beacons project ^rough the strategic planning, development and implementation phases. The role would mclude convening the appropriate representatives, fostering the collaborative process\nidentifying resources: mediating issues, researching information and developing strategies. During the development and implementation phases, the on-going role would include the provision of training and technical assistance and documentation of the process. New Futures could also provide assistance to the funders in developing an evaluation system that would generate program outcome and effectiveness data. New Futures for Little Rock Youth will assume multiple roles in the Beacons Initiative. The major functionswill include (1) providing technical assistance to the lead community based organization(s), (2) providing professional development and training opportunities, (3) documenting the implementation process and (4) facilitating the development of a system of documentation of enrollments, participation, activities and events. The function of technical assistance will include such activities as assisting community based organization(s) in building and maintaining internal capacity, providing information on specific programmatic development, serving in a liaison role with the local school(s) and school district, creating networking opportunities, and providing information and best thinking on processes of community-based planning, youth development and inter-governmental/agency collaboration. New Futures will provide professional development and training on specific topics as needed or requested. Specific development activities will be designed for the initial stages of the Beacons Initiative process. Additional development activities will be designed in response to the articulate needs of the agencies involved. In order to provide written documentation of the implementation process. New Futures proposes to produce a summary report which would reflect all aspects of the project New Futures will also assist in the development of a process and suggested procedures for program evaluation. L0Z14/94POTENTIAL CITY FUNDING SOURCES FOR CLOVERDALE BEACONS Summer Playground Program $ 15,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - YIP Site (Relocate existing program) 30,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - Our Club (Relocate existing program) 25,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - PIT Grants (Co-locate 2 neighborhood-based programs) 100,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - Expanded Community Center Funds (Replace Southwest Center Program) 30,000 JTPA Summer Youth Workers (10) 15,000 FUTURE-Little Rock Educare Program 100,000 JTPA Year-Round Program (RFP March 1995) 50,000 TOTAL $365,000 OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES DHS Crime Bill Programs (Justice) United Way Youth Build (HUD) Foundation GrantsSTAFFING The core element of a successful Beacons Program will be the staff. Experienced and qualified staff is critical to the development and enhancement of a successful program. Each Beacons School will have a full time director and, in some cases, assistant directors hired and supervised by the CBO. Directors may come from varied backgroimds, including teaching, school admimstration, counseling, program management, social services and public administration Experience in working with youth programs and schools is essential. Diverse populations and programmatic demands may require the appointment of co-directors. This will ensure coverage over extended hours and reduce the likelihood of burnout. Activity coordinators will be responsible for the educational, recreational and volunteer programming components. If possible, staff who can do outreach to teens, and have community organizing skills should be engaged to work with hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts, teen parents and gang members. Volunteers are integral aspects of successful Beacons Programs. Parents, college students and community residents can be utilized in this capacity. In addition, college internships and co-op programs could be a valuable resource for staffing purposes. Stoff development will be a key issue in the overall success of the program. Staffs will face a diverse population and a variety of complex issues, and will need the opportunity to enhance their skills and learn new techniques. This can be accomplished by having staff participate actively in retreats, seminars, networking meetings and training opportunities. RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS\n1. 2. 3. 4. Full-time Director - Responsible for providing administrative leadership for the Beacons Salary: $30,000 Assistant Director - Responsible for overall administrative program and service coordination Salary: $25,000 Activity Coordinators - Responsible for coordinating educational, recreational and volunteer services Salary: $18,000 x 3 = $54,000 Office Assistant - Responsible for office administration Salary: $15,000 Fringe Benefits @ 25% - $31,000 Total stalTing cost: $155,000EK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I-, BOARD DIRECTORS O F MEMORANDUM DATE\nNovember 10, 1994 TO: Members of the Community Involvement Sub CommitteeBeacons Project: Jan Chaparro, Dorthy Nayles, Zenobia Harris, Leon Modeste FROM: John Riggs, IV RE\nCC: Notes from Meeting, November Sth Cassandra Mason, Fredrick Fields, Joan Adcock, Linda Joyce, O.G. Jacovelli, Bruce Moore, Ellen Yeary, Jan AlmanThanks to those who could attend our meeting yesterday at Cloverdale Junior High School. The consensus of the group was to schedule a \"feed and inform\" meeting at the school with community stakeholders. This meeting should be held after official action has been taken by both the LRSD board and the city board, and its goal should be to educate the community about the Beacon's project and to ask for participation. Some of the community groups identified include: 10-12 neighborhood groups Rotary, Kiwanas, Lions Clubs SW Ministerial Alliance PTAsParents, Teachers, Students Other interested groups that need to be targeted are: McClellen Community School UALR Philander Smith In addition, Linda Joyce and Joan Adcock may identify other groups that need to be added to the list. Linda and Joan will put together contact names for the neighborhood groups, SW Ministerial Alliance and service clubs. Leon Modest will put together a contact list of PTA presidents, building administrators, and teachers. If you have any additional names please forward those to either Leon Modest at the school district or Bruce Moore at the city. If possible at the \"feed and inform\" meeting we will show the video tape from NYC and possibly have someone from the Fund for New York (Alfonso Wyatt?) share information. We anticipate that some official action can take place in December, so perhaps our community meeting could be planned for January. In summary, the community involvement committee is convinced that early and vigorous involvement by community essential for the success of this initiative. stakeholders is needed and is 2RATIONAL BEACON SITE-SELECTION The Little Rock School District carefully examined the site-selection criteria that were developed by the Beacon Initiative Steering Committee and provided to the district for use in the selection process. The school characteristics were reviewed and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Listed below are the site-selection criteria and the specific characteristics for Cloverdale Junior High School. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ADEQUATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES  Cloverdale Junior High School has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track, and several outside recreational activity areas. SUFFICIENT HEALTH FACILTTIES  In the recent building renovations of Cloverdale, the health services area was expanded and updated. It is sufficient to handle expanded health care services. AMPLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES  Ample educational classroom space is available as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. ADEQUATE OFFICE SPACE  Office space for the director of the Beacon Program has been identified by the building principal. TOTAL ACCESSIBIUTY  Cloverdale Junior High is located less than a block from Geyer Springs Road which serves as a main traffic artery for the Southwest Little Rock community. Cloverdale Elementary is located adjacent to the junior high which will enhance accessibility for elementary age students. SATISFACTORY DAY CARE FACILITIES  Space within the building could be adapted and designated for a child area while parents are participating in Beacon activities. care7. PRINCIPALISTAFF SUPPORT  The principal and staff are very supportive and excited about the idea of being involved in the Beacon Initiative. The principal and staff see this type of partnership as a way to provide needed additional services to students and families as well as a way to strengthen the community /school connection which is a major goal of ^e Cloverdale staff. 8. HISTORY OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH YOUTH PROGRAMS  Cloverdale Junior High School has a long and successful history of working effectively with community youth serving agencies. For the past four years, Cloverdale has worked on a daily basis with school-based case managers from five different local and state youth serving agencies through the New Futures for Little Rock Youth case management program.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 November 9, 1994 To\nBoard of Directors From\nSubject\n^enry y. (jrnniamff, ^ftfperTntendent of Schools Beacon School Iriitiative Update collaboration with the City of Little Rock, New Futures for Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has continued to actively participate in the planning process for the City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative. The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. has provided The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the need for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. society. A Beacon School Program is managed by a communitybased organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School, new Stephens school has been proposed as the second site. Fu.mxu  Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the City of Little Rock. --' -* * The Funding program. The school district will provide the space for the Attached for your review is the mission statement and a brief description of the structure of the Beacon Initiative. Further information will be provided to you as the plannina process proceeds. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS INITIATIVE MISSION STATEMENT\nTo establish comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe havens for children and families support, located in public school buildings and operated by community organizations. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that stress youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. STRUCTURE: Beacons school-based community centers are managed by non-profit conununity-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Little Rock School District (LRSD), principals, City of Little Rock and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon must have a Community Advisory Council whose membership must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils may also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, districts School Board member and Wards City Board member. These councils work closely with the coordinating agency to plan and assess programming and community events.I CITY OF LITTLE ROCK I BEACONS INITIATIVE I I I J I I. AGENDA SEPTEMBER 27,1994 I Dissemination of Committee Reports U. Site-Selection Criteria A. Existing Programs B. CBO Identification and Assessment in. RFP Process A. City Attorney's Office IV. SchoolXBeacons Partnership Agreement V. Discussion of Lead Agency's Role -* VI. Additional Sub-Committees A. Funding B. CBO Identification and Assessment IBEACONS GOALS AND STRATEGIES The goals of the Beacons Initiative are to create conditions for youth development and to improve school/home/community linkages. I. Create conditions for Youth Development A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Develop opportunities for caring relationships between role models and young people Establish high expectations and clear standards Offer opportunities for young people to engage in high quality activities Create opportunities for young people to make a contribution Offer continuity of relationship supports to young people Empower youth and families to contribute to own well being and development in the community Provide safe havens for youth and families IL Improve School/Home/Community Linkages A. B. C. D. E. F. Increase family presence and involvement in the school and on advisory councils of individual sites Offer educational activities for families and other community adults Offer culturally diverse programs for youth and adults Offer informal educational activities (classes, workshops, events) that emphasize communication skills Hire family members as staff for after-school and evening programming, and in some instances as outreach workers, to involve other families in Beacon/school activities Involve Beacons directors as participants, at the invitation of schools. on school-based management teams 5' G. H. 1. J. Provide support programs that reach the most vulnerable families and children in the school population Maximize use of space in school buildings to offer a diversity of services to all community members Coordinate transportation services to insure access to services for all community residents Encourage community organizations to actively participate in the Beacons.STAFFING The core element of a successful Beacons Program will be the staff. Experienced and qualified staff is critical to the development and enhancement of a successful program. Each Beacons School will have a full time director and, in some cases, co-directors hired and supervised by the CBO. Directors may come from varied backgrounds, including teaching, school administration, counseling, program management, social services and public administration. Experience in working with youth programs and schools is essential. Diverse populations and programmatic demands may require the appointment of codirectors. This will ensure coverage over extended hours and reduce the likelihood of burnout. If possible, staff who can do outreach to teens, and have community organizing skills should be engaged to work with hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts, teen parents and gang members. Volunteers are integral aspects of successful Beacons Programs. Parents, college students and community residents can be utilized in this capacity. In addition, college internships and co-op programs could be a valuable resource for staffing purposes. Staff development will be a key issue in the overall success of the program. Staffs will face a diverse population and a variety of complex issues, and will need the opportunity to enhance their skills and learn new techniques. This can be accomplished by having staff participate actively in retreats, seminars, networking meetings and training opportunities.City of Little Rock Beacons Initiative (Safety \u0026amp; Security) Safe and secure environments are essential to the Beacons School Based Community Centers, as well as, protection of Beacons site school property. Beacons staff and youth/adults participating. A multi-faceted approach should be taken when developing security techniques for the Beacons School Based Community Center. Encouraging family participation in Beacons site activities increases security as youth tend to act more responsible when parental influence is in the building. In addition, working with local police precincts and establishing safe corridors in and around the Beacons site is imperative. Suggested security tech- niques to use for Beacons School Based Community Centers may include but not be limited to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. 10 . 11. Placement of school security and resource officers at each Beacons site. Neighborhood youth trained in conflict mediation should be utilized when arguments between Beacons youth participants occur. Establishment of a Beacons Teen Youth Council. youth outreach workers from the neigh- Employment of borhood where the Beacons site is located. Involving intergenerational programing at each Beacons site location. Establish a Beacons Communit Advisory Council. Family participation in Beacons School Based Community Center must be a requirement. One entrance and exit location should be designated for youth, family members, staff, guest, etc. Q Hire community residents trained in security to assist Beacons school security officers and resource officers. Install security monitoring devices to include hand held metal scanners/detectors and purchase other communication devices that can be used to monitor, report and coordinate youth movement activity within and without the Beacons project. Develop a Beacons site sign in and sign out register.TRANSPORTATION Beacons School- Based Community Centers will be offered in locations where youth and their parents can access by walking. However, during inclement weather, car pooling, bus tokens and church van services can become transportation alternatives. If program staff and volunteers have adequate insurance coverage then often times they can pick-up and transport youth and parents to the Beacons site. The idea of using church vans in order to transport youth and their family members to Beacons sites should be studied thoroughly. Church vans will have the proper insurance coverage but in most cases insurance coverage is only effective when the van driver is a member of the church. A stipend could be provided to the church to cover the driver's time as well as to offset the cost of gasoline. In scheduling the use of church vans for transporting youth and their families to the Beacons sites, scheduling will need to center around the van availability.BEACONS INITIATIVE: PLAN OF ACTION I. MISCELLANEOUS A. B. C. Evaluation Mechanism: It is recommended that an evaluation conducted by a nonpartisan entity be pursued. The reason for this recommendation is to provide an evaluation of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative that can be viewed as objective, based on the fact that none of the organizations involved in planning and development are directing the review of the goals and objectives of the programs. It is recommended that a search be conducted for an organization that is familiar with or can become familiar with the Beacons model and that has done evaluations of school-based programs such as Beacons. This search can begin by contacting the following organizations: Center for the Study of Social Policy Harvard Project on Effective Services National Center on Education and the Economy National Alliance for Restructuring Education Public Relations: It is recommended that the City of Little Rock and the LRSD take the lead as the spokesperson for the Beacons initiative. Currently out of the entities involved in program development, the City probably has the most positive and upbeat image that would gamer public support. This recommendation means that a representative of the City would address questions from the general public, media, other political groups, etc.\nand would act as the spokesperson for the entire group of planners. Until the other sections of the plan of action are identified and agreed upon, it is difficult to come up with a strategy for public relations. This task group will put together such a strategy at that time. Board and Agency Resolutions: It is recommended that the following boards and agencies be requested to provide resolutions/and or letters of support  Little Rock City Board of Directors\nLittle Rock School Board\nArkansas Department of Health\nArkansas Department of Human Services\nArkansas Department of Education. URji-reD fJtvJ FWZ- J The larger planning group should agree on the specifics of what to ask for from each of these organizations, based on other sections of the plan of action. This task group will then formulate requests for resolutions and other documents of support.A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE BEACON SCHOOL INITIATIVE\nDIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to support the development of quality programming for the youth in our City\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to promote the development of collaborative efforts with the City of Little Rock and various other community-based organizations\nand Whereas, the School District supports the utilization of existing resources, i.e. public school facilities and existing programming, to develop community-based initiatives that strengthen school, family and community linkages\nand Whereas, the Beacons School is a comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe haven for children and family support, located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations\nand Whereas, Cloverdale Junior High has been identified as the first Beacons site, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Section 1. The Board of Directors supports the recommendations of the Steering committee and directs the Superintendent to continue the development of an implementation plan.To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: John Riggs, IV Re: Beacons Initiative Date: December 13, 1994 Below is additional information on the Beacons Initiative that a Steering Committee has been diligently working on since August. If you should have any questions, please call myself or Leon Modeste. The City board will be voting on a similar resolution on Wednesday, December 14. I solicit your support for this innovative concept in collaboration. Board Action Recommended: Adoption of a resolution directing the Superintendent to continue the development of a Beacons School implementation plan in partnership with the City of Little Rock, New Futures, United Way, Department of Human Services, Department of Health, Junior League of Little Rock, community-based organizations and area businesses. The target date for the opening of the first Beacons School is the summer of 1995. Background Information: The Beacons School, based on a model initiated in New York City, is a comprehensive, year-round, after-school program located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations. The Beacons School is an example of a program that develops a nexus between existing resources and community-based organizations to develop viable neighborhood-oriented programming. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that accentuate youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. After an examination of New Yorks Beacons Programs, the City formed a Steering Committee to explore the feasibility of operating a similar program in Little Rock. The Steering Committee, chaired by Vice Mayor Mason, included myself, Leon Modeste and Linda Young from LRSD, City Directors Keck and Joyce, Xavier Heard of Systematics, Leon Matthews of the United Way, Don Crary of New Futures, Zenobia Harris from the Dept of Health, Jan Chaparro from the Dept of Human Services, Rev. Bill Robinson, and others. The committee examined the following major areas: Site-Selection, Community Involvement, Funding, school/Beacons Partnership Agreement and New Futures Role.  Site-SelectionThe Beacon Steering Committee developed a comprehensive list of criteria to be used by the school district for the selection of appropriate sites for a Beacons School. The following criteria were examined: adequate recreational facilities, sufficient health facilities, ample educational facilities, adequate office space, total accessibility, satisfactory day-care facilities, principal/staff support and a history of collaborative efforts with youth programs. The Little Rock School District reviewed the school characteristics, and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Cloverdale Junior high School has ample educational classroom space available, as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room, and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. In addition, Cloverdale has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track and several outside recreational areas. Cloverdale Junior High School has a long and successful history of working effectively with community youthserving agencies. For the past four years, Cloverdale has worked on a daily basis with school-based case managers from five different local and state youthserving agencies through New Futures. The Steering Committee has identified Stephens Elementary as a potential site for the second Beacons School. Other sites will be considered after the first two Beacons are implemented and evaluated.  Community Involvement Community involvement will be a key aspect of a successful Beacons Program. The Beacons Initiative employs a neighborhood-focused approach to service and community development so that the specific combination of services and activities at any Beacons is unique. Therefore, early and vigorous involvement by community stakeholders is imperative. This will ensure that the community will decide what they want and need in a Beacons Program. The Steering Committee recommends holding an informational meeting in the target community after official action from the Little Rock Board of Directors and the Little Rock School Board. Funding Various potential funding sources have been identified for the Beacons School Initiative. These include but are not limited to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The City of Little Rock has initiated, or is in the process of developing various programs that could easily become a part of a Beacons School. These include: Summer Playground Program, YIP Program, Our Clubs, FUTURE-Little Rock Prevention, Intervention and Treatment grants, JTPA Summer Workers and FUTURE-Little Rock Educare Program. These programs are already funded and could be relocated in the Beacons. The Little Rock School District can provide programming facilities, office space and utilities. In addition, The School District could agree to extend its after-school educational enhancement program to Beacons participants. The Department of Human Services has identified the following funding possibilities for a Beacons School: Intensive Family preservation Services, Parenting Education Classes, Victim Support Groups and Family Centered Counseling. These services are currently contracted out by DHS, which would allow the RFP process to be structured around the Beacons initiative. The United Way will assess its funded programs to encourage colocating services in the Beacons. Prospective candidates include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers/Big Sisters and other similar programs. The Junior League of Little Rock has agreed to explore providing various volunteer services to a Beacons. In addition, the Junior League will also consider a possible cash contribution to support the programming efforts. Other potential funding sources include the Department of Health, crime bill programs, YouthBuild, foundation grants and area businesses. School/Beacons Partnership Agreement A viable partnership agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Beacons. This agreement will be the result of collaborative efforts between the City, LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the entities, a spirit of collaboration, and a commitment to flexibility will provide a solid foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. LRSD should commit to providing adequate space for programming, administrative office space, access to educational and recreational equipment, utility costs and phone services. Discussions are continuing regarding janitorial and maintenance services.  New Futures Role The Steering Committee has determined that there must be an entity to provide technical assistance to the lead community-based organization and facilitate professional development and training. In addition, this agency must also chronicle the implementation process and assist in the development of a system of documentation of enrollments, participation, activities and events. These endeavors are consistent with New Futures goals and objectives. The New Futures experience in fostering collaborative efforts will be particularly helpful in moving the Beacon Project through the strategic planning, development and implementation phases. Upon approval of the attached resolution, a time-line will be developed by the City and Steering Committee to include the following action steps:  Initiating informational meeting in the target community  Developing a comprehensive budget  Securing program agreements  Disseminating RFPs  Conducting a proposers conference  Conducting CBO assessments  Developing Cloverdale/Beacons agreements  Securing programming facilities and office space  Developing job descriptions (director and staff)  Hiring of director and staff jr4:bmKOBBBBit LmTj: Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 11, 1994 RECEIVED Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 1 6 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative. The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a community-based organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will provide the space for the program. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Si 11 ire Su iW P. Williams, ferintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Aikansas 72201  (501)324-2000j Arkansas Democr^^ (gazette ( 1 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1! Cooynght O Little Rock Newspaoer Beacon schools keep lights on late for pupils, parents San Francisco Examiner SAN FRANCISCO - Imagine a school that is open for 16 hours a day. Where neighborhood kids can get tutoring or extra help in their studies after school. Where their parents can take parenting classes and bring their children for immunizations. On Tuesday, the San Francisco school board took the first step toward developing such community or beacon schools. It voted unanimously to give Superintendent Bill Rojas the go-ahead to begin working on the project Beacon centers are not a program but a strategy that place youth, their families and community as central participants in the personal and civic vitality of a school district. said Debbie Alvarez, director of the Office of In- tergovemmental and School Linked Services for the district Were targeting discretionary time, she said, all those hours youth spend watching television or maybe doing their homework in an unstructured environment Much of that discretionary time, studies say, is when juvenile crime occurs. The district said the program would probably start slowly to save money.\u0026lt;2^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT TIECEIV!^T\u0026gt; JIN 1 11995 Office of Desegregation teu.-------g January 6, 1995 Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann, As a follow up to my letter of November 11, 1994 regarding the Beacons additional information Initiative, for attachments: 1) you I in am providing the following Little Rock City Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative and, 2) Little Rock School District Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative. Both the city board and the school board voted unanimously to support the respective resolutions. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sirserely, I He: y P. Willies, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 f Arkansas Democrat gazettej   SUNDAY, JULY 23, 1995 Public Notice Beacons School Steering Committee Notice of Request For Qualifications The Beacons School Steering Committe is accepting proposes IT* io, the role of lead agency. The W agency would wort cooperatively with principals and Community AdvBOiy Boards of parents, teachers, church leaders, youth and private and public schools to promote, implement and administer a Beacons School Program in the Southwest Junior High School ^Tproposer's Conference will be held on August 4,1995 at Southwest Junior High School from 2:00 - 4:00 application or information on call: the Beacons Program please R Joe Bailey City Managers Office 500 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)371-4510 Ri Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995  Beacons program eyes Southwest Junior High The Beacons School Steering Committee will accept proposals during the next 30 days for the role of lead agency in promoting and implementing the Beacons School Program in the Southwest Junior High area. The Beacons concept involves school-based community centers managed by commimity organizations. Services are designed to respond to each neighborhoods needs. Beacons schools offer recreation and educational enrichment for youths. Many also offer adult basic education, social services, health education and referrals, inter-generational programs and community meetings and social gatherings. The lead agency would work with principals and advisory boards of parents, teachers, church leaders, youths and benefactors. A conference is scheduled from 2 to 4 p.m. Aug. 4 at Southwest Junior High School, 3301 S. Bryant St. Admission is free. Proposals are due by 5 p.m. Aug. 25. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from the city of Little Rock, United ' Way, the Junior League of Little Rock, New Futures, the Little Rock School DistricL the state Department of Human Services, the state Department of Health, neighborhood organizations and area businesses.OVERVIEW The Beacons Initiative is a strategy directed at addressing critical issues for the future of New York Citys youth and New York Citys neighborhoods. It is based on the belief that to remain a great city, New York must ensure the safety and viability of neighborhoods and community life, and it must ensure that young people develop the skills and attitudes and practice the behaviors that will lead to their becoming competent and responsible adults. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies and adopting values that will enable them to become economically self-sufficient and successful parents and citizens. It also seeks to engage youth in making contributions to their families, their peers, and their neighborhoods as the vital resource for the present and future that they are. The Youth Development Institute (YDI) of the Fund for the City of New York received a grant in May, 1992 from the Aimie E. Casey Foundation to document implementation of the Beacons Initiative and produce a report. The foundation was particularly interested in the evolution of the Beacons through the processes of community-based planning and inter-governmental collaboration, and as a promising model for improving youth outcomes through neighborhood-based strategies that build on the strengths of schools and community-based organizations. YDI worked with the New York City Department of Youth Services (DYS) and each of the Beacons lead agencies to develop a system of documenting enrollments, participation, activities, and events. YDI provided training to Beacons directors on the documentation process. DYS required agencies to report monthly using the documentation formed developed by the project. See Appendix A. In addition, documentatron staff and consultants from YDI reviewed program documents, observed activities and events at all Beacons, and conducted interviews with all Beacons directors. Interviews were also conducted with principals, staff, and parents at a sample of Beacons, and focus groups with youth were held. Community school district superintendents and principals of schools with Beacons operating for one year or more were surveyed. The following report documents the history, goals and strategies, implementation status, and implementation issues associated with the Beacons. The data on implementation status reflects the 20 Beacons begun before October, 1993. The 17 new Beacons are currently in start-up phases and are just beginning to carry out documentation activities. The report discusses impacts of the Beacons on youth, neighborhoods and schools based on interview reports and observations. It answers the central question about whether and how such a complex school/commumty collaboration can be established. It does not, however, address specific outcomes and attempt to correlate these with interventions. It has taken two years of collaboration among schools and a variety of city and state agencies for Beacons schools that have developed comprehensive sets of services and neighborhood/community improvement strategies to become fully operational. Now that models exist of the full range of implementation, it is important that city government and all the participating partners establish impact goals and articulate measures for assessment A. Context: The Need for School/Community Collaboration A fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the need for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in todays complex society. Unlike the relatively recent past of 20 years ago, there are major missing personal and social linkages for large 1numbers of young people today. Significant changes in family composition and greater stresses on family life resulting from economic demands, crime, poverty, substance abuse and homelessness have weakened traditional family supports. Religious groups have fewer contacts with youth, and neighborhoods have become less safe, less cohesive, and weaker as venues for transmitting values and standards of behavior to children and adolescents. Exposure to crime and violence has taught too many youth that life can be very short and that the means to survival and even success are found in selfprotection and self-interest To meet this challenge New York City must provide youth with the academic and social supports that will enable them to meet their needs for survival and security and build their skills. In addition to families, schools are the central institution responsible for young peoples development. During the past decade there has been a growing recognition that the needs of children and youth require more sustained attention and complex solutions than schools can alone provide. In 1992, the Council of Chief State School Officers adopted \"Student Success Through Collaboration\" as its priority theme. The Council reviewed its decade long commitment to improving the quality of American public education, and called for new strategies that recognize a broad definition of educational success that \"encompasses childrens continuing intellectual, physical, emotional and social development, and well-being.\" The Council argues that educators must recognize that factors outside the education system affect the life chances of children and youth, and that schools and other social institutions rarely work together to respond to the multiple, inter-related needs of children and families. In A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Non-School Hours, the Carnegie Task Force on Youth Development also stresses the need for new kinds of partnerships between schools and community organizations. Co- Chair Dr. James Comer summarized the Task Force findings: \" Families and schools represent two sides of a triangle of human development. The third side is surely those conununity organizations that provide safe havens and caring role models, especially during the out-of-school hours. Excellent schools combined with actively involved families are necessary, but they are often not the reality. Even when schools are available, they are not sufficient in todays complex world. All major instinitions of the society affecting young people must become partners with strong community organizations to bring young adolescents into their mutually protective embrace. Additional evidence from evaluations of a wide range of prevention programs indicates the importance of strengthening commumties. Interventions that are most effective in preventing dropping out of school, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency and teenage pregnancy engage youth in forming relationships with adults, mastering a skill, and contributing to their own well-being and their communitys. (Dryfoos, 1990). These effective strategies situate services for youth in a conununity context, and build on the existing strengths in neighborhoods including families and community-based organizations. Evidence from national longitudinal studies indicates that among youth with economic disadvantage, increased social resources are associated with positive life outcomes and with minimizing the negative effects of disadvantaged backgrounds. (Sugland. Brown, Moore, 1993.) On a practical level, linking community-based organizations and schools also made good sense to city government. In many neighborhoods, schools are often not only the best, but also one of the only decent and safe places for children and their families to be. Yet, most school buildings are open only between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. For over a decade many individuals and organizations in New York City and across the country have started and maintained efforts to transform schools into neighborhood 2centers in the non-school hours. With the rise in crime and the lack of low-cost and secure space for voluntary youth organizations to offer services, school buildings offered an opportunity to increase services and at the same time link these to the school. B. Development of the Beacons Initiative Beacons are School-based Community Centers operating in neighborhoods across the five boroughs of New York City. The first ten Beacons were established in 1991, in response to the recommendations of a study group, chaired by fonner Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, to develop a coordinated anti-drug strategy for New York City. Their intent was to create safe havens for children, youth and families and to stand as a symbol of hope and opportunity in the neighborhoods considered the poorest and most affected by substance abuse, crime and violence. The Katzenbach Report recommended: The City target nine neighborhoods during the next year in which resouires would be strengthened and coordinated for the immediate purpose of reducing drug use and for the long-range purpose of providing a vehicle for community organization and development Schools transformed into community centers available to children and adults 365 days a year would be the centerpiece of this effort. The Mayor's budget allocated $10 million of the Citys \"Safe Streets, Safe Cities\" funds for 1991 to establish 10 School-based Community Centers, through the Department of Youth Services (DYS), the city agency with the most extensive experience contracting and monitoring youth-serving commumty-based organizations. Under the direction of Commissioner Richard L. Murphy, who had many years of experience in providing youth services in schools and had been a consultant to the Katzenbach study group, DYS developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting not-for-profit agencies to submit proposals to operate School-based Community Centers. These centers would keep school building open seven days a week, 16 hours a day, 365 days per year in ten defined neighborhoods. Agencies were directed to propose how they would offer safe, structured, supervised activities for children, youth and families. Agencies to implement these School-based Community Centers were selected through a two-tiered process involving an initial scoring by program reviewers from DYS, and a review and scoring of eligible proposals and formulation of recommendations by the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth (representatives of all city agencies concerned with youth including the New York City Board of Education). In June, 1991 10 agencies were selected to operate these seven day a week School-based Community Centers. Due to the Citys fiscal problems, the budget for \"Safe Streets, Safe Cities\" was reduced. The School-based Community Centers were placed on an options for elimination list along with a prison barge for New York harbor. The Mayor chose to support establishment of the centers over the prison barge although funding was reduced to $5 million. The Department of Youth Services then faced the choice of cutting in half the number of School-based Community Centers or reducing their budgets by 50 percent DYS made the decision to fund 10 centers and to work to find ways to increase services through collaboration and co-location of services with other city agencies. At this time, DYS also realized the importance of communicating the mission of the School-based Community Centers to the neighborhoods where they would be located and to the public. The Commissioner decided that a name was needed that symbolized the positive force these centers were meant to be, especially in the lives of young people, and the centers were re-named Beacons. 3In July, 1992 the City made funding available to double the number of Beacons to 20. DYS selected neighborhoods for this based on similar criteria of poverty, substatKe abuse and juvenile crime, but the process for selecting schools and for identifying programming needs was substantially altered to increase the involvement of Commumty School Districts and potential Beacons schools in decisionmaking. The RFP was also changed to stress the importance of proposing co-located services from the lead agency or partners that would not need additional funding but would enrich the school and commumty. Each school district was asked by DYS to submit a list of priority needs defined by the school to be included in the RFP. Agencies applying to manage a Beacon were instructed to address the needs identified for the specific school in their neighborhood. In 1993, a third round of Beacons funding was allocated to establish 17 additional centers so that every Commumty School District in New York City would have a Beacon school. Some districts with large geographic spreads or intense needs were also selected for a second Beacon. DESCRIPTION OF THE BEACONS SCHOOL-BASED COMMUNITY CENTERS A. Structure The Beacons school-based commumty centers are managed by non-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Community School Boards, principals, and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon is required to have a Community Advisory Council with membership that must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, arxl the district s City Council member. These councils work closely with the lead agency to plan and assess programming and community events. Beacons operate with the support and cooperation of the New York City Board of Education and the Community School Districts. B. Funding Each Beacon center is funded with $450,000 from the New York City Department of Youth Services. These funds support managers of the Beacons and program staff and activities costs for recreation, educational enrichment, cultural arts, adult education programs, family activities and summer and school vacation programming. Space and maintenance costs for using the schools are paid centrally by the Department of Youth Services. DYS funds are used as matching funds in many Beacons to state and federal funding streams to increase social services programming. Yet, the range and intensity of services and programs that are needed to make a comprehensive center has required co-locating and integrating funds from many federal, state and local government sources and private corporate and foundation supports. Examples of funding sources include: the New York State Departments of Social Services. Health, and Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services: the New York City Child Welfare Administration, the Board of Education, the Departments of Employment and Health, and the Community Development Agency. C. Programs Individual Beacons now offer children, youth and adults a mix of social services\nrecreational, educational, and vocational activities. Through Beacons young people have opportunities to participate in diverse activities such as drama groups and sports, leadership development and entrepreneurial 4programs, choruses and instrumental music lessons, peer education and counseling programs, and community service. In addition to recreational and after-school programs. Beacons offerings are diverse. Family support programs, health services, and employment preparation are offered by several Beacons. Parenting education is offered by most Beacons, and four Beacons have linked with local colleges to offer on-site courses as transitions to higher education. Lead agencies in Beacons are responsible for managing space in the non-school hours, and make it available to legitimate community groups for meetings and forums. Beacons sponsor community meetings and social activities. Many serve as organizing centers for neighborhood safety and revitalization. Beacon agencies and schools work with local police precincts to create drug free zones of safety around the school. Each Beacon uses a neighborhood approach to providing services to insure that programs services are tailored to the needs of each community. A listing of the neighborhoods served by each of the Beacons, with the names of each of the Beacons schools, their principals, directors, and the lead agency managing the Beacon is attached in Appendix B. Detailed descriptions of each Beacon can also be found in Appendix B. GOALS AND STRATEGY OF THE BEACONS INITIATIVE The strategy underlying the Beacons Initiative is based on research findings and practitioner experience indicating that positive outcomes for youth result from individual developmental opportunities combined with community-wide support, and that educational achievement of youth from low-income communities is improved by strategies that decrease the gaps between home and school culture and strengthen parent and community involvement in the schools. The framework for documentation efforts with the Beacons has been drawn fiom research on youth development and resiliency, educational achievement, and urban sociology and community studies. It attempts to set the Beacons Initiative in a theoretical context with the dual purpose of providing both a guide to programmatic development and as a framework for assessment A. Conditions for Youth Development and Resiliency Research findings on youth resiliency in high risk environments and findings from evaluations of effective prevention programs addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and teenage pregnancy point to the need for social interventions that take a youth development rather than a youth deficit orientation. This approach views youth as central actors in their lives rather than as passive clients of services. It defines youth development as \"an ongoing process in which all young people are engaged and invested, and through which young people seek ways to meet their basic physical and social needs and to build the competencies and connections they perceive as necessary for survival and success.\" (Pittman and Cahill, 1992.) Youth development theory implies that whether or not communities offer young people positive ways to meet their basic needs such as safety, a sense of belonging, a sense of contribution and mastery, and legitimate opportunities to build skills and make contributions, young people still need to meet these needs. In the absence of positive supports and opportunities, youth will often engage in risky or negative behaviors to meet their survival and developmental needs. Gangs are the most commonly cited example of such negative behavior. Gangs typically involve violence and result in negative outcomes 5for young people. Yet, from an iimer city youths perspective they may be the only support within his or her reach that promises safety and protection, a sense of belonging, a mentoring relationship, and the opportunity to gain skills (even if these are car theft or drug selling). Research on resiliency indicates that in order to strengthen youth in high risk environments adults need to help them gain a \"sense of autonomy, an internal locus of control where they are able to manage their lives and influence their environment\" (Coppersmith, 1967). They need to learn how to solve problems creatively, tolerate frustration, persist in the face of failure, resist being put down, and forgive and forget (Brentro, Brokenleg, Van Bockem,-199O). Social psychologists have identified \"protective factors\" in communities that promote this positive development, decrease the risk of engagement in negative behaviors, and promote rebounding from traumas among youth in high risk environments. (lessor, Connell, Spencer, Benard). Increasing the presence of the five protective factors, listed below, in the lives of young people is a central objective of the Beacons as a youth development strategy. Document review, site visits to observe Beacons activities, and interviews with staff, parents and youth form the basis of the following assessment. I. Opportunities for caring relationships Beacons increase the number of youth workers and volunteers who are present in distressed urban neighborhoods offering guidance and role models to young people. Beacons open schools in the afterschool, evening and weekend hours and during summer and other school vacations. They offer the opportunity for young people to be in a safe space where adults serve as coaches, teachers, activity advisors, and counselors. Most Beacons have staffs who represent diverse backgrounds, with many staff members coming from the communities where the children and youth live. Beacons also place strong emphasis on parent arxl family support, providing activities that support parents in strengthening their relationships with their children and adolescents and their roles as the primary influences on their childrens lives. Several Beacons have developed mentoring programs for students with college students and/or adult service organizations. For example, in the Central Harlem Beacon, we observed youth workers conducting after-school educational enrichment, sports and recreation programs for approximately 200 children from 3 to 6 p.m. Between 5:30 and 6 p.m..in addition to parents picking up their children, about 20 parents arrived to participate in parent support groups. These parents and others shared a family night dinner with their children in the school cafeteria. At 7 p.m., about 40 teenagers arrived to participate in Youth Leadership group activities. Twenty adults spent from 7 to 9 p.m. in adult education classes, and over 100 parents and children gathered in the gym for a joint African dance class. Simultaneous to these activities adolescents who have been designated as PINS by the courts often will be attending individual or group counseling sessions, sometimes with their parent or guardian, arxl later joining their peers in recreational or cultural activities. This Beacon developed a campaign to involve more fathers in activities with children and teens. Their outreach efforts culminated in a Mens Unity Day that was attended by over 300 men. The day long event featured workshops on a number of issues including: employment, violence, relationships, effective parenting and being substance free. In the Beacon in Red Hook, Brooklyn, an isolated neighborhood struggling against drug-related 6gun violence, in addition to evening classes and teen activities, 20 parents consistently plan and staff weekly \"family nights\" in which 40-60 parents and their children and teenagers come to the school for an evening of food, educational and recreational activities. The Beacon serves as the only safe place for residents to gather for \"normal\" family activities during the week. Community police officers, staff and volunteers at the Beacon together provide escort services and ensure that young people and families arrive at the Beacon and home again safely each evening. At the Staten Island Beacon which primarily serves a public housing site community, staff organized a basketball program with the housing police to help diffuse tensions between community youth and housing police officers. This offered an opportunity for youth to see police officers in a different role, and for the police to get to know teenagers in a structured positive experience. 2. High expectations and clear standards Most Beacons use a number of practices to set a tone of high expectations for behavior in order to maintain safe and productive centers. At most Beacons community advisory councils of youth and adults work together to develop rules to govern behavior in the centers and guidelines for participation and membership. Security staff are usually adults and young people from the neighborhood who have participated in training in conflict resolution, mediation and safety standards. At the Washington Heights Beacon, in a neighborhood with the highest incidence of drug-related homicides in New York City, about a dozen teens serve as security every afternoon and evening for the 200 to 300 participants in the Beacon arts and culture, sports and educational programs. They carry \"walky-talkies\" throughout the building and conduct peer rap sessions in which youth discuss how to keep the Beacon a safe and neutral space for all youth in the community. Youth leadership groups have been organized at 22 of the Beacons. Through these groups, diverse groups of youth including high school dropouts, former drug dealers and gang members, and honor students are challenged to contribute to their communities. Many engage in community service and orgamzing such as voter registration, neighborhood beautification, and infant/child immunization campaigns. Families at six Beacons participate in the SHARE program, where members provide service to the neighborhood several hours per month in exchange for participation in a reduced price food cooperative program. In Hunts Point, a group of male high school dropouts, first encountered by Beacon staff through a summer \"midmght basketball\" type program, volunteered to help with the recreation program and to help young children with reading, and eventually enrolled in GED classes. Expectations for educational achievement are communicated through the after-school education and homework help programs, through Beacon agency policies, and through educational eruichment activities. Teens who are hired by Beacons in part-time positions are required to enroll in school or a GED program. Approximately one-third of the Beacons offer SAT preparation courses and sponsor college tours to encourage youth to set high educational goals. Several have college bound clubs to engender pieer support for high achievement in junior high and high school among neighborhood youth. 3. Opportunities to engage in high quality activities Many Beacons offer educational activities in addition to homework help that stimulate young peoples curiosity and creativity. The Bushwick Beacon emphasizes \"opportunistic teaching\" and has trained staff to integrate math and literacy skills into recreation and sports programs. The South Jamaica 7Beacon offers a science enrichment program in collaboration with Science Skills Center, a nationally recognized hands-on science program, and a cultural program for youth on African-American contributions to science. Some Beacons offer instrumental music lessons and choroses. Through a collaboration with the New York City Eiepartment of Employment, six Beacons offer LEAP programs. These programs provide 100 youth per site (aged 14 to 21) with career education, internships, academic skills, guidance and family support over a year. At the Morrisania Beacon m the South Bronx 140 teens are involved in health internships and community service in a collaborative program involving the Beacon, a local hospital and community clinic. Many LEAP youth have become pan-time staff at Beacons and in other community agencies while they are in school. Most Beacons involve youth in trips to museums, plays and other cultural events, and to business centers such as the New York Stock Exchange. Staff emphasize the need to familiarize youth with traveling outside their neighborhoods, and to increase their comfort level in unfamiliar settings. 4. Oppominities to make a contribution Beacons sponsor many commumty projects developed by community advisory council members, youth leadership groups, teachers, school administrators and parent groups and staff. In Central Harlem, the youth leadership group conducted a neighborhood beautification project, where they swept the street, playground and sidewalks every morning to make a playstreet for younger children every day during the summer. The youth group also spearheaded a successful petition drive to get all block residents to agree to move their cars every morning to make the play street functional, and finally, a campaign to change a billboard on the comer from a cigarette ad to a public service ad for the United Negro College Fund. In Washington Heights and the South Bronx teens at several Beacons organized door-to-door to ask parents to bring their children to be inununized at a health fair resulting in the immunization of more than 500 children. Parents, children and teens at the Highbridge Beacon collaborate with tenant and block associations to clean empty lots in the areas surrounding the school. They also created a community garden in an empty lot across the street from the school. Several Beacons have sponsored Stop the Violence campaigns and events that have been designed and nm by youth with support from adult staff members. Youth in Central Harlem made a gun control video with messages and a style geared to their peers. In Far Rockaway. East New York, the South Bronx and Southern Queens several Beacons have sponsored \"if we can play together we can live together\" sports events in which hundreds of youth participated and pledged to end the violence. At the Washington Heights Beacon 15 young men. all of whom were stealing and/or selling drugs when they were recruited off the streets, participate in a twice weekly group offered collaboratively with Mothers Against Violence where they encourage one anothers struggles to gain an education and stay with their recently acquired part-time jobs. The Beacons staff worked to find the jobs and assist the young men to enroll and persist in education programs. 5. Continuity of supports Beacons offer a continuity of supports in the lives of young people through the presence of staff and volunteers over long hours and every day. Positive youth and adult role models are available through the schools, commumty agencies and adult volunteers to counter the culture of violence and despair present in many highly distressed neighborhoods. Youth are offered opportunities to feel safe. 8to build skills, to have fun creatively, and to contribute to their neighborhoods. B. Improved School/Home/Community Linkages Beacons school-based community centers aim to increase the likelihood of children and youth achieving educational success by building communities of support for learning that include students, parents, social networks of youth and adults in neighborhoods including churches, voluntary groups, and peer groups, and linking these with school efforts to promote educational success. Beacons are not a pedagogical strategy. Rather the emphasis is on building or strengthening ties between families, schools and youdi\narticulating and celebrating the cultures of students and their families and building on cultural and family resources to promote motivation in learning and affiliation with school, and directly offering resources to support youth in setting high expectations, attending school, solving problems, and sustaining effort Beacon centers exist in a variety of schools with diverse instructional emphases and widely varying strengths. Some have experienced and outstanding principals\nothers have had 2 or 3 interim principals in two years. Some Beacon intermediate schools are organized around instructional themes and have strong curricula and teaching staffs. Some have serious instructional problems such as the absence of any licensed science teachers. The home/school/commuruty linkages goals of Beacons are based in the educational theory of Dr. James Comer as well as studies by educational researchers such as John Ogbu and Jim Cummins on the relationship between minority group student school success and strategies that value minority cultures and engage families in the educational process. Comers assessment that the problems of urban schools stem from the loss of the schools deeply embedded place in the community and the consequent growth of alienation and mistrust between school staffs and families who feel themselves disempowered, implies that strategies are needed that build on community institutions to mobilize families and bridge the gaps between traditional schooling and minority communities. Specihcaily, Comer has founded the School Development Program (SDP) which is being implemented in many schools in New York City, some of which are also Beacons. The Beacons strategy, however, responds broadly to this educational analysis by attempting to re-build commumties and focus their attentions on education. Beacons aim to meet the challenging goal set forth in Comers work: to make communities \"so cohesive and their fabric, the people, so tightly interwoven in mutual respect and concern that, even in the face of the potentially deleterious effect of poverty, their integrity and strength are maintained.\" (Haynes and Comer. 1990, p. 108-109). Beacons strive to increase home/school/community linkages in the following ways: increasing parent presence and parent involvement in the school  offering of educational activities for parents and other community adults offering arts programs for youth and adults that celebrate the culture of families offering informal educational activities (classes, workshops, events) that emphasize reading and writing and other communication skills\nto a lesser extent offering such activities that suppon math and science skills hiring parents as staff in after-school and evening programming, and in some instances as outreach workers to involve other parents in Beacon/school activities. 9 involving Beacons directors as participants, at the invitation of schools, on School-based Management Teams and Beacons family support workers in Pupil Personnel team meetings  providing family support programs that reach the most vulnerable parents and children in the school population. All Beacons include parents as members of their Community Advisory Councils. About two- thirds have parents as staff members, usually part-time in roles such as Activity Specialists and Outreach Workers. The Highbridge Beacon offers EPIC courses to strengthen parenting skills. In addition this Beacon not only has parents on staff but offers parents the opportunity in each program cycle to propose programs, courses or single activities that they would like to offer to other parents and/or children. The Community Advisory Council selects and fimds a number of these mini-projects. The Bushwick Beacon offered a Health and AIDS education course which was taken jointly by 25 parents and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in promoting healthy and responsible behavior by their adolescent children/students. The Red Hook Beacon involves parents in a literacy program to promote reading with children in the early grades. The Morrisania/Corona Beacon received a grant from a private foundation to establish a parent support and involvement component which will provide parents with workshops, rourxltables, and forums on issues in parenting adolescents such as sexuality, health, nutrition, and conflict mediation, and with guidance on educational issues such as the High School Admissions process. Parents at 80 percent of the Beacons are involved in activities such as GED, ESL and/or literacy classes. Most Beacons have found increased parent involvement in support groups and educational programs for their children by offering them in conjunction with activities that recognize the needs of parents, many of whom work all day and have full parenting responsibility. Beacons offer aerobics, volleyball, dance, and other cultural programs for parents and other adults, increasing their comfort and familiarity with the school, as their involvement is sought in contributing to school success. At the Highbridge Beacon in the South Bronx, 30 young parents, who themselves had experienced abuse as children, took part in a Youthful Parents Seminar Series. The series provided information on \"how to\" practices in child health and nutrition, discipline, dealing with daily conflicts, and building self-esteem. At the conclusion of the series the parents and their children participated in a weekend retreat to help one another practice their new knowledge. A unique collaboration in the Beacons initiative addresses the needs of those parents who have the least resources to meet their childrens needs. The Department of Youth Services and the Child Welfare Administration have developed an interagency agreement that has allowed foster care prevention services to be developed at Beacons. This collaboration, begun with four centers, has expanded to 12. The family support services are directed toward preventing out-of-home placement by providing family support and social services to families at serious risk of abuse or neglect or where a parent has filed a PINS petition, considering their adolescent child to be unmanageable. The programs are staffed by M.S.W. level social worker supervisors, case managers, and parent aides who provide emergency help, clinical services, home visits, counseling, and practical help in finding housing, jobs and childcare. Staffs of the preventive programs work flexible hours, including weekends, so they are particularly valuable in responding to the most high risk families in the school and the neighborhood. 10Locating Preventive Programs at Beacons offers other advanuges also. Parents, children and teens can have substantial informal contact with social workers through paiticipation in any of the other Beacons activities, and they can also have extended follow-up contact when the risk of placement has passed. One goal of the program is to integrate these high risk families into all aspects of Beacon programming so that they can build on their strengths and experience positive relationships over time. At most Beacons the staff work closely with the schools Parents Association on such activities as sponsoring weekly \"family nights\" where parents and children can share meals and activities, or sponsoring educational workshops. Beacons often provide childcare for school parent meetings. At each of the Beacons where the school has adopted the Comer School Development Program, Beacons staff are members of school teams atxl participate in activities such as retreats. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS A. Participation Beacons typically enroll approximately 1,000 community residents as on-going participants. The highest annual enrollment is 1,848. The lowest for a fully implemented Beacon is 628. Average daily attendance, based on activity attendance records, at the 20 fully implemented Beacons is 203. All Beacons have afterschool programs. These programs have average daily attendances of 120 to 150 elementary and/or intermediate school students. All offer youth educational enrichment and homework help, recreation and cultural arts activities. Twenty-one Beacons have youth leadership programs that enroll from 50 to 200 teenagers. Twenty-seven Beacons offer adult education programs itKluding GED preparation, English as a Second Language, and/or Adult Basic Education/ literacy. Enrollments range from 250 in centers offering several sections of different courses to 20 adults in each cycle of a GED preparation program offered four times per year at one center. Typically Beacons serve 40 to 60 adults per week in adult education. Other adult programs include: computer literacy, conversational English, Spanish as a Second Language, and entrepreneurship courses. Five Beacons have A. A., Al Alon/Alateen groups meeting at least weekly and two host Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Most Beacons organize participation by membership. Youth, parents and other community residents are asked to join the Beacon in order to participate in activities. Beacons issue picture identification cards both as a security measure and also to encourage an affiliation rather than a consumer or client relationship. Membership is open to all community residents, and is offered to everyone the first time that they come to a program or event At most Beacons members are asked to volunteer in a range of roles such as assisting with security, tutoring children, plarming and facilitating family nights, and participating in neighborhood projects. No fees are charged for activities. B. Hours Seventeen of the first 20 Beacons are open seven days a week including evenings until 9 or 10 p.m. (Most close at 6 p.m. on Sundays.) Three are open six days a week. The original Beacons budgets estimated twice the costs for seven day a week programming than the programs were allotted, and a few Beacons have not yet been able to find replacement funding or enough co-located programs to open seven days. All are open throughout the summer and on all school vacations. Twelve Beacons have an active presence during the school day. 11Beacons are open throughout the summer and on school vacations, usually operating day camps as well as evening activities. All Beacons participate in the Summer Youth Employment Program and on average they develop placements for 50 adolescents. Many Beacons develop specific neighborhood improvement projects during the summer that involve SYEP youth. C. Special Events Beacons serve as venues for community meetings and special events. Beacons report between 2 and 6 special events per month with an average of 4.4 over a year. These are in addition to regularly occurring events such as family nights. The following represent the types of events held across the Beacon centers: performances of plays and musicals. Street Outreach Program meetings. Summer Youth Employment Program Enrollments, block association and tenant meetings, Health Fairs. STD/ AIDS Education workshops, PAL and other awards presentations, candidate nights and debates, civic group monthly meetings, teen talent shows, basketball tournaments. Congressional Representative Town Meetings, a Community Housing Court forum, a Police Precinct Youth Speakout, trips to plays, museums, and cultural events, commemorative events such as for Martin Luther King Day, social service and community program training sessions, parent/staff meetings, childrens holiday parties. Gospel and other concerts, information exchanges for area businesses, conflict resolution workshops, fashion shows, grantwriting/ business planning seminars, cultural programs such as African and Latino dance programs, community meetings such as on redistricting. Youth Leadership conferences, vocational workshops. College Fairs, benefit cotKerts, Men's Unity Days, Parents Recognition Days, child advocate workshops, citizenship drives, immigration workshops, health days, legal clinics, playground clean ups. Community Thanksgiving Dmners, education workshops. Community Board meetings, drug/alcohol education workshops. Human Services Council meetings, anti-violence vigils and marches, film festivals, community policing meetings. Little League/ Soccer/Softball registration. Womens History celebrations. Landmark \u0026amp; Land Use Hearings, visits by the Mayor and other city, state and federal officials, commumty safety rallies. Project SHARE food distribution, workshops for staff and parents on teaching mathematics/writing/reading to kids, nutrition workshops, and test preparation workshops such as for the Fire or Police exams. D. Staffing Beacons arc staffed by full time directors and, in some cases, co-directors. All have at least two other full time staff members. Depending on the extent of core and collaborative programming Beacons may have as many as 30 full-time and 40 part-time staff. Directors from the first twenty Beacons come from varied backgrounds including teaching, school administration, counseling, program management in commumty-based organizations, social services, and youth work. All had previous experience working with youth programs and in schools, although that experience ranged from more than 15 years to 5 years. Some of the part time staff in Beacons are teachers who now stay until 5 or 6 p.m. Others arc parents, college students and commuruty adults who began as volunteers in Beacons programs. More than half of Beacons employ youth staff members in order to offer cross-age tutoring and role models for younger teens and children and to provide job experience for neighborhood youth. E. Community Advisory Councils All the Beacons report that they have organized community advisory councils. Most advisory councils include the school principals, but in two schools the principals have declined invitations to become members. All Beacons Community Advisory Councils include parents and youth 12 representatives. The City Council representative from the district in which the Beacon is located is an ex officio member. School custodians are members of about half the advisory councils. Membership on advisory councils across the Beacons is diverse, but typically membership may also includes teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, religious leaders, and civic leaders. Community Advisory Councils are strongly involved in program planning in more than half of the Beacons. In some Beacons, the advisory council is more active in recruiting participation, organizing events, and addressing neighborhood concerns such as safety. Community Advisory Council members have provided a great deal of assistance to Beacons staffs in start-up and implementation problemsolving. Through their own particular city-wide or neighborhood connections, members have played important roles in raising resources for the Beacons, negotiating neighborhood turf issues, ensuring security, enriching programs and events, and reaching diverse populations in the Beacons neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES A. Safety and Security A key difficulty in providing extended hours of programming has been to ensure a safe and secure envirorunent for those youth and adults participating in activities and to protect the school buildings from damage. Most Beacons employ a multi-faceted approach to security. School security officers are often employed for the 3 to 5 p.m. period, followed by trained community residents. About half the Beacons employ youth who have received training in security procedures and conflict mediation as security assistants. Directors report that the key principles of ensuring security are that all staff and parents think of themselves as having security responsibilities, having clear lines of authority, rules and procedures, and setting a tone with young people that the Beacon is there for their benefit and that it is their responsibility to maintain its safety. In neighborhoods where turf is an issue, and groups of young people have rivalries such as between two public housing complexes. Beacons staffs have enlisted teen youth councils, youth outreach workers, and recreation staff to broker the Beacon as neutral space. Most Beacons have hired youth staff from each of the \"turfs\" as members of the same work teams to foster relationship building. The major security issues occur between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. During this period most centers double their security staffs. Some suggest that security can also be improved through scheduling policies such as having programs for 14 and 15 year olds earlier in the evening and programs for the 16 to 18 year olds to follow. Inter-generational programming is also credited with making the buildings safe. Parents and grandparents participate in evening activities and also serve as coaches and volunteers for youth programs. All Beacon directors interviewed concurred that encouraging family participation increases security as youth tend to act more responsibly when their mothers or the mothers of their peers are in the building. A final security strategy has been to work with local police precincts and. in particular, community policing officers, to establish safe corridors around the school. These relationships have varied across the city. - Some Beacons directors report good collaborations. Two describe their relationships as \"struggling,\" complaining alternately of police lack of response or over-reaction. Forging these kinds of relationships is a new endeavor for both parties, who are working under difficult conditions. This is an area that will require continued attention and commitment. Several Beacons have also done considerable outreach through their Community Advisory Councils and youth councils to move drug dealers and other negative behaviors away from the areas around the Beacon schools. This 13is a continuing struggle in some neighborhoods. B. Space Expanding the use of school buildings required tackling a variety of space issues. The primary issue is cost In the Beacons Initiative space costs are paid centrally by the Department of Youth Services to the Board of Education. Space costs are charged at the building level through the permit system operating in New York City public schools. Uses of space must be approved by the school principal arxl custodian who sign off on the permits. The system for arriving at costs is currently being reviewed in a city government inter-agency project called SPACEMAX. In some instances, renovations were needed in unused areas of schools in order to build program offices or program rooms. This was especially true in Beacons where the lead community based orgamzation was effective in brokering services. Schools that have been offered such programs as health climes, computer learmng centers, media or performing arts rooms, and LEAP programs have worked with lead agencies to find and renovate space. The most difficult space for Beacons to find has been office space, especially to have a presence during school hours to offer social services and other supports to the school. The primary barrier has been school overcrowding. Another important space issue has been accessibility to youth with disabilities. Most Beacon schools were not found to be fully accessible. In some instances small changes could make certain areas accessible, but in the long term, major changes were needed. The Department of Youth Services advocated for the Office of Management and Budget to allocate fimds to the citys capital budget for these renovations, and has worked closely with the Office of School Facilities of the Board of Education, the School Constmetion Authority, and the Mayors Office for People with Disabilities. Renovations on the first ten Beacon schools are now past the design stage and scheduled for implementation by the School Construction Authority in early 1994. J.P. Morgan \u0026amp; Company has contributed fimds to be used to renovate the playgrounds in each of the 10 original Beacon schools. Parents, teachers, principals, youth and Beacon staffs have worked together on the design and implementation of these new playgrounds at most sites. C. School/Community Collaboration School/commumty collaboration issues range from the highest policy levels to the most mundane actions. Changes in the Beacons selection process and the growth of programs and activities integrated with the schools reflect an increasing conunumcation at all levels in the city between youth services and education and increasing acceptance by schools of roles for external agencies. In the first round of Beacons selection (1991) schools were targeted based on neighborhood conditions (high crime, substance abuse, lack of services for youth). Community-based organizations developed proposals for services at the Beacon without consultation with the school or community school board. Commumty School Boards could reject a Beacon, but were not a part of the development process. One Commumty School Board, CSD 14, rejected a Beacon in the first round. The same district also rejected a Beacon in Round n after participating in the selection process. In Round I the proposed Beacon for this neighborhood was moved to an adjacent neighborhood in another Community School District. In Round II, implementation of a Beacon for this neighborhood, Williamsburg, was delayed for more than six months, and then opened in a high school in the same neighborhood. 14After the initial acceptance of Beacons, and the addressing of implementation issues, an improved selection process was developed. In Rounds II and in of Beacons selection, the central Board of Education, the Community School Districts and the schools have been involved. The Central Boards Office of External Programs has worked with District superintendents to select schools within targeted neighborhoods and together the schools and districts have presented the Department of Youth Services with their assessment of service needs for the school community. The Department of Youth Services has then included these individual needs assessments as part of its Request for Proposals to community agencies applying to operate a Beacon. District and school representatives also now can present their views to the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth during the selection process to augment school input beyond the vote of the Board of Education representative. These changes have resulted in more comprehensive proposals. Many include activities and services during the school day and, in some instances, services are linked to changes the school is making such as implementing the Comer model of school reform. On the day-to-day level, the single greatest area of tension in Beacons school/community collaborations has been the use and maintenance of classrooms. Many after-school, evening and weekend classes and activities take place in classrooms. Arrangements to protect the work of teachers and students completed during the day, and to have classrooms cleaned and ready for school the next morning have been essential for Beacons to succeed. Most Beacons agencies have given specific staff responsibility for inspecting rooms before leaving, and keep a supply of chalk, blackboard erasers, pencils and papers, staplers and other such materials available as immediate replacements for missing items. The principle that most experienced directors work from is that teachers deserve to have their classrooms protected arxl ready for work in the morning.\" It doesnt matter how a mistake might have occurred, just that it be fixed immediately.\" Implementing this policy has resulted in dramatic reductions in complaints from the first year of the Beacons. Relationships between teachers and Beacons staffs have varied widely, with most relationships improving over time. In some schools, teachers immediately welcomed the Beacons staffs as helpful supports with a shared mission. In others, many teachers questioned the mission of Beacons, raising concerns about agencies bringing in teenagers and adults at night who were neither students nor parents at the school. In addition, both Beacons schools and lead agencies vary greatly. Some schools are neighborhood elementary schools. Others are large intermediate or junior high schools drawing students from several neighborhoods. All have predominantly students from low income families, but some have very stable and others somewhat mobile populations. Some have safety issues\nothers do not Some commumty-based organizations have far more experience than others in working in schools. Within limits, some view themselves more as advocates for youth and others more as partners with schools in youth development The key factors in improved relationships seems to be initiation of joint activities that lead to contributions from each of the professional communities, participation in one anothers activities, tangible contributions by the Beacon agency to the school such as computers, library books and gym equipment, services contributions such as augmented counseling and social work services, and an increase in parent involvement in the school attributed in part to the presence of Beacon supports. In a June, 1993 survey of the principals and superintendents of community school districts who had experience with Beacons for at least one year, all but one rated the Beacon as either excellent or satisfactory. One Beacon agency received a needs improvement rating. Principals made comments such as\n\"It has been a positive program. We have created a team approach to the school. \"The staff of the Beacon form an outstanding group of people. They do a tremendous job in their program for our children and families.\" \"The Beacon has been a total asset to PS (number). Obviously , it takes a 15 school commumty and parents to enhance and enrich a youngsters education. (Agency name) continued dialogues with the students and their parents provide a vehicle of concern for the whole family. Their willingness to work with teenagers has provided a beacon for all members of our family.\" \"A very valuable program at the intermediate school level.\" \"The (Beacon name) program is a vital service to District (number) students and their families.....Adults in the community also benefit from the services tl H provided by the Beacon. Through this program individuals are able to obtain their GED and also gain valuable infoimation regarding employment opportunities.\"\" The Beacon staff has gotten the custodian and the Board to make improvements 1 have been trying to get for years.' (I Two principals made negative comments as well as positive ones. These comments included\n\"I would like to see better supervision of many of their programs which have been sub-contracted \". \"The program needs to tighten security.\" \"I would like the program to serve more of the children from my school. Too many resources are going to programs for teenagers and adults.\" \"The program needs to increase spaces in the afterschool program for intennediate school students. They only serve 150 out of our 900 students, and seem to prefer serving younger elementary school children. It n school would get more resources.\" I thought my One area of tension reported by some community agencies concerned school climate and discipline practices. Beacons staff and school administrators sometimes had opposing views on issues such as school suspensions which became areas of conflict when a student was suspended from school but interested in participating in Beacons activities, or when a parent sought the assistance of a Beacons counselor regarding a conflict with a school staff member. These types of conflicts have generally been resolved through dialogue and commitment by school administrators and staffs and Beacon agency directors and staffs to open communication and respect Sometimes conflict has lead to new strategies. In one intermediate school with a large number of suspensions, the school and agency formed a Task Force on Discipline which examined school/center climate issues, and alternative methods of conflict resolution. The school initiated an in-school suspension program, \"time out\" room, and the Beacons agency shared the cost of staffing the program with the district. The Beacons agency also paid for staff development for agency staff and teachers in conflict mediation techniques in working with adolescents. As more Beacons agencies have responded to direct needs put forth by schools, and developed resources to offer schools services during the school day, there has been increased communication and joint activities. D. Expanding the Range of Services Beacons are charged with augmenting core services supported by Department of Youth Services funding with collaborative and co-located services. Depending on their size and comprehensiveness, lead agencies are also encouraged to sub-contract to ensure that a wide range of activities are available at the Beacon. Moving the Beacons towards comprehensiveness has been a significant challenge for lead agencies and schools. The service ranked as the top priority by all Beacons directors and most principals has been health. In a survey, three-fourths of the Beacons directors named health services as their top priority in terms of unmet needs. Almost all of the first 20 Beacons are located in neighborhoods designated by the New York City Department of Health as \"health crisis zones\" because of the high incidence of hospital admissions for children and adolescents that could be prevented or mitigated by primary care. In response to these health needs Beacons have tried to establish linkages with health providers to 16increase access to services for participants. Since 1991 they have made some progress\n 90 percent of Beacons provide health workshops and health fairs on a regular basis throughout the year, these are offered in collaboration with local hospitals,and neighborhood family health care centers (affiliates of HHC hospitals). Some agencies already knew these health providers: others were introduced through Beacons technical assistance activities in which local primary care providers were contacted and the potential benefits of offering health services through the Beacons explained.  Seven Beacons have health services at least four times per week offered in conjunction with hospitals or health centers. Three have full health clinics.  Three Beacons in Brooklyn have joined together with Sunset Park Family Health Center to try to develop comprehensive family health services at their sites. The Department of Youth Services has worked with most of the agency members of the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth to encourage co-location of programs and staffs. These efforts have resulted in family support and youth employment programs in one-third of the Beacons. The coilabortion with the Child Welfare Administration has enabled social workers and outreach staff to be on-site at eight Beacon schools in the afternoons, evening and weekends. These staffs provide foster care prevention/family support services including home visits and emergency assistance. They also offer parent/grandparent support groups, teen groups and individual and family counseling. In three of the Beacons these social workers or the Beacons directors (where they are part of the social service support team) meet regularly with the Pupil Personnel team of the school. In two schools there have been difficulties with finding enough space for the programs. The Departnient of Employment has co-located LEAP programs at five Beacons that enable teenagers to participate in career education and internships and receive support services to remain in school and achieve academically. There are many barriers to integrating funding streams and co-locating services. The Beacons experience indicates that success depends on commitment and perseverance from at least one government agency in the partnership, preferably more than one, and flexibility and responsiveness on the part of the community-based organization. The process of overcoming barriers in the Beacons co-location experience also seems to have been helped by the presence of a brokering agent, separate from goventment and the community-based organizations, which could focus on keeping the process moving at all times.  E. Staffing Experienced and qualified staff are critical to effective services. Also providing long hours, weekend programrmng and rich and diverse services is very expensive without extensive use of volunteers. Recruiting staff and volunteers has been a challenge for a number of Beacons. Programming that is culturally competent requires multi-cultural staffs, and diverse populations requires staff who can work with different age levels. The management and programmatic demands of the Beacons model have led several agencies to appoint co-directors, in particular to ensure coverage over extended hours, and to reduce the liklihood of burn-out. This appears to be a positive arrangement. 17Location and hours have posed problems for some Beacons. Several experietKed delays of several months in starting their Family Support/foster care prevention programs because they were unable to hire social workers who would come to their neighborhoods for evening work. Typically, youth programs enlist interns from colleges or graduate schools as volunteers. While more than half of the Beacons have been able to do this, several in more isolated and high crime neighborhoods have had difficulty in recruiting interns. Two Beacons esublished partnerships with the City Volunteer Corps, that have involved teams of trained volunteers, working full-time at Beacons for twelve week penods. Hiring staff who can do outreach to teens and who have community organizing skills appears to be crucial to the effectiveness of Beacons that have succeeded in involving hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts and teen parents. Reaching these youth requires staff who can respond to immediate needs, and set high standards of behavior while respecting youth autonomy, and motivating youth to meet challenges. The story of a Beacons Cheerleading team, illustrates the complex skills needed by Beacons staff. A group of teenaged girls would hang around the entry but refuse to register for any of the activities or programs. They characterized themselves as too \"bad\" for this kind of stuff. The Center director told the girls that they could not just hang out, but they could have their own table in the cafeteria where they could sit together and play cards or games. They agreed to sit at the table \"but not to do anything they didnt want to do.\" A Beacon youth worker began talking with the girls each evening and challenging them to name something that they wanted to do and would work at They finally stated that they wanted to be cheerleaders. The youth worker agreed to coach the girls, if they would come to practice faithfully and maintain a code of behavior as a team. The girls agreed, and they began. The youth worker enlisted some volunteers and parents to make uniforms for the team. She found a tournament that they could enter in six weeks. She helped the team negotiate with a boys basketball team to share their gym time so the cheerleaders could have extra practices. In the final nights before the competition, the director kept the center open late for marathon sewing by parents and staff and continuous practicing. The team entered the Bronx borough-wide competition and placed second. Girls who had never experienced a success, earned their own through setting a goal and putting forth effort to meet it The original group of six girls all had experienced school and family problems. They have stayed with the team and have improved their school attendance, and become involved with the peer counseling and other services at the Beacon. They report that they no longer hang out with older guys involved in illegal activities. Membership on the team has increased to 65, with the original girls now in leadership positions. Most Beacons consider it very important to hire direct service staff who live in the neighborhood. Many hire parents and young adult or senior citizen volunteers who have given their time to Beacons programming as part-time activity specialists or program aides. More than half also stress the importance of having youth staff members and volunteers who can model appropriate behavior and commurucate a sense of options and future directions to their peers. Staff development is a key issue. Staffs face complex youth and family issues and need opportunities to improve their skills and to learn 18new practices. Beacon staffs have participated actively in the retreats, seminars, networking meetings. and trainings offered through the Youth Development Institute, with support from the Aaron Diamond Foundation and Annie E. Casey Foundation. However, many directors expressed a desire for site-based staff development so that more staff could participate. F. Engendering Community Participation Beacons directors repeatedly characterized the missions of their programs as community-building. They want the Beacons to serve as a force for budding a climate of safety, increasing the number of adults focused on helping children and youth achieve positive educational and social outcomes, building positive peer groups among youth, and stimulating and supporting neighborhood improvemenL It appears that meeting this community-building goal requires Beacons to engage in multiple strategies that go beyond provision of services. Beacons that have been most effective in mobilizing community support for youth activities (such as play streets) and who have involved the hardest to reach teens (dropouts, teen parents) in positive activities have had outreach or community organizing staff. Mote than half of the Beacons enlisted their commimity advisory council members as recruiters for Beacons activities with good results. It appears that Beacons also stimulate and sustain participation by community residents by undertaking neighborhood improvement projects. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE BEACONS MODEL Implementing Beacons on a large scale obviously poses complex challenges. Because the Beacons attempt to meet individual youth needs and impact on neighborhood environments simultaneously, lead agetKies for Beacons must be able to deliver both strong youth programming and effect community change. Because they involve opening schools for long hours and seven day a week programming. Beacon agencies must develop and manage \"safe spaces\" as well as offering quality programs. The connection to school presents the challenge for agencies to develop partnerships in which they contribute to improving educational outcomes. The choice for Beacons to be developed and managed by lead community-based organizations has brought many strengths to the initiative. The sector represented by community-based organizations offers much promise for finding solutions that meet the needs of disconnected youth and families under stress. Because their development has been rooted in communities and neighborhood, many of these organizations have characteristics that are closer to the home cultures of the children and youth they serve than schools or other formal service systems. Leadership in many community-based organizations tends to more closely represent the racial/ethmc and cultural backgrounds of participants in their programs than do schools or public sector service agencies, and to be oriented to building on the strengths of families and youth rather than treating their deficits. Together these characteristics make their services ^th more accessible and supportive. The community-based organization culture, stressing accessibility (including long hours) and flexibility, makes them an especially good choice as providers of services to youth who have fared poorly in school, or live in particularly vulnerable families. However, the Beacon model is very demanding. It requires agencies to deliver high quality recreation, educational enrichment, and arts programming (itself or through sub-contractors) and to manage complex relationships with the school  administrators, teachers, parents, students  and with diverse members of the community from elected officials, neighborhood leaders, and religious and civic organizations to the police and drug dealers. Selection of agencies is a critical factor in detennining whether a successful Beacon can be established. 19Another two-sided aspect of the Beacon model is its flexibility. The lack of eligibility constraints and rigid program requirements have fostered creativity, energy and the tailoring of programs and strategies to the needs of the schools and communities. Where there is a strong agency flexibility has enabled the Beacon to be responsive, responsible, and innovative. Where there is educational leadership, the model allows the school to enhance its improvement efforts with significant supports. On the other hand, the fluidity of the model demands skill and agency commitment to community/school based planning, staff recruiting, and supervision. It also requires agencies to display leadership skills in handling the various political demands that accompany publicly-funded programs without recourse to the protection of rigid rules. If an agency lacks competence or commitment there are many pitfalls. This places an extra monitoring burden on city government since assessment is more complicated than in a traditionally structured program. The complex challenges of the Beacons Initiative require it to be accompanied by a technical assistance component and multiple opportunities for staff development Agencies need opportunities to share program ideas, explore best practices, and strategies for addressing political and community issues. Successful Beacons exist across a range of types of schools, neighborhoods and agencies. Their policies, practices and strategies need to be incorporated into a guide or handbook to be disseminated across the initiative. Inter-visitation has taken place with productive results and needs to be increased arxl supported. When community-based organizations and schools build strong collaborations, as had happened in several Beacons, this is a powerful force for orienting neighborhood'and youth culture towards educational achievement. The major limitation of the Beacons model to date is its limited linkage with instructional strategies to improve educational outcomes for youth. Since the initiative did not originate with schools, it is not surprising that it has involved limited dialogue with teachers and school administrators about education in the classroom. Beacons agencies have taken a support role through after-school tutoring, homework help and enrichment activities, and through provision of computers and other such tools. A few have developed direct plans with the school, for example, concentrating enrichment efforts on a particular grade level at the schools request, or working to bring a science enrichment program (through NSF funding to the school). Yet. there is far more potential that has not yet been tapped for collaboration to support educational achievement. If a dialogue does not grow between schools and Beacons agencies about educational achievement, in the long run the potential of the model will not be reached. However, at this point in time, the models openness also allows for many options. Beacons services and activities can be supportive, or even, integral to a range of different school improvement strategies such as the School Development Program, cooperative education models, or accelerated schools. The invitations from schools for Beacons staffs to become involved in school-based management teams and the School Development Program are promising developments for the future. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Beacon School-based Community Centers should be maintained at least at the current level of core funding, ensuring that at a minimum one exists in each Community School District. Beacons are clearly meeting a strongly felt need for youth activities, educational support and commumty participation. More than 30.000 New Yorkers have participated in Beacons services and many thousands do so daily. Principals and school district administrators report high degrees of support, and parents and youth have high levels of participation. 202. The role of Beacons as neighborhood development agents should be supported. The Beacons are a promising model of schools and community groups working together to foster safety and stability in neighborhoods. They offer important opportunities for the development of social networks that can aid parents in supervising their children and provide links for teenagers to education, jobs and positive peer groups. An emphasis on these types of activities should be maintained. Linkages with community policing should be supported. 3. City and state government should continue and strengthen efforts to increase collaboration, integrate funding streams, and increase and improve the co-location of services that support the Beacons mission. The collaborations developed between the Department of Youth Services and the Child Welfare Administration appear to be extremely valuable to supporting the most vulnerable families in Beacons neighborhoods. They have been well-implemented and should be expanded to all neighborhoods where there is an unmet need for family support services to prevent foster care placements. Co-location of Department of Employment LEAP programs should be continued and expanded. Beacons where LEAP placements are well-integrated with youth development activities should be used as models for expansion. Additional collaborations and co-Iocations that have developed should be examinf^ for possible expansion, with the caveat that every Beacon is serving a distinct neighborhood and school, and every service is neither needed or productive at every site. 4. Development and expansion of health service linkages should be the highest priority for the next stage of Beacons development. The Department of Health, the Health and HospiUls Corporation and the Department of Youth Services should form a partnership with public and private funds to stimulate linkages with community-based organizations and their local primary health providers. Health care, especially for adolescents, is considered the most serious and prevalent unmet need by Beacons directors and principals interviewed. Much effort by Beacons agencies, the Department of Youth Services and YDI has alr\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_342","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/342"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nOctober 3, 1994 To\nRuss Mayo From\n,\u0026gt;Ann Brown Subject\nDistrictwide Recruitment Plan 1 was pleased to receive a copy of the districts newsletter News \u0026amp; Views, the first such publication in a long time. It was a newsy and interesting edition, and 1 look forward to reading the coming issues. The \"Desegregation Update\" section on the first page of the newsletter states that a districtwide recruitment plan has been written, and that the individual schools have put together strategies for action at the school level. The section goes on to say that the district and parent recruiters will work toward improving the image of the public schools to encourage voluntary student transfers. 1 was also glad to read that ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report has provided further direction for recruitment efforts. Because recruitment and public relations are areas critical to desegregation, 1 salute you for having completed the plans that will support implementation of the activities referenced in the Update. Its a credit to you and your colleagues that the district has started the school year well prepared with road maps. Please help us get a head start on monitoring this years recruitment activities by sending me a copy of the revised districtwide recruitment plan that will be guiding you. In conjunction with that plan, I would also appreciate the information listed below. Brief answers, summaries, or copies of materials will do fine at this point. 1. 2. 3. Point out how this years districtwide recruitment plan differs from that of the previous year. State the districtwide goal of the recruitment plan in quantitative terms by race, i.e., the percentage increase in enrollment and the total number of students that percentage represents. State the school-based recruitment goal in quantitative terms by race for each school, i.e., the percentage increase by school and the target number of students you hope to recruit to each school according to the racial balance needs of each.October 3, 1994 Page Two 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Forward the results of the evaluation (fast-track or otherwise) you did on the previous recruitment plan that enabled you to determine what changes needed to be made in the current plan based on the successes or failures of last years plan. The Court long ago required the LRSD to establish a tracking system that would enable the district to determine which recruitment efforts are successful and which are not. Indicate the status of the tracking system, when it was established, who is responsible for it, and how it works. Summarize what youve learned from the system, and also how youve used at knowledge to modify the elements of your new recruitment plan. Summarize the recruitment strategies that each school has put together for this year. Or, if it will be easier, just include copies of the school-based plans. The desegregation plans state that parents and Parent Recruiters, along with such groups as the PTA, recruitment teams. Incentive School Parent Recruitment Committees, speakers bureaus, and the Biracial Committee, will assist with recruitment. Indicate the role envisioned for such individuals and groups in the current districtwide and school-based recruitment plans. Include the timeline of e current districtwide recruitment plan. Indicate who is responsible for the major events on that timeline. Describe the plans of the district and parent recruiters for improving the image of the schools, the timeline of the plans, and the responsible personnel. Indicate how you factored in the elements of the Public Relations sections of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. 11. Describe or list those elements of ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report that the district will be using in recruitment. Or, in other words, how has the district modified its current recruitment plan to incorporate elements of the incentive school report? ^3.H'. ^^Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division October 3, 1994 OCT 71994 0/fic3 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 oesegreg\nyoi Dear Dr. Williams\nThank you for your letter of September 29, 1994. The Chapter 2, ESEA, office iiss appreciative of your efforts to meet federal 1994. guidelines in cne expenaiture of your Chapter 2, ESEA, grant In your letter you have outlined some viable steps which agree will reduce the carryover balance at the end of the monies. we the expenditure of your Chapter 2, ESEA, fiscal year. Completion of the strategies mentioned in the letter will indeed guarantee that monies are spent in a timely manner. we are pleased to be able to approve the entire fiscal 1994 carryover of $39,354.59. carried into Completion of Therefore, mentioned This money is to be your fiscal 1995 project for expenditure in the current fiscal year. Sincerely, Bernadine Hoffman Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rjh cc: Ann Brown 1/ L board of EDUCATION: Chairman  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Chairman  RICHARD C SMITH JR., Tillar Members: CARL E BAGGER R^ers . WLLIAM B. USHER, Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR., Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphia  SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock  NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock An Equal Opportunity Employer  c TA Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 5, 1994 To: Frank Martin From: i^Ann Brown Subject: Reassignment of IRC Personnel I enjoyed our chat today and look forward to talking with you further on October 18. Thanks for agreeing to look into the situation regarding Leola Scoggins and Pearl Jackson, two IRC aides whose reassignments have made these two CTA members very unhappy. They met with me before school started and I suggested that they talk with you to determine the status of their complaint. Heres a copy of what I received from Leola, which you may already have in your files. I appreciate your looking into the matter and letting Leola and Pearl Itnow what next steps to anticipate. They both feel pretty helpless, but perhaps the situation isnt hopeless. Although theres probably not much I can do, please let me know how I can help. Thanks very much.Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 October 6, 1994 RECEIVFD OCT 61994 Dear Ann: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Our discussion of my business case for a Director of Student Assignment was helpful. As you know, the proposal is to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator position appearing in the desegregation plan. The money for that position will be used for a Director of Student Assignment. 1, and others as noted in the business case, will assume the responsibilities mandated by the plan for the Desegregation Facilitator. Since this is a plan modification, I am asking for your assistance with the modification process. The attached business case has been rewritten to Include all desegregation plan mandates for the Desegregation Facilitator, to clarify job responsibilities and accountability, to define a realistic job scope, and to correct some previous incongruities among sections of the business case. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors was presented the original business case by Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, on June 14, 1994. There were no objections. On or about July 18, Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney, sent copies of the business case to all parties and submitted it to the court v\\4th the budget document. No objections were heard from any of the parties at that time. At a later hearing. Judge Wright requested clarification of specifically who would address the mandates of the plan in addition to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. A chart responding to her request is included. Since this is a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the change should be reflected in the document for future reference. 1 suggest that the references to Desegregation Facilitator in the current plan be deleted. Again, thank you for your help with the business case. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation C: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment A Business Case Addition  Modification Deletion October 6,1994Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assigrunent 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. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper 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 parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. This is a proposal to change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the primary responsibility for student assignment, and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation assumes primary responsibility for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1.Director of Student Assignment Business Case 2 Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive them ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes am important part of the solution. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the Implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns_____________ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed______________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^________________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent Involvement. Person (s) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. ' At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 2 This item is less of a task and more of a result. IO/64 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 3 Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of 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. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. Milestone Date Person Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Mayo Mayo Williams Attorney Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation September, 1994 3 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 4 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts 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. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper 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 parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 10/6/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 5 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 Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart I A\u0026gt;oclt 8upTtnt\u0026lt;ndnt | 3. DIrvctorof Transportation l\" I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Student Assignment Coordinator SAO Information Coordinator I than attention. adequate Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Director of Communications I W Wecrutters | I PreyiUBT I I (8) Student Alonwnt nf [ Figure J Community OovolopmMit CoordkMitor I Staff I Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the responsibility primary for Student and the assignment, Associate Superintendent Desegregation for assumes responsibility primary for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1. Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel eire all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes ein important part of the solution. The following are examples of responsibilities to be assigned to the new position: 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ EOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 6 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 performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performeince 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 districts desegregation plan\ne) Assists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nf) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\ng) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nh) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\ni) Coordinates the appeals committee\nand, j) Performs other duties as assigned. The LRSD Plan defines the position of Desegregation Facilitator. Those tasks are found in the Educational Equity Monitoring section of the plan. The primary responsibility for the tasks described in the LRSD Plan will rest with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation with this proposal. In the plan, the Desegregation Facilitator is defined as follows: Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building princip\u0026gt;als. 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. The use of a desegregation facilitator will allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Sufjerintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity. 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 7 extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance eind counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. Timeline Develop Job Description Announce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. _______________________Tasks_________ 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns______ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents'^ as needed__________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^________________________________ 6. Focusing on aU aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. ________Person(s)_______ Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistcint Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Humein Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir, of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir, of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. 4 At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 5 This item is less of a task and more of a result. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOC Director of Student Assignment Business Case 8 Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign tasks to make this position responsible primarily for student assignment. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This change 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. Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assigiunent 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. 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 in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. 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 districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. 10/6/M DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 9 Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the cirea of student assignments. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nbring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nprovide 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\nallow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, permit the identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, limited complicince with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor public image in the area of student assignments. Timing Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of 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. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. Resources Analysis Personnei This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of existing positions. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 10 Financial No increase will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the current 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. General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Date Person Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan rnodification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94, 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee 6 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCB4101301 Date: October 13, 1994 To: Robert Glowers From: Bill Mooney Subj: Comments on the September LRSD Project Management Tool Robert, I thought I would send you a brief note of comments on the latest project management tool since I will not be able to talk to you about them for some time. If you have any questions, save them for my return. Task 6. As you know, the 6/30/95 finish date is not really correct. The needs assessment we are talking about in this section must be completed by the 12/15/94 finish date in Task 150. The problem is Task 153, which really belongs in the next cycle. Cycle III. I know the lawyers dont want two tools, but good planning and management says keep things separate so folks dont get confused. I guess lawyers dont get confused like the rest of us. Task 6. Last week we met concerning setting the format for the needs- assessment document. 1 would add a new task to cover that activity, and insert it in as Task 7. Task 71. There is no mention of the facilities committee which has been set up to help develop the facilities plan. I would put some tasking in this section to track their work, and show the world what all we are doing. Task 105. Adding the name of the school, once determined, is a good idea. It shows you are working your plan. Well done. Task 149. 1 dont understand why this finish date is so late? It would seem that they would want their input going into the Program Development decision-making back in January. April 28, 1995 is after the Proposed Budget has already been developed. I would think this date should be back in December/January. Task 154. This is the same problem we have in Task 6. 9/15/95 is not really the right timeframe. The inventory for this cycle should be completed by now. The killer is Task 160, which is really in the Cycle III timeline. Task 186 and Task 192. These tasks indicate that the Board has established and prepared a distribution list of their written priorities. By this note, I am requesting you send Ann Brown and myself a copy of these priorities as soon as possible. Thanks, in advance.Task 188 and Task 189. I understand why they wanted to extend these two, and I think this is a valid reason. What concerns me is the 0% progress. I fear folks will let this one slip again this year because of the hard decisions, and we will get hopelessly behind. Please watch the progress on this one. We need to start work on the known items last week. Task 203. This finish date is not correct. We know that this sub-process must be completed prior to starting on the next sub-process. Budgeting. This sub-process needs to finish by 2/28/95. The problem child is Task 216. If the district is planning on revisiting outsourcing, it should do so and make a decision not later than 2/28/95 so it can be properly included in the budget. To show a date of 6/30/95 replicates the problem we had this past budget\nwaiting too late for decisions. A decision at 6/30/95 is far too late for this budget cycle. Task 214. How can we have 40% of this task complete when the start date is 11/ 16/94? Task 250. I think this task will take more than one day. Think about this one. Task 253. This is the same task as Task 248, and this one can be deleted. Note\nI noticed that you did not include anything in the plan about the budget hearings which will surely occur. I would think about how to at least put a reminder in there. Being a manager and not an attorney, I would ask the Court to tentatively schedule those hearings as soon as possible giving consideration to the overall LRSD schedule. Task 364. One last comment about this. The cover letter for the August 3, 1994 filing, entitled LRSDs 1994-1995 Budget/July Project Management Tool (Corrected), addressed the tool for Cycle II, yet the actual tool submitted was for Cycle I. As I have said, I have been told the lawyers only wanted one tool at a time, but this is what can happen when one fails to clearly understand there are really two separate cycles overlapping. As we have discussed. Cycle I never was completely closed out. Rest assured there will be many more future interpretation errors if we continue to keep two cycles going in one tool. Enough said. Task 378, 379, 380, 381. This is a good idea and reminder for critical things to come. Task 382. This summary task is a good one for including in the tool, but the timing confuses me. It seems to me that these tasks relate to the 94-95 school year and the budget which we have just completed. These tasks were added to the tool after they were actually completed. It seems we have another \"two cycle\" problem. Since this cycle is focusing on 95-96 school year, it seems we should have May 95 dates in this tool.'/ 4- X( Little Rock School District \u0026lt;*15 ' October 20, 1994 eer 2 41994 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Oiiise of Oosegregaticn ktonii tiering Dear Mrs. Ann Brown, Enclosed is an invitation for everyone in your office, attached flyer) (See We would be honored to have you as our special guest. Love, Catherine 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 C^: A.'J^ 'f SfAsa) /r/^ Little Rock School District October 25, 1994 RSCEP'BP OCT 2 8 1994 Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Ofiioa of D6segre'5aiicn Moriitering Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Extended Year Program at Incentive Schools ( Attached you will find administration reports for the Extended Year Program for the incentive schools, sending these reports to you. I am sorry for the delay in If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Sl/adg- Attachments 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL/SUMMARY REPORT 1994 GRADES 1 - 6 AND EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY 700 EAST 17TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 y C^yJ^L ,,^, .. r ....-ZXe. /yiaj.^ ..- -_______ \u0026lt; i /tJt, nopy Ti^u t, (?c  I illJWIIIItWjW' LmuE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ^sn Memorandum OCI 5 1 1994 DATE\nOctober 27, 1994 Vyi 2tt'Cw 0*  TO: RE: Desegregation Monitoring Office - Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin Joshua Interveners - John Walker Knight Interveners - Eleanor Coleman, Frank Martin Pulaski County Special School District - Bobby Lester North Little Rock School District - James Smith LRSD Planning Team - Matthis, Ingram, Clowers, Mayo, Buchanan, Elston, Kohler, Eaton, Hurley, Schwartz of Schools ) / Magnet School/Development This memo is to invite your participation in a planning process leading to the submission of an application by the Little Rock School District to the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program. An application for a 3-year program is being prepared for submission in early 1995. Program activity would begin later that year. LRSD seeks involvement of key community representatives to develop the most competitive application. Your involvement will help determine which schools will be targeted to become magnets, what magnet themes will be developed, how enrollment at the schools will be handled, and other issues. Please make every effort to attend or send a representative to a planning meeting on Thursday, November 3, from 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. At that session, you will be presented with some of the Districts preliminary concepts for magnet school development and an overview of the schedule and planning process we will follow for the coming months. Again, your participation in this planning process is strongly encouraged. Please call Marvin Schwartz, #324-2014, with any questions on this initiative or the planning meeting. I look forward to seeing you then. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000  I 1 C^X \u0026lt;^: ^r)f/,A. FOR CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AT OCTOBER REGULAR BOARD MEETING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 27, 1994 TO: Board of Directors OCI 27 1994 FROM: Sadie Mitchell^^Xssistant Superintendent Samuel Branch, Principal .^^^Marvin Schwartz, Grants Writer Gliics 0, Ocseg\ney: itiOi' THROUGH: SUBJECT: Parent Involvement Program r P^k Element^ School has prepared an application to the state Department of Education for f establish a parent involvement program for grades K-3. The school will request $15,000 for a one-year program through the Division of Early Childhood Education e intent of the progrm is to involve parents in their chidrens education and prevent academic difficulties through high quality early childhood programs. The Fair Park program design involves developing language skills to bnng parents and children together through the use of books and computer equipment. Parent involvement in the school setting will be complemented by use of educational materials in the home. prevent academic 'O It is recoi^ended that the Board of Directors approve the administration to submit the proposal for the Fair Park parent involvement program.OFF. OF DESEG. MONITORING BANKS, JACQUELYN J - BROWN, ANN S vC BRYANT, LINDA F RECEPTIONIST FEDERAL MONITOR, 515 WEST 24TH STREET 1201 WELCH Sukf.o** 3002 ROMINE ROAD MELISSA R MOONEY, WILLIAM M /MORGAN, ROLAND R v'POWELL, MARGIE L '7rAMER, POLLY A ^fiMITH, HORACE R TANNER, CONNIE H ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR BUDGET SPECIALIST ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR OFFICE MANAGER ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR ASSOCIATE FeDEBAfc-HONITOfr 6509 CANTRELL 21711 HENLEY LANE MCF 11411 KERRY DRIVE -4eeEECHwee\u0026amp; 0' Ci 72114 72202 72204 72207 72065 72209 TK95- I 758-1315 372-7458 224-7338 663-8177 888-6183 562-7698 ^e^soof- DATE: October 31, 1994 TO: All Principals, Directors, and Managers FROM: Dr. Ri^^ Hurley, Director Human Resources Department SUBJECT: Request for Personnel Directory Update Information Your help is needed in updating the information for your staffs name, address, and phone number for 1994-95 LRSD Personnel Directory. A copy of the current information from Human Resources is attached to assist you. Please have each employee in you division to check their address, zip code, and telephone number for accuracy. If the employee DOES NOT wish to have their address and/or number published, they must indicate so by lining through the information and initialing. All changes should be made on the attached sheet(s). Return your updated information to Human Resources by November 11.1994. vmai aJ i l=,J^ Ct/\u0026gt;\u0026gt;'\u0026lt;-i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 / - October 31, 1994 Mr. Bill Mooney ODM Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Bill: Due to an error there were two pages in the LRSD Transportation Business Case with wrong calculations. Please replace pages 1 and 10 with the enclosed copies. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation RM: elk Enclosure: (2) Little Rock School District Improving Student Transportation Business Case Executive Summary The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few wUl arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position CosP Quan.^ Item Cost 3.3 Trainers Mechanics 1.5 Helpers Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses $990,000 4 4 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 The money will come from the state desegregation loan fund. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers Date 7/14/94 9/1/94 Person Williams Hurley 1 2 Includes benefits Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outrightImproving Student Transportation Business Case 10 Timing It is critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position 3.3 Trainers Cost^ Quan.^ Item Cost 4 Mechanics 4 Helpers 1.5 Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Bxises $990,000 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 Revenue Source The money will come from the state desegregation loan ftmd. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution  patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and 3 Includes benefits 4 Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outright. lO/SI/M BC.BU5Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324'2000  r i iPF . 'J November 1, 1994 '5 1994 Office ot Oe\nKatherine P. Mitchell, Ph.D. 1605 Welch Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  '\"Iz  Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing asking that you work for and vote for the continuation of hiring registered nurses to provide health care to our school children. Many of our students receive no health care other than what is provided at their school site. Registered nurses are qualified to provide professional assessments, emergency care and referrals, health education. and the all important mental health care. are not qualified to act in such an independent role. Licensed practical nurses In my consultation with the Little Rock School District, I have become aware of countless cases where elementary, junior and senior high students as well as faculty members have not only received excellent health care and mental health/suicide prevention/intervention but are alive today as a result of the professional assessment, quick response and committment of the school nurses of the LRSD. district should be proud! They are certainly a group of winich the As our society becomes more complicated, so do the lives of our students and faculty and so do the health problems demanding professional nurses in our schools. Let's not sell our kids short. Please continue your support of our registered school nurses and giving our students the quality health care they deserve. Thank you very much. * Sincerely Mary Paal, M.S.N..,R.N. ,c. Certified Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse cc: Linda Poindexter Dr. Henry WilliamsOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 1, 1994 To: All Counsel of Record From: n S. Brown Subject: LRSD Proposal for Plan Modification: Desegregation Facilitator As you are aware. Judge Wright has asked me to coordinate the desegregation plan modification process for a specific proposal, which was prompted by a LRSD business case presented to the Court during recent hearings. That business case proposed to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator, to distribute the Facilitators duties to other district administrators, and to create a new Director of Student Assignment position. In an October 24, 1994 Order, the Court directed me to \"work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools.\" 1 have met at length with Dr. Russ Mayo to discuss the business case. As a result of our discussions and my observations. Dr. Mayo has completed a revised business case. The revision addresses deficiencies in the original proposal, which had to do with\nincongruities within the business case, omitted plan mandates, the scope of the revised job description, possible neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities, and unclear accountability. In my opinion. Dr. Mayo has satisfactorily addressed those deficiencies through this revised proposal. Please review the revised business case, which is attached along with a letter from Dr. Mayo to me. If you have questions or concerns about the proposal, discuss them with Dr. Mayo and his attorney. Do your best to resolve any issues and determine whether the business case may need further revision. Let me know immediately the nature of any matters that remain unsettled or if you anticipate any additional changes in the proposal\n1 will serve as a resource to further facilitate the modification process if necessaiy. 1 wish to conclude this phase of the modification process as soon as possible, certainly no later than November 10, 1994. By that date or before, please indicate in writing to me either that you do not object to the plan modification as proposed in the revised business case, or that you object to the modification for reasons which you specify. 1 will forward your written comments to the Court along with copies of this memorandum and the enclosures. The Court will issue a ruling based on this information, any other filings you may wish to make, and the record of this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if 1 may be of further assistance. Enc. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 2, 1994 To: From: Subject: Principals of Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith, ODM Monitoring Report on the Incentive Schools A draft copy of ODMs monitoring report is enclosed for your review. This report reflects the information we gathered during our visit to your schools this past spring. Please read the report carefully, checking for accuracy. If you find any statements that are inaccurate or if there are areas that need clarification, please summarize your comments and submit them to our office in writing, no later than 5:00 p.in. Tuesday, November 8,1994. One of the monitors will come to your school on that date to pick up the draft copy. If you have written comments and they are ready by the time a monitor arrives, you may send the comments back with him or her. If a monitor arrives before you prepare any response, you may bring it to our office later that same day. We will not accept any responses received after 5:00 p.m. on November 8. If you have questions or concerns about the report, please call our office and discuss those issues with a monitor. We make every effort to present fair, accurate information. Since this report is a draft copy, we ask that you do not duplicate it or share it with others. After the review process, we will file a completed report that includes an introduction, findings, summary, conclusions, and recommendations with the court. We will send you a copy of that final report. We very much appreciate your cooperation during the monitoring process and thank you for taking the time to review the draft. cc: Russ Mayo Pat Price Sterling Ingram4 oi^y J Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 3, 1994 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams A ^Ahn Brown ODM 1994-95 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1994-95 school year, which are attached. As in previous years, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from both the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached desegregation topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. I Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a follow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment, and the LRSD incentive schools. Other monitoring will be in areas we have not previously reviewed as a discreet topic, such as the secondary interdistrict schools in the LRSD, the specialty programs in the PCSSD, and the status of desegregation in the NLRSD schools. At die conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as that on eliminating portable buildings in the PCSSD\nothers, such at that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged from previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument weve used in the past. As usual, we will review the guide with your staff before beginning a formal monitoring project so youll know what we are looking for.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Novembers, 1994 Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Russ\nAnn gave me a copy of the flow chart your staff developed to help explain the LRSD student assignment options. I know how confusing the many assignment options can be. Parents certainly need all the help they can get in making choices for their children. 1 really appreciate your efforts to make the assignment process more understandable to the Board, other educators, and the public. After reviewing the document, I have a few questions and comments regarding its content. I would like for us to meet and discuss the flow chart and other student assignment issues, after you have had time to review my comments. I will call your office by Tuesday, November 8, 1994 so we can set a time to discuss these matters. For whom was this flow chart designed? If the chart is for parents, or other individuals unfamiliar with the students assignment regulations, it may need more information presented in a clearer manner. How will the chart be used? If the flow chart is designed to demonstrate the various student assignment options, it needs some information regarding sending schools. The chart lists the various assignment options, but never indicates that the racial balance at sending schools is a factor. How much weight are you assigning to the racial balance at the sending schools? Has the district resolved the issue of sending school balance versus the need to reach maximum capacity at the magnet schools? Is the position on sending schools the same for all types of transfers (magnet, desegregation, incentive)?Where does the district stand on submitting a revised policy on the enrollment of LRSD white students in the interdistrict schools located within the district? This policy can make a dramatic difference in the options you have to offer to some parents. Why did you opt for the school classifications used on the flow chart? While King has full magnet status, its student assignments and racial balance are those allotted to an interdistrict school. The same is true for Washington, but both schools (along with Rockefeller) are listed with the original elementary magnets. Since the flow chart is trying to explain student assignment options, wouldn't it be more helpful to group schools with the same enrollment and racial balance guidelines together (such as the original magnets, interdistrict magnets, and so on)? I'll be talking to you soon. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 3, 1994 RECEIVED NOV 4 1994 Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Oifici of Desegregation MoruOiii'.g Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed is a bound copy of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case foundation documents. Included are the Settlement Agreement, the Interdistrict Plan, the Court Order (May 1992) relating to plan modifications, and the LRSD Desegregation Plan. They (except the Court Order) have been reformatted, indexed, and line-numbered for easy reference. The Court Order has been summarized. That summary is found at the front of the Court Order section. No wording was changed. The indexing and line-numbering facilitates discussion and pursuit of our obligations. Though indexes may be grouped in an infinite number of ways, this one serves our purposes for quick reference. We will occasionally revise it as the need arises. Each member of the Board of Directors and key administrators in our district have copies. It occurred to me that you might benefit from it also. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Stephen W. Jones, NLRSD Attorney M. Samuel Jones, PCSSD Attorney John W. Walker, Attorney, Joshua Intervenors Richard W. RoacheU, Attorney, Knight Intervenors bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 November 4, 1994 Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: As you know, the deadline for submitting the LRSD October 1 enrollment to ADE has passed. It is my understanding that the LRSD has already sent this information to ADE\nhowever, my office has not received it. It has always been the practice of aU three school districts to send the October 1 data to ODM at the same time they submitted it to ADE. In order for ODM to complete an enrollment comparison, my office needs LRSD's October 1 data as soon as possible. Polly Ramer, my office manager, has tried without success to secure a copy of your submission by talking to Deana Keathley in Russ Mayo's office. Bob Connelly in data processing, and Audrey Lee in Student Assignment. My office was told that this year the LRSD submitted the October 1 enrollment to ADE on computer disc. Since the October 1 enrollment is used as the baseline for obtaining an accurate year-to-year enrollment comparison, it is important that the information be reported in the same format as in years past. For this purpose, we have requested from the persons named above a breakdown of the October 1, 1994 enrollment by school, by grade, and by race. I would appreciate any help you might give me to expedite our receipt of the October I eiu-ollment breakdown. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownOf'- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term \"Beacon\" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. 1 am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When I am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, 1 am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 3710100 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term \"Beacon\" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. I am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When 1 am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, I am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Of 3 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank Williams11. os 94\n17  3t \\y' Li  i SI,. (y- ID- (' ' Jjj'ate. 1 ry  p^rtidpat OOI L JTi * I / .^ i \"-.J P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NOV-16-94 THU 14:19 JK X X X DATE START SEND^.. RX TIME PAGES a TYPE NOTE l^OV-10 14:18 50te46576 r 1'05\" 2 RECEIVE OK *Vi . X X X X ' X X X1 .N0V-10-*r^l5!10 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 01 I DATE\nTO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 'l FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 November 10, 1994 Polly/Ann '. i jJi J 11 J .'i FROM: Lucille DeGosti NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET \u0026gt; 2 LOOK WHAT I FOUND!  \u0026gt; \u0026lt;' 4 ii. -c. / J |3' J .it\"' - lE Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 3 November 11, 1994 aS~i Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 1 0 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Oiiics cf D! .y, liicn Mcniicnng Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the Rock Beacon School Initiative. City of Little The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a community-based organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will provide the space for the program. Further infoirmation will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Siicere^ H\u0026lt;n: P. Williams, SiiBerintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (301)324-2000 Little Rock School District November 15, 1994 M : NGV 1 b 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage VveSt Building, Room 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ''iCij iii !Je53i i' arnig Dear Ms. Brown\nI would like to take this opportunity to welcome the participation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in future meetings of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. As you will note on the November Agenda, you will have the opportunity to address the Board during the Presentations section of the meeting. Placement on the Agenda for ODM, as well as the Classroom Teachers Association, the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors, and the PTA Council was approved by the Board at the October 27, 1994, meeting. I look forward to your input and look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Linda Pondexter, President Board of Directors bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000di-: CEcrae Little Rock School District November 15, 1994 NGV 1 6 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Room 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 'C^ Q: Uv\nih'jg Dear Ms. Brown\nI would like to take this opportunity to welcome the participation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in future meetings of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. As you will note on the November Agenda, you will have the opportunity to address the Board during the Presentations section of the meeting. Placement on the Agenda for ODM, as well as the Classroom Teachers Association, the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors, and the PTA Council was approved by the Board at the October 27, 1994, meeting. I look forward to your input and look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Linda Pondexter, President Board of Directors bjg 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000i_(/^(_- /i y/' z \u0026lt;^4 c I \u0026gt; f- f'. . -Y. (.'r\u0026lt;^~ Cc'  X r. RcCEIV^O NOV 1 6 1994 Effies or Dcss^rog Z1 I. r 'I/- r -1^- r: t-c i \u0026lt;^ ,iJ.-^^ ~f~.  i l-r^ . ioo. -k \u0026lt; / -n I (^i-t^t'-' ii- ?y\\A ^n-C Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Ff (4* * /^/^ u LrrrtE Rock School District November 16, 1994 TO: FROM: RECEIVED NOV 2 3 iqpi Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Edna M. Wiley, Teacher-Washington Magnet School chard Hurley, Director-Human Resources am in receipt of your letter dated November 15, which you request \"back pay\" due for your 1993-94 contract. I 1994 in I have previously advised you both orally and in writing that I believe you have been paid all the monies due to you. Please refer to my letter dated June 9, 1994. In that letter, I explained that I had discussed your salary concern with Mr. Mark Milhollen and I explained, in detail, how your salary calculations were done. If you need a copy of that letter, I'd be pleased to furnish it to you. Regarding your second issue (sick leave bank), you should mark on your Leave Accountability Report any discrepancies you feel need correcting and forward a copy of the marked Report to my attention. Your Report, and others similarly questioned, will be submitted to the Business office for review and correction, when appropriate. I trust this response will answer your request, please don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience, since you carbon-copied your letter to the below-listed persons, I am taking the liberty to copy them on my response to you. If not. Further, cc: As usual, Edna, it is nice to hear from you. Dr. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Coleman, President-L.R.C.T.A. Mr. Martin, Executive Director-L.R.C.T.A. Ms. Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Pondexter, President-Little Rock School Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-3000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 17, 1994 To: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Documentation Request I want to follow-up on our recent conversation regarding Academic Progress Incentive Grant documentation. I would like to receive the following information at our monthly meeting on November 22 if possible.  Copy of the 1993-94 APIG school program evaluation  1993-94 APIG data for each elementary and secondary school which includes - school, amount approved, date application was submitted, date application was approved, date of actual appropriation of funds, and the amount expended by the school Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call. I: kfiyf) ar) Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 22, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Thank you for responding so quickly to my latest request for the LRSD October 1 enrollment by school, race, and grade. We have reviewed the enrollment report, but have found what appear to be some mathematical errors in the data, which I have noted below. Since we did not look at every calculation, the report may have additional errors not listed. Page 4 Chicot Total reported as 42~\u0026amp;e sum is 57 % black wrong Page 4 Cloverdale Elem Total reported as 106the sum is 57 Total reported as 52the sum is 50 % black wrong Page 4 Dodd 12345 6 Page 5 Geyer Springs Page 9 Watson Total reported as 53the sum is 50 Total reported as 105-the sum is 37 Total reported as 43the sum is 38 Total reported as 47the sum is 46 Total reported as 48the sum is 46 Total reported as 31the sum is 28 Total reported as 79the sum is 48 Total reported as 53the sum is 48 Total reported as 41the sum is 35 Total reported as 79-the sum is 49 Altogether missing from the report % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong K 1 2 345 1 When we find some apparent errors in a report, we can't help but question the validity of the entire report. Since the October 1 enrollment figures become part of the Court Record, we want to be sure that they are correct. Therefore, please send me an accurate October 1 enrollment count by school, grade, and race. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM 1 To: Becky Rather, Coordinator of Parent Recruitment From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: November 20, 1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Responsibilities NOV 2 2 ,qpA GiiiCQ oi C' igrsgation Mo.nitc.'T.j As you may know by now, Jeanette Wagner has resigned as Director of Communications. Her last day will be November 30. Though the position is advertised, time will be required to interview and acclimate the new person. Currently, we are estimating that the new person will join us no later than January 16. Unfortunately, that person will begin in the middle of the busiest part of our recruitment season. Once in the position, that person will need time to learn policies and procedures of the district. Dina Tecigue will assume temporarily the responsibilities of the communications department and have no responsibility for recruitment beyond assisting in having materials printed. As a result, 1 am asking you to take full responsibility for implementing the LRSD District-Wide Recruitment Plan beginning immediately until further notice. You have the experience and were involved in writing the plan. Please include in your responsibilities the revising and writing of all printed materials noted in the plan. 1 suggest that you establish a tickler system for reminding you of what must be done when. 1 suggest also that you meet with Jeanette before she leaves to make the transition as smooth as possible. The recruitment plan is specific about when things are to be done. Please let me review anything you write or revise that will be sent to district employees or to our patrons. This includes any memoranda. One responsibility not in the recruitment plan is the bimonthly updating of the Bi-Racial Committee on incentive school recruitment. The next update is due at the January 10 meeting. Meetings are held the first Tuesday of the month, except January. With your experience in communications and in recruitment, 1 am confident that we can continue executing our recruitment plan without missing a step. Let me know if you meet obstacles or need me to speak to the topic in principals meetings, council meetings, etc. Deana Keathley will schedule a meeting soon which will include you and Dina Teague. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss recruitment and communication concerns during the transition period. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Council Dina Teague, Communications Assistant Ann Brown, Monitor Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney\u0026lt;2P-\nS Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS November 21, 1994 RE? n Ms. Melissa Gul din ODM NOV 2 3 iqp4 Office of Desegregation Mon:i^.u.j Dear Ms. Gul din: I want to thank you for attending the Stephens School Steering Committee Meeting on Monday, November 14, 194. Your input is most valuable in the continued efforts of the planning for our new school. As a result of that meeting, the members of my subcommittee met on Wednesday, November 16, to review the recommendations and to make plans to implement the following\n1. Students in the seven target schools will take surveys home for their parents to mark their choice of the top two themes. Explanation of the two most popular themes will be attached to the ballot sheet. 2. Three community meetings are being scheduled to provide information on the progress of the Stephens School. Community people will be provided surveys at these meetings to vote on their choice of the top two themes. These community meetings are being scheduled at the following times and places:  Thursday, December 1 - 6:45 p.m. - Garland Elementary Incentive School 3615 West 25th Street Little Rock  Saturday, December 3 - 10:30 a.m. - First Baptist Church Highland Park 3800 West 18th Street Little Rock  Tuesday, December 6 - 6:45 p.m. - Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Road Little Rock 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Stephens School Steering Committee November 21, 1994 Page 2 Our agenda for each meeting is to give an update on the progress being made in the planning process. Please mark your calendar for one or all of these meetings and contact any group of patrons whom you feel may be interested in attending these meetings. The Little Rock School Districts Communication Office is preparing flyers that will be delivered to various community groups prior to the above dates. Our next Steering Committee meeting is being scheduled for Monday, December 12 at 3:30 p.m. in the Board Room. Please make your calendar and plan to join us attEaffime. Again, thank you for your continued support and interest in the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Margaret-'Gremillii Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, xArkansas 72201 RECEiVF^ Date: MEMORANDUM November 22, 1994 NOV 2 9 1994 jiiica Of Desegieg-t'O'! ini-j'. To: Through: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitorin' Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent From: Dina Teagu^ ommunications Specialist Re: Public Relations Training Jeanette Wagner has advised me that you would like to observe one of the public relations training sessions that we provide for school level employees. I hope that you will accept my invitation to come to any of the following meetings scheduled this month: Garland Multi-Media Technology and Educational Research Elementary School Monday, December 5 3:03 - 3:20 p.m. Wilson Elementary School Wednesday, December 7 1:45 - 2:00 p.m. Western HiUs Elementary School Wednesday, December 7 2:45 p.m. By copy of this memo, I will let the principals of these schools know that you might attend their meetings. I am very encouraged by your interest and look forward to your comments and suggestions. cc Robert Brown Franklin Davis Scott Morgandr- Memorandum NOV 3 0 1991 Office of Oesegre^fi :9 DATE: November 30,1994 TO: Principals : Franklin Incentive Elementary. Bale Elementary, Cloverdale Elementary, Southwest Junior High, Cloverdale Junior High Margaret Gremillion - Stephens Magnet Planning Group FROM: Estelle Matti M, larvin Schwartz RECEIV^^ RE: CC: Magnet School application LRSD - Henry Williams, Russ Mayo, Sterling Ingram, Doug Eaton, Leon Modeste, Dena Teague, Sadie Mitchell \u0026gt; ODM - Melissa Guldin Attorney - Chris Heller, Jerry Malone Joshua Interveners - John Walker Knight Interveners/LRCTA - Frank Martin, Eleanor Coleman PCSSD - Billy Bowles, Bobby Lester, Bobby Altom NLRSD - James Smith This memo gives formal notice that the six schools identified below have been selected by the LRSD for application to the federal Magnet School Assistance Program for development as new magnet schools. The six schools include\nFranklin Incentive Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Junior High Bale Elementary Southwest Junior High Stephens Elementary A major administrative effort is underway to gather supporting data to develop the application. An amendment to the desegregation plan will have to be filed. Input from the six schools and their respective communities is also needed. Each school will need to identify the theme(s) for their new status as magnets. This preliminary theme identification is needed by December 9. Following the theme selections, the planning process will seek school input on curriculum development and staff training. Because of the extremely tight timeframe, it is suggested that meetings with school patrons and community members be limited to the core group at each school. School staff may conduct these meetings and gain input in any manner they believe appropriate. Several forms of assistance are available for this effort, including:  Community surveys forms  Listings of sample magnet themes  Examples of successful magnet themes/schools in other cities  Participation by the grants writer in local planning meetings Marvin Schwartz is serving as the central coordinator for this project. Please contact him with any questions or requests for assistance.UXUU.:*tpU-^ - P.Ol r DATE START SENDER DEC- 1 10:22 5013242032 X 444 4 44 4''4'44'4 44'44 44W'4^44'4 4'4'4'4 4'i t i  4 TRANSACTION REPORT DEC- 1-94 THU 10:23 RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 46\" 1 RECEIVE OK * )|! * * )K j * X fA^ SB^asBaa'JBBK-a liaji '0 \u0026lt;Z1 m z I m LITlLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QUIZiSSPLST _ STAFFIMGZ L  o GAI POSITIOK BLACK M F OF 11/10/94 WHITE M F OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK o\u0026gt; X KI SUPPORT POSITIONS I CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE \u0026lt; S(X\niAL WORKER r: f! INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES OTHER 0 2 0 00 02 01 3 1 00 0 1 11 2 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 1 11 02 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 10 3 311 11 16 31 100.00 100.00 00 00 00 100.00 81.25 66.67 100.00 T I \u0026lt;o to , SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS -H 5 18 0 5 0 2 30 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 16.67 60.00 00 16.67 00 6.67 30 76.67 30 CO o a: o o o \u0026lt;Z) 1 i oi CjO II B I BiBSai IS: FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:56AM P2 To: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham # 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 10,1994 Dear Ms Brown, 1 am writit^ to you in regards to the recent actions taken by Dr. Williams, and others concerning the rebuilding of Chicot School and the closure of Watson. I am not completely positive as to who started what and how. What I am positive about, is that the residents of the Fairfield Sub-Division were completely left out of the process which has lead to the current recommendations. Those recommendations being to close Watson School and merge ifs population into a new and expanded Chicot School. It is also my understanding that Dr. Williams made statements regardu^ the staff of Watson and the Fairfield residents to the affect that this issue was none of our concern, \" This is School Busmess\". It was not until I learned of the actions of die District and the Chicot PTA, and began to raise a ruckus, that die Fairfield residents were contacted regarding these plans. As of the date of this letter the District has failed to recognize the Fairfield Sub-Division. The Chicot School PTA did contact us regarding tins issue and invited us to attend a meeting scheduled for Dec 11, 2 p.m., at McQellan High School. This has been are only contact until board member Gee called me this evening. If my interpretation of the Desegregation Plans are correct Dr. Williams statements and actions are in direct contempt of die court ordered plan. Specifically sections 2.c., 3.c., and 3.d. listed under Parent involvement! Community linkages. And, sections 9.b, and 9.c., listed under Public Relations in the Inter District plan. The latter specifically instructs die District to \" immediately inform the public**, and to \" refrain from springing surprises*. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this situation as well as copies of any court orders in support or opposition of my position, including the court order dated 11/4/91. It would probably be in the best interest of die community if Judge Wright was aware of the situation as well. Thank You for your time and interest FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:57At'1 P3 To\n.Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Fast Markham # 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Utfle Rock, AR 72209 December 11, 1994 Dear Ms Brown, After attending the meeting held at McClellan High School this afternoon, I felt that this supplemental to my letter dated DecembcrlO, 1994 was necessary in order to validate certain statements in that letter and statements made during the meeting. First of an I made statements in the letter, and at the meeting regarding the fact that residents of the Fairfield Subdivision were not contacted tn regards to planning process nor of the meeting that was scheduled for December 11th, and that it was the EHstricts respon-sibiJity to insure that all affected parties were notified. School Board President Tinda Poindexter vehemently denied that die District had anything to do with this committee or today's meeting. However, the committee's minutes as presented at the meeting as the \"Committee History\" indicated that District officials became involved as early as November 28th. I have received verbal information from what I believe to be a reliable source that District Officials met to discuss the closure of Watson at a closed meeting at a Board Members home shortly before Thanksgiving. Abscond source has indicated that the meeting did in fact occur but would not confirm the content of this meeting. Also noted in the committee's minutes is that on December 6th, Board Member Pat Gee \" requested\" that Dr. Williams approve flyers announcing the meeting be distributed through schools in Southwest Little Rock. Dr. Williams was asked to contact the principals of each school and ok distribution of the flyers to students. Statements made by Chicot PTA President Kevin McGuire to me during a telephone conversation and a fax transmission on December 6th indicated that District personnel were very much involved in file situation and intended to withhold information from file Fairfield residents and Watson parents. A copy of the fax transmission is attached.FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:58AM P4 Althou^ tniscommunicalion could be credited with portions of this situation, specifically between School Board members, and neighborhood groups. I still believe that there is suflheient evidence to support die theoty that School District .Administration took an active part in the organizational plan to close Watson as a public school, as well as concealing this action from the Fairfield Residents and Waterni Parents in direct violation of the Desegregation Plan and Federal Court orders. The fact that flyers were sent home from all of the affected schools with the exception of Watson and poswbly Mabelvale would tond to support the theory as well. There is the added consideration that would suggest that \"Administration\" may be playing both ends against the middle by supplying mis-information to Kevin McGuire and the Chicot PTA. During the meeting on December 5th, Doug Eaton conducted a short presentation where in he made numerous references to court approved formulas that were utilized in determining which schods should close and which should remain open based on attendance and capacities. When pressed by the Chicot parents to present and define the formula, Doug Eaton became evasive, commenting that it was a \"very complex lonnula\". He later admitted that there was no specific formula to make these determinations. Ihc inaccuracies and halt truths perpetuated during the meeting on December 5th are again in direct contempt of the Desegregation Plan. Specifically sectimi 9 of the Interdistrict Plan (Public relations) which deals with credibility and trust And section 3 which requires the District to H Continue to disseminate public information in ways the districts customarily employ, paying cardul attention to quality, accuracy, and a positive tone\". I recognize that you are not in a position to adjudicate these complaints but I also recognize your authority in investigating this matter, and in bringing these concem-s to the attention Judge Wright should they prove vahd. Sincerely, FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:59AM P5 SCHOOL CO.MMITTEE HISTORY FIRE AT CHICOT. CHICOT PARENTS MEET AT WATSON GYMNASIUM WITH DISTRICT OFFICIALS ON IMMEDIATE CONTINGENCY PLANS ON GETTING STUDENTS BACK TO SCHOOL.i QC.T^_23Ka  ADDRESS DR. PTA MEETING AT KcCLELLAH AUDITORIUM FOR PARENTS TO WILLIAMS AND SCHOOL BOARD - WILLIAMS QUOTED \"COMMITTEE MILL WOULD BE FORMED IN A WEEK\". NOY. DEMOGRAPHICS OF COST OF REBUILDING, COURT APPROVAL FOR REBUILDING, NEIGHBORHOOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WILLIAMS. BOARD DECIDED THEY WOULD NEED ALL THIS ILFCRMATIUN AND EE ABLE TO VOTE ON DECISION DEC. AGENDA MEETING. \"HE ENLARGED. CLOSED. i FINANCIAL INTENDS TO DR. WILLIAMS RECOMMEND THAT QUOTED BY CHICOT BE CYNTHIA HOWELL @ GAZETTE REBUILT AND POSSIBLY IF SCHOOL IS ENLARGED, ANOTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR WOULD BE BOARD MEMBERS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION THE NECESSARY CHICOT ELEMENTARY BY EARLY DECEMBER, TO MAKE A DECISION ON Ni 'Tl' REPORT 0 SCHOOL ENTER INTO UPDATE BOARD, ON REBUILDING DISCUSSED 1 CHICOT. DOUG EATON GAVE HE HOPES DECISION ON WHETHER TO REBUILD' DAMAGE AND FACTORS THAT WILL SCHOOL, EATON STATES TO ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER, 1994. HAVE  TO TRY ENOUGH INFORMATION AND VOTE ON FOR THE BOARD AND THE FUTURE OF ANOTHER ITEM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED CHICOT. BY MID TO COMBINE THIS WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN THS AREA. IS WHETHER NOY.,'LTIl - KEVIN McGUIEE WITH CHICOT PTA MEET WITH FOR PROGRESS ON RAILROAD OVERPASSES IN SWLR. XT IS AT THIS MEETING WE SPOKE WITH JOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK, CITY BOARD ELECT\nCONGRESSMAN RAY THORNTON AND HIS AIDE DEBBIE TABLERIOU\nJOA HUMPHRIES, SOUTHWEST UNITED FOR PRESIDENT. PAUL HOWELL ADDRESSED AUDIENCE OF PAUL HOWELL, SOUTHWEST UNITED XT IS RAILROAD OVERPASSES WITH JOAN PROGRESS TABLERIOV\nJOA HUMPHRIES, PAUL HOWELL AUDIENCE TO RE.' ILi DE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS SCHOOL DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE 'CHICOT PARENTS MAP CAMPAIGN \"DSCIS'Oh? ON CHICOT DUE INFROM : JOHN YORK' PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 1 1994 09:59AM P6 BUSINESS OWNERS, MERCHANTS. M.ElGH30RHC0D ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS, ARD SKLR RESIDENTS ON STATUS OF CHICOT. BEFORE MEETING ADJOURNED, PTA DISCOVERED THAT SCHOOL BOARD FAILED TO COMMIT TO REBUILDING CHICOT A7 AGENDA MEETING HELD MINUTES EARLIER. IT IS THEN THAT THE GROUP PLEDGED THEIR SUPPORT, THORNTON'S OFFICE LOOKING FOR AIDE FROM WASHINGTON. ASKED ABOUT STATU NOTIFIED AS TO WHO IS OF COMMITTEE. PTA RESPONDED WK WE FREEDOM EXPRESSED CONCERN SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE OR WHEN CONGRESSMAN CITY LEADERS HAVE NOT BEEN THAT NO HAS OF INFORMATION ACT HAS BEEN INFORMATION REQUESTED TO MEET. THROUGH LARGER. PROPOSED SWLR SCHOOL CLOSURE MADE AVAILABLE AND DISTRICT NO INFORMATION IS QUESTIONED HOW THESE OR MERGERS IF CHICOT REBUILT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING WE HAVEN'T HEARD AVAILABLE TO BASE THEM ON. MADE IF WITHOUT LEADERS. THS SCHOOL FROM DISTRICT DISTRICT AND SOON, HE WOULD WE AGREED THAT IF INVITE CITY TA^T MEETING AND COMMUNITY UmL-JATil - THEY HAVE I ELEMENTARY. COMMITTEE MEMBERS STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES THAT BEEN SELECTED TO SERVE ON COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT NOTICE MAILED NOV. 11, 1394 FROM DOUG EATON. NOY.- LZIjaL - PTA NOTICES. CHICOT ADDRESSED LRSC SCHOOL THANKED SCHOOL BOARD. BOARD MEETING. CONFIRMED MR. McGUIRE, CHICOT COMMITTEE BOARD FOR APPOINTMENTS, REPRESENTATION AT SWLR CHRISTMAS MEET SOON POSSIBLE RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE AS AS MADE PARADE. BOARD WARE RECOMMENDATION TO REBUILD CHICOT. TO KAKE ASKED PLANS OF THAT FOR ~ CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA ENTERS SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK CHRISTMAS PARADE WITH A FLOAT AND 150 WALKERS, WEARING \"CHICOT - UNITED TO REBUILD CHICOT\" T-SHIRTS. \"ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL REBUILT'. THIRD PLACE AND WAS WELL RECEIVED BY SUPPORTERS ALONG ROUTE. family A FLOAT ARD CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL PA8ADE/FLOAT THEME. FLOAT WINS THE PARADE --ZZCii - CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CONGRESSMAN THORNTON'S OFFICE\nSTATE REP PHIL WYRICK BOARD ELECT. B.J. WYRICK\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR\nSC5JOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD MEMBERS. THE PTA CALLS  THORNTON' PTA HAS STATE REP IN SCHOOL PTL MEETING FUR NOV. 28TH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. AS A AND CITY WELL AS SPECIAL I'UK MUV. zTH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. IT WAS FELT that if public RECORDS INDICATE THAT A DECISION ON CHICOT WOULD BL MADE AT DECEMBER SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA MEETING AND HAS YET TO CONVENE THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT A the COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT. GET ORGANIZED NOW AND NOT WATT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT WE BETTER ilOY. 2Tli PTA ATTENDANCE CHICOT MET AT SOUTHWEST CITY BOARD PROGRESS\nPTA\nJOAN ADCOCK, CITY COMMUNITY CE.NTKR. IN ELECT\nJOA HUMPHRIES. PRESIDENT KELLY TUCKER, NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTOR\nB.J. WYRICK, SOUTHWEST UNTIED FOR ALERT CENTER\nPAT GEE, LRSDFROM : JOHN 'tORK PHONE NO.\n56.:\n7722 Dec. 12 1934 10\n00l P7 BOARD MEMBKR. INVITED BUT NOT PRESENT\nLINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI. LRSD BOARD\nWATSON ELEMENTARY PTA. SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO ANNOUNCE EORMATION OF A COMMUNITY BASED GRASS ROOTS COALITION UNITED IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE CHICOT ELEMENTARY REBUILT. TO SET PRECEDENT FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF CHICOT ELEMENTARY AND THE DIRECT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS MADE. PLANS FOR DEC. IITH MEETING TO INVOLVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, SWLR SCHOOL PTA'S, PARENTS AND BUSINESS TO BE INVITED. DJiC__SJIh. - SOUTHWEST CHICOT COMMUNITY ELEMENTARY VISION COALITION MET CENTER. INVITED AND NOT PRESENT, ' AT LINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD\nO.G. JACOVELLI SCHOOL BOARD\nWATSON PTA. SPECIAL GUESTS INVITED - DR. WILLIAMS. DOUG EATON, LEON MODESTE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THERESA COURTNEY, AND WILLIAM KETCHER OF WATSON ELEMENTARY. THE COMMITTEE EXPLAINED TO DISTRICT WHY WE MET SEPARATE FORM DISTRICT'S COMMITTEE. WE EXPRESSED THAT WITH A SCHOOL BOARD DECISION DUE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AND THE DISTRICT IS STILL TELLING US THAT THEY HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION TO SHARK WITH FELT IT US. THAT IT JUST WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE VISION COMMITTEE N.ECESSARY TO GET BUSY AND PREPARE A BUSINESS PLAN OF OUR OWN THAT INVOLVES INPUT FROM ALL SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK. WE DID NOT FEEL THE DISTRICT TOGETHER IF THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STILL DIDN'T HAVE FIGURES AVAILABLE OR THE COMMUNITY .INVOLVEMENT THAT WAS PROMISED. DR. WILLIAMS DISCUSSED WITH COMMITTEE: PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOL THAT COULD MERGE CENSUS IN SWLR WITH CHICOT\nBUDGET DEFICIT OF 7 MILLION\nLOW DESEGREGATION NUMBERS. SCHOOLS\nPOTENTIAL COMMITTEE SCHOOL CLOSURES\nAND ASKED FOR OPINION FROM THERESA lOUBTKEY, WATSON ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL, ON A PARTNERSHIP WITH CHICOT AND WATSON, AS DR, WILLIAMS PREVIOUSLY HAD BE CONSIDERED WITH OTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR IF CHICOT PROPOSED COULD WEEK REBUILT LARGER. MEETING. OF WEEK. committees then met to prepare FOR DEC. IITH COMMUNITY WILLIAMS SAID KE WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US BY END PAT GEE ANNOUNCING MEETING REQUESTED DR. WILLIAMS APPROVE FLYERS WAS ASKED TO DISTRIBUTION. IITH SOUTHWEST AUDITORIUM. BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH CONTACT FLYERS\nVISION PRINCIPALS Of ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY MEETING AT SCHOOLS IN SWLR. EACH SCHOOL AND HE OK INVOLVEMENT MrCLELLAN HIGH IN DEC. SCHOOL JFROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7?: Deo. 12 1994 10:01AM P8 D.fiC._aiH - BUSINESSES. fLYERS DISTRIBUTED - PRESS RELEASES TO MEDIA AND am. - FOLLOW INFORMATION REOUSST. MADE BOARD, AVAILABLE UNTIL UP ON THE OCTOBER 27TH FREEDOM DR. WILLIAMS NOTIFIED ME THEY WOULD AFTER IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE LRSD OCTOBER OF FIRST PRESENTED NOT BE -^SKRY MALONE denial of request.  attorney for LRSD ABOUT RECEIVED CALL FROM MR. MALONE wAKr. . - KIS CLIENT AND UNDERSTOOD MADE AVAILABLE ON TUESDAY, DEC 13TH D.EC. 9TH. AT 9:30 PK ON DEC. MATERIAL WOULD BE  MEMBERS RECEIVED NOTICE ? 00 '^SoKFSrSI!P\"^'^?rT?c rebuild CHICOT IS DEC, 13TII AT OKL WlfH ELLIS, MABELVALE PTA PRESIDENT ABOUT stated her CHILDREN DID NOT 1 r? A.BOU.r DEC, IITH MEETING, SHE WAS GOING TO CHECK OHT IF OIHER PARENTS RECEIVED NOTICES CHECK OUT COMMITTEE PM. ATTRNDINO CONFERENCE. WITH THAT THE FIRST REBUILD CHICOT IS DEC. 13TII ELLIS, MABELVALE COKE HOME COMMUNITY MEETING OF THE SOUTHWEST VISION -iBEriNG. McClellan Hrn.Tr .Sntnrsr annT-nnoTF.w V-lSlUM McClellan high school auditorium - 2:00 PK. 4\nFROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:56AM Pl /'I 1/ '2^ FxRdEW\u0026gt;kl.jUUIJW.iJiUK:^^^^-i^WISani5yiULlMB2ML9Uimy^^ 9 1 FROM : JOHN AANSCO PHOtJE HO. : 563 T TEL 501-562 Cb o/\nDec. 12 1994 10:02fiH P9 12 :02 No .006 P.Ol 1 A/^.MSCO 9811 INTERSTATE 30 P 0 Box 190065 LATE: TO: COMPANY: LITTLE ROCK, AR (501) 562-3737 jg.- -Aws^, ye-ftK 72219-0065 FAX (501) 562-5389 (800) 221-S857 (AR WATS) FROM\nSg^. - KEVIN McGUIRE NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: NOTES: pV\\\u0026gt;L _____________________________________ X bJoOct^ k^\u0026gt;p gP\u0026lt;Hg.Utti Vexj I / ___ .. I I  CiKopk. T Kx. \u0026gt;NWitZh HAS fcRr6ibTHiAJfeS\u0026gt; Ip lUuCH- We^ ^KznctpATgb a itJ SV^Cfe IXap^l fcg\u0026gt; zSlcSopg roios/DgiAnoy\\-~/zjc[LC/z-'\u0026amp;. X imdou:^ P\u0026gt; !fUk ^rAfe.-TC\u0026gt; gv\nyfAaL kJfclAa- Cov^e N^trr MrnA,\u0026lt;AJ \"iSe ^t\u0026gt;u^ rr Gsvub gX^ev T\u0026lt;\\' -Fi^fepE/h ACfT QO/a^T^ (!('!\u0026gt; '^Q!^ LrneoJl- bcSTiticr faw\u0026lt;U5 ftx efeaAs^XTAXXO*-^ Woolh jiOWlei?' IF YOU DO NOT RECIEVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 501 562-3737. CVr\u0026lt;U?7\" f lei^ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Date: December 2, 1994 To: From: Subject: Marvin Schwartz. LRSD Grant Coordinator in S. Brown, Federal Monitor Magnet School Grant Application Schedule Thank you for the November 30, 1994 memorandum from you and Estelle Matthis regarding the districts intent to apply for magnet school grants. The memo read that questions or requests for assistance were to be directed to you, the central coordinator for this project. As 1 have previously expressed, 1 continue to have several concerns about the districts desire to designate six schools as new magnets, particularly when the current magnet schools are underenrolled by hundreds of students and at a time when the district is contemplating closing more schools. 1 have also told you, the superintendent, and Mrs. Matthis that the Court will need sufficient time to review the grant application, hear the comments of the parties, raise and resolve any questions which the Court herself may have, and to rule on any modification of the desegregation plan. Because the Court will likely hold a hearing on the matter, 1 want to plan now to work a hearing date into the Courts calendar, which fills very quicldy. Please send me your grant development schedule (including all critical events, such as parent input and review by Joshua and the other parties) so we can do our best to find a potential hearing date that will mesh with your timetable as much as possible. Keep in mind*that you will need time to adjust your application pending the outcome of any hearing, motion or objection of the parties, or a Court ruling. 1 understand that your schedule is tight. By factoring in now the period required for the Court review process, we should all be able to work from a timeline that will enable you to meet your deadlines. Thanks very much for your assistance. Please give me a call with any questions. CC: Hank Williams Estelle Matthis Chris HellerC/\"- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 2, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: n Brown Subject: Filling Spaces in the Rockefeller Infants and Twos Program Through visits to Rockefeller Incentive School, I have become aware that Rockefellers Infant and Two-year-old Program has a number of openings for new children. School employees say that these openings have been available for quite a while, and that some of the waiting parents and staff are becoming very frustrated with the delays. 1 understand that a few of the waiting children are siblings of youngsters already enrolled at Rockefeller. The desegregation plan is clear that sibling preference is honored at Rockefeller. The plan also calls for evaluation of the schools early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. If the districts current placement policies and practices are causing delays in enrolling new early childhood students, its time to re-evaluate and change them so that classes are always at capacity. The success of Rockefeller is due to many factors, among them its fine early childhood education program. I know you share my desire for Rockefeller to continue to fulfill its desegregation role as a model for improving academic achievement and attracting a racially diverse student body. Please help me assess the assignment situation at Rockefeller by letting me know the following: 1. The capacity and number of current vacancies in the Infant and Two-year-old Program. 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open. 3. The timeline for filling the vacancies. 4. Why the Infant and Two-year-old Program has been running at less than capacity. 5. The current placement policies and practices. 6. How and when you will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies become filled. CC: Anne Mangan Pat Price \u0026gt; Olivetti FX 2100 date , TO\nTRO.'-I\nSS(^CE3?'s PHON: SD\u0026amp;.7SCT: spec\nAL s?d Diai\n12- 6-94 : S:29AM I LR SCHOOL DIST^ B^i n\"j.7 district S10 ?/6st Ma-Khem ^OGk, AR AX (501) 324.2032 n . DCtecUf. SchcAi ^^ST^uariQi^S: (ir.clud e Cover Sb ich\u0026gt;c//L 5013710100\n# 1 Phone Nuxb^s- 371b' f I J i ( j .'I '' '\u0026lt; ( '3. \u0026gt; 1Olivetti FX 2100 :12- 6-94 : 8\n29AM\nLR SCHOOL DIST-* 5013710100!# 2 TO\nPftOMi ifl R1 1\u0026lt;ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * MarJthaia Little Rock, AR 72201 Oeceajber 5, 1954 rederal Monitor - offio. Of Dceyresatlo\nF Ci ^X4inda Monitorin^f young, Rsstructuring Diraotor/K i rJ I $ Thank f- I Middle School steering V rutureg LiaiBon Coi\u0026amp;ai'ct.ee you for auggeetione. The first will be the your tijue today. I appreciate your ideaa and Ad Dec^VaV*? hool Planning Adainlatration Building. 4.15 p.. the Board roob of will notify you earlier froB this point forward* IOf'- 2^ Sc/i 6^11 n' Memorandum DEC 1 2 1004 December 6,1994 Oitice o5 Dssegr5ga\n0!'i TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM\nMarvin Schwartz, Grants Writer X- THROUGH: RE: Henry Williams, Superintendent Magnet School applicationl/^^^^^^^ Thank you for your input and clarification of the court process regarding review of the magnet school application being developed for Little Rock schools. The LRSD application will include two schools - Franklin Incentive Elementary and Stephens Elementary. This plan replaces an earlier decision to develop six schools as magnets. In accordance with your December 2, 1994 memorandum, the District is requesting your assistance in scheduling a hearing date on the Courts calendar to initiate the application review process. We anticipate having a draft narrative and budget for the magnet school application available by January 16, 1995. Please schedule the court hearing for as soon as possible following that date. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in this process.c\u0026gt;c\ntEcras Little Rock School District k December 6,1994 to: From: Thru: Subject: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent RHCEI .PW DK 1 5 igo^ Office of Oesegi Filling spaces in the Rockefeller infants and Two year program 1. The capacity and number of vacancies in the infant and Two-year old program are as follows: Infant capacity Two-year old 10 17 Current vacancies Current vacancies 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open are as follows: The Infant vacancy occurred in November 1994. The Two-year old vacancies occurred in September 1994 with seven vacancies, in October we enrolled (3) two-year olds and dropped (3). In November (2) seats were filled, in December (2) seats were filled and (11) two-year olds are currently enrolled. 3. The timeline for filling vacancies is as follows: Since the program is functioning on a 12 month cycle we are continuously offering seats from the waiting list on a monthly basis. Our goal is to keep the enrollment at capacity at all times. 4. Why Infant and Two-year-old programs have been running at less than capacity is as follows: The Infant and Two-year old Caucasian capacity is maximized . The remaining seats have been consistently offered to African American families from the waiting list. The cost has been the primary reason for these families declining the seats. The Department of Human Services offers assistance, but it is my understanding that the list has a two-year waiting period. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 D  A 1 6 15. The current placement policies and practices are as follows\nFirst preference, is given to students who live in the attendance zone arid have sibling attending the school. Second, is given to students who live in the attendance zone. Third, is given to students who do not live in attendance zone but have sibling attending the school. Fourth, is staff preference. Fifth, is desegregation transfer. 6. HOW and when we will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement is as follows\nStarting the month of December we have began to telephone parents and offer seats where vacancies exist. After the parent is called, a follow-up letter is sent to confirm the parent's response. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies are filled. Since we have started the telephone procedure we have filled the (1) infant seat and (5) two-year-old seats. These seats were filled 12/5- 12/8/94. 2Date: December 7, 1994 To: Chris Heller CONROeOiM. From: Subject: in Brown LRSD Board Member Request Youll recall that, a few weeks back, 1 told you that Katherine Mitchell had raised to me (in a televised Board of Education meeting) a question that she had put to judge Wright back during the summer hearings. She wants the Judge to tell the district when it has to involve Joshua and when it doesnt. When you and 1 discussed this subject, we agreed that it was not in the best interests of the district nor desegregation matters for the Judge to draw any such line. Nor is the Judge inclined to do so. At the last Board meeting, when my associate Melissa Guldin was addressing the board, Katherine once again threw down this same gauntlet. Doubtless she intends to continue doing so, as she evidently perceives that she has \"caught the Court in some dereliction of duty and she is revelling in rubbing it in. Katherine needs to understand that it is in everybodys best interests for her to drop this matter immediately. Please take care of this situation, Chris, and help Katherine see that the district is far better off not having the Court draw ever tighter the districts already limited circle of options. The December Board meeting is coming soon, and well be running the risk of embarrassing both Katherine and the LRSD by having to say in public what you and 1 know is better discussed in private. Please let me know your progress as soon as possible. Thanks.O* Little Rock School District OK 9 1994 December 7, 1994 Qfnee oi Desegrayaicn MonitGriPi Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: On November 11th, Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools, requested that you serve on a committee to assist the District in its course of action regarding the rebuilding of Chicot Elementary School. The first meeting of this committee will be December 13th, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. The purpose of this meeting will be to update the committee on the actions that have occurred since the fire on October 13th to discuss the general process that the District must pursue in rebuilding the school, and to determine the interplay of the committee in this District's process. Should you not be able to attend, please contact me at 570-4020. incerely, Douglas C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/cesc cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I Little Rock School District 0 . QJS' December 9, 1994 OtC 1 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street cysce c t*\nH kV Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: This is to advise you that the Chicot Rebuilding Committee meeting originally set for 4:00 pm, tuesday December 13th. has been changed to 5:00 pm. tuesday December 13th, It will still be held in the Little Rock School District Board at 810 W. Markham st. room Siheerely, Director of Plant Services 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: Dr. Heiuy p. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: December 10, 1994 Subject: Desegregation Update Since this months desegregation update includes a number of items in progress, I have attached a summary of those items. On occasions when items continue from a previous month and no new information is available to report, I will present the report orally to you. RHCSJVSD UN 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation MonitoringLittle Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 1994 Program Budget Document (PBD) When the PBD was first implemented, many non obligation items were included. At the time, we were uncertain about the precise definition of an obligation. Extensive discussions were held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. We knew then that some cleanup would be necessary. Working with the document this past year has helped. The distinction between obligations and observations or procedures is clearer. We began the cleanup process in November. Program managers were asked to review their sections of the PBD and mark items they believed were not appropriate for the document. These were two types: 1) completed, one time obligations and 2) items that were not obligations but normal procedure within the program area or simply observations. Their responses were returned to the Office of Desegregation. They are being compiled. These items will be noted in the second quarter PBD and dropped from the third quarter copy of the PBD. Some items will transfer to other documents such as the job description for the program manager or the procedures record for the program area. A paper trail will be esublished for each item dropped from the third quarter PBD. None of the ongoing obligations will be dropped. This procedure applies only to the PBD. Audit of Obligations (Attachment) The purpose of the annual Audit of Obligations is to catalogue and merge into the Program Budget Document (PBD) all desegregation obligations incurred during the previous year. In October 1993, all previous obligations under the desegregation plans were researched and included in the PBD. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports, and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The obligations were extracted from the documents and listed. The list was reviewed by the Superintendents Council, the Superintendent, LRSD Attorneys, and the LRSD Office of Desegregation. This year research on the audit includes an update on the status of each obligation. Responsible persons were asked to report on the status on their listed obligations. Responses were reduced to codes. Evidence of the status of each is maintained by the person responsible. A copy of the completed audit is included with this update. Original Magnets: Geographic Preference (Attachment) The issue of geographic preference is on the Magnet Review Committees table. Geographic preference refers to the practice of considering the racial balance impact on the area school by the transfer of a student to a magnet. This means that some students may not transfer to magnets because doing so will negatively impact the racial balance of their area school.Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 1994 2 At a meeting of the MRC on November 19, I informed them that we use geographic preference in selecting students for magnets. Though this issue is being reviewed as if it is a new concept, it is not. It is protected by the Magnet Stipulation (February, 1987). It is also a practice in PCSSD since magnets were established. Attached is a memorandum presented to the MRC stating reasons for supporting the practice and encouraging their support. Desegregation Plan Modifications (Attachment) A number of sections of the plan are being reviewed with a eye toward modifying them. As you know, e process is time consuming. We hope to have a number of modifications before you by the board meeting in march. Any modifications must be approved by the Board of Directors before they are filed with the Court. Therefore, you will have an opportunity to review any modifications before they are final, illustration of the plan modification process. Attached is a graphic Registration Preparation for February registration is complete almost. The details of that information will be presented to the Board at the January meeting. Generally, the dates and activities are as they were last year. Director of Communications Interviewing for the position of Director of Communications has begun. Almost 200 applications were received. We hope to have someone in the position no later than midJanuary. Mayer, OecewU\u0026gt;erl2, 1994Desegregation Plan Amendment Process Students Patrons Teachers Committees AdministAtors Demographic Changes Failure of Deseg. Process Propose Change (in writing) Changes in Law Changing Circumstances I Office of Desegregation (LRSD) If approved 1. Initial Evaluation 2. When appropriate: Surveys \u0026amp; Public Meetings held Informal Consultation with Parties 3. Final Recommendation to Superintendent 4. Superintendent Recommends to Board Submit to Court Share with Parties If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended noting the approved date. Lillie Rock School District R. MayoLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Magnet Review Committee Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent December 12,1994 Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference Little Rocks original magnets are among the most successful schools in the area. Their reason should not be blurred by the thrill of success, however. They developed from the need to voluntarily desegregate all schools. So weighty is this goal in Pulaski County, that it has bound parties and patrons in a web of priorities punctuated by dilemmas. Too often, these dilemmas ignore the greater goal of educating students. The decision before the MRC is another dilemma. In short, it is the conflict between voluntary desegregation and extra funding. If geographic preference is prohibited in selecting students for magnet schools, a few more seats can be filled, drawing more funding. Area schools, however, will become more racially identifiable violating the intent of desegregation. If geographic preference is permitted, the prospects of desegregation are preserved, but some magnet seats will be empty without additional state funding. The position of the MRC is an important one. The success of voluntary desegregation will be inhibited or enabled by the decision. This decision will be a statement about the priorities of the MRC. By opposing geographic preference, funding becomes the priority. By supporting geographic preference, voluntary desegregation remains the priority. In weighing your decision, the following information may be helpful: 1. The position of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, is clear on dilemmas involving the goal of desegregation and funding. In its 1991 decision concerning plan modifications, the Court stressed the following: .... We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation....' 2. Geographic preference was and is a standing policy in the Pulaski County Special School District, according to Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\n3. The primary goal of the MRC is desegregation. The court order establishing the MRC requires that the MRC shall have as its primary objective the furtherance of effective desegregation. ..2 4. Geographic preference, applied to student selection, drives the desegregating process. It is permitted by the Magnet Stipulation as noted here: ' Appeal of Lillie Rock School Dislricl, Pulaski Courtly Special School Dislricl No. I, North Little Rock School District, 2 and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (Sth Cir. 1991). Magnet Review Committee Court Order (September 3, 1986), page 2.Magnet Review Committee Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference 2 SEAT ALLOCATION .... The three districts agree that each district will establish an open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be permitted to determine how children will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. 5. Regardless of the position taken by the MRC, every seat will never be filled unless the pool of white students requesting magnets increases dramatically. This condition is created by seat restrictions of race and grade level, two restrictions necessary to desegregation. The student selection practices of the Little Rock School District support geographic preference. We would appreciate your support of this practice. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 3 Magnet Stipulation (February 16, 1987), page 5.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Magnet Review Committee From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: December 12, 1994 Subject: Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference Little Rocks original magnets are among the most successful schools in the area. Their reason should not be blurred by the thrill of success, however. They developed from the need to voluntarily desegregate all schools. So weighty is this goal in Pulaski County, that it has bound parties and patrons in a web of priorities punctuated by dilemmas. Too often, these dilemmas ignore the greater goal of educating students. The decision before the MRC is another dilemma. In short, it is the conflict between voluntary desegregation and extra funding. If geographic preference is prohibited in selecting students for magnet schools, a few more seats can be filled, drawing more fimding. Area schools, however, will become more racially identifiable violating the intent of desegregation. If geographic preference is permitted, the prospects of desegregation are preserved, but some magnet seats will be empty without additional state fimding. The position of the MRC is an important one. The success of voluntary desegregation will be inhibited or enabled by the decision. This decision will be a statement about the priorities of the MRC. By opposing geographic preference, fimding becomes the priority. By supporting geographic preference, voluntary desegregation remains the priority. In weighing your decision, the following information may be helpful: 1. The position of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, is clear on dilemmas involving the goal of desegregation and fimding. In its 1991 decision concerning plan modifications, the Court stressed the following: .... We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation....' 2. Geographic preference was and is a standing policy in the Pulaski County Special School District, according to Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\n3. The primary goal of the MRC is desegregation. The court order establishing the MRC requires that the MRC shall have as its primary objective the furtherance of effective ,2 desegregation. 4. Geographic preference, applied to student selection, drives the desegregating process. It is permitted by the Magnet Stipulation as noted here: ' Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. I, North Little Rock School District, and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (Sth Cir. 1991). 2 Magnet Review Committee Court Order (September 3, 1986), page 2.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: December 13, 1994 To: Members of the LRSD Board of Education and Dr. Henry Williams From: n S. Brown Subject: Data on Southwest LRSD Schools Enclosed are some charts which my staff has prepared for me in anticipation of todays meeting of the committee which is to consider rebuilding Chicot School. Dr. Williams has graciously asked me to serve on this committee. Im sharing these charts with that group and you because 1 think youll find them informative and helpful. The charts contain information about schools in Southwest Little Rock. Weve included more detailed information about Chicot and Watson because these two schools have recently been publicly discussed in tandem with rebuilding Chicot. It would probably be helpful to the district to have this level of detailed data analysis on all LRSD schools. Such infor\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_343","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/343"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECIEVED JAN 6 194 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Sterling Ingra irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Perfoirmance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. information, please let me know. If we can provide any additional bjg cc: Jerry Malone Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 January 10, 1994 Mrs. Pat Higginbotham Woodruff Elementary School 3010 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Pat: Congratulations on 400 fight-free days at Woodruff! Thats a significant milestone to have reached, and 1 am so proud of you, your staff, and your terrific kids. As a former Woodruff parent, 1 know firsthand the importance you and your fine staff place on teaching children how to constructively handle their differences. As a result of his years at Woodruff, my son Jonathan left sixth grade last year with solid skills in decision making and conflict resolution that are serving him well now in junior high. By the way, 1 also want you to know how fondly Jonathan remembers Woodruff and his teachers. Every time we drive by the school, he heaves a sign and says, \"1 wish 1 were still there.\" Jonathan learned so much while he was at Woodruff. He was challenged and he was also cherished, feeling secure and well-guided by his concerned and loving teachers. As a result, he gained much selfconfidence and now approaches school with an \"1 can do it\" attitude. As a Mom, 1 thank you for all the wonderful things your school has given my son. As a monitor, 1 salute you for your superb vision, leadership, and know-how. You dared to set a lofty goal and then you provided the direction, resources, and support that have enabled all of you to achieve your goal together. Please share this letter with your terrific Woodruff colleagues and accept my enthusiastic congratulations on a job well done. Sincerely yours, irownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 12, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: n Brown Subject: LRSD Communication Assistant Position 1 wrote you on December 3, 1993 regarding the status of the unfilled Communications Assistant position, but still have not received an answer to my letters inquiries. 1 will appreciate your early response to the questions 1 posed last month in my letter: By what date can the Court expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled? Also, will this position be part-time or will it be full-time? Thank you very much. LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 148 P01 JAN 19 4 17:16  LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 19, 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Dr. Mayo has been given my approval to fill the position of Communication Assistant. It is my hope, that after he has concluded his interviews, filled. the position will be I understand that he has narrowed his choices. and that filling this position is a priority. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools /bjf 810 Wet Maridmin Street  Little Kock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 eF.-/A'Lb Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To\nFrom: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2,1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 10Q4 Onice of Di 'Qbv\u0026lt; Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so 1 may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40% to 60%. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and 1 will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which I understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the ree-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, February 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell Mayoyf A tt^'^\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: February 2, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Interdistrict School Principals From: ODM Monitoring Team Subject: Request for documentation On October 26, 1993 we requested that copies of certain documents be available at our scheduled monitoring visit. To date, the following list of items have not been provided. In order to complete our report we ask you send these documents to us no later than Tuesday, February 8, 1994 by 5:00 p.m. Failure to provide copies of these documents by that time will result in a notation in the final report that your school failed to provide monitors with requested documentation. This report will be filed with the federal district court. Crystal Hill  1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender  Total number of conferences each teacher held with parents (by race and gender) during the first semester for the 1993-94 school year. Romine  1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender Washington  Documentation of 1993-94 school committees that includes parent or community representatives by committee name, a brief description of the committees mission, a membership roster (including race, gender,and position) agenda, and minutes  1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender  1993-94 school/community partnership agreements  1993-94 volunteer program documentation including the number of volunteers by race and gender and the total number of hours served by month  1993-94 classroom enrollment  Discipline Report (first nine weeks) and the definition for SIPSn*  Tin  V? o c:-.  February 2, 1994 FE3 MS94 James L. Washington 0Siic3 ci ce -.3 Hall High School Vice Principal 6700 \"H\" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Ms. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: A few years ago-while serving the Little Rock School District as Student Assignment Officer- I was encouraged to apply for a position on your staff by a colleague. Unfortunately, I was discouraged after she allegedly visited informally with you about working in your office, solicit her assistance. unknown to me. I would like to note that I did not Being discouraged is not experience I have learned how to provide self-motivation. hard work, and sacrifice in order to accomplish my personal and professional goals. However, when we visited with Mr. Butterfield I was curious to confirm what was told to me about comments allegedly made by you in reference to what you heard about James Washington. I was particularly concerned about the terms \"rude\", \"disrespectful\", and \"discourteous\" being used to describe the way I conducted myself while serving our district patrons. The point to be made is that serving the public in a process that is very emotional professional liability. (student assignments) should not be a demonstrated that: When challenged in the past, it has been (1) no one has been willing to sit and state specifics, and (2) patrons frustrated with the assignment process or the system target the district's contact person. Out of respect for you and myself I won't list (nor necessarily discount) the belief that my race and gender are factors, other words, I was unfairly labeled. In You need not respond. I merely want to state that I hope what was told to me was a gross misunderstanding. Not speaking for me, it may be a disservice to our community if the best available talent is not utilized as a result of heresay. community deserves more. Our school I hope you and your staff continue to have a good year! Sincerely, ton jiic 'V\u0026lt;- c. ho.li cc^c^^eg^ Little Rock School District 4 Feb 1994 receiv Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham St. Heritage West Building Otiice Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\nFEB 1 1 1994 ot Desegregation UOituv. .'S Pursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, contained herein are the capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. I have included Washington The Incentive school capacities are calculated on a maximum class size of 20 students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The special programs at Rockefeller Elementary are calculated using 10 students/class in Infant programs. old programs and 18 students/class in 3 yr. 17 students/class in 2 yr. old programs. The capacity of Washington Elementary is calculated using 20 students in K, 23 students in grades 1 thru 3, 25 students in grades 4 thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The capacities listed are based on the number of class sections presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely. Doiigla\\ Eaton 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 5:^0 I 02/04 94 17:23 S'oOl 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 TO: FROM: SENDER'S PHONED SUBJECT: q: J, @001 002 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial___________ Fax Phone Number zss^ssiags]! T' i222:^322a*3BS22^2SS3S\nfi32aS2C\n^2^:S2^a^aS^ai3SM 02fri4 94 1T:24 501 321 2032- i.:.M @002'002 I y AJt L 1\u0026lt; JcllOOl DI Si iwiri\" if j' - f' Rock School District February 4, 1994 Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Office of Desegregation Monitorinjfg Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 E. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Connie, Thanks for offering an extension on the final copy of the Districtwide Recruitment Plan. I should be able to provide a copy of the comprehensive plan with its four components (one each for incentive, interdistrict, magnet and area schools) by the middle of next week. There will be a narrative attached. Sincerely, Jeanette Wagner Director of Communications 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73301  (501)834-3000 _____________________________________ % _____________________________________ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 14, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: In Brown Elementary Area School Racial Balance Range 1 want to correct an apparent misunderstanding that appears in your memo to me dated February 2, 1994 which 1 received on February 7, 1994. In that correspondence, you stated that I was interpreting the range for LRSD area elementary school at a fixed 40% to 60%. Actually, in figuring the target racial balance range for LRSD elementary area schools, my calculations are guided by the specific relevant language of the desegregation plans. Both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan provide for the racial balance of LRSD elementary schools to be calculated differently from that of the districts secondary schools. The plans state that the target racial balance at the elementary area schools is 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The LRSD plan refers to attendance zones that are drawn to establish this racial balance. The plans also state that white enrollment at an area school may not exceed 60%. Clearly, the desegregation plans do not provide for the target racial balance range of LRSD elementary area schools to fluctuate along with the districts black percentage. That you perceive it to be presently \"mathematically impossible\" to achieve the target range is not due to a matter of interpretation of a racial balance formula\nrather, it is due to the districts failure to do what the desegregation plans require of it: to recruit white students into the LRSD in numbers that will allow schools to be desegregated within the range the district set up itself. One effect of a fixed target range is to act as an incentive for the district to maintain white enrollment that is sufficient to achieve the racial balance that the parties agreed upon in their settlement. The challenge the LRSD is now facing is not in reinterpreting its desegregation plans, but in living up its solemn promises, including the tough recruitment job the district committed itself to do. cc: Hank Williams Chris HellerLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM .-j V To: From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2, 1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 1004 Oifica of Des^ Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so 1 may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40% to 60%. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and 1 will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams. Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nFebruary 16, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: in Brown Subject: New LRSD Brochure 1 hope you could read my notes on my rough edit of your new brochure, which 1 faxed to you last evening. My handwriting is not always the clearest, so please dont hesitate to ask if something isnt legible. Russ, in my hasty comments 1 did not address every edit aspect of the brochure that its important to consider, from small things like the stray period that appears in the list of registration dates to major things like completeness of information and clarity of general purpose and content. You obviously intend for this brochure to be user friend-which is laudable-and 1 like the conversational tone. However, 1 still believe it is important for you to have a technical writer review and refine the brochure before it goes to press. It has been my experience that its worth the money to delegate a job like developing a new brochure to the pros who do that sort of thing for a living and are very good at it. There is one additional aspect of the brochure that I want to stress: in information designed to inform the public about various school options, I believe its critical to address and clarify the issue of eligibility. Parents are frequently upset when they perceive that they have options which we know are not open to them. For example, you may not be fully aware of the ire many parents expressed over King recruitment activities, when both the LRSD and PCSSD failed to make it clear that only certain parents need apply. Although I believe district officials do not mean to intentionally mislead the public, it still happens all too frequently because we fail to explain up front to Moms and Dads what we understand as a matter of routine. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ( Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each document. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours, d Ou Ann S. B Brown cc\nJudge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Connie Hickman- Tanner, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: February 20, 1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Plan RECE3VEP FEB 24 1994' Oifica of Desegregation Monitoring Attached is a our district-wide recruitment plan. The cover narrative explains the document. We know that changes will occur as we experiment with ideas in the plan. We believe that all of our obligations are addressed in this plan. We are open to your suggestions for the document. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Members of the Superintendents Council Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 22, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: I have discovered an error in a footnote that appears on one of the charts I sent you last Friday. In the section entitled Enrollment in Downtown Elementary Schools, a note under the chart on the second page states that incentive school capacities are based on a 20-to-l or less student-teacher ratio. That statement is incorrect. The capacities we actually used in our calculations are those that appear in the April 1992 LRSD Desegregation Plan, which are higher than a 20-to-l ratio. A corrected chart is enclosed. I regret any inconvenience ODM's error may have caused. Sincerely yours, -K \"Ann S. Brown cc\nJudge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area\nBale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.Corrected 2-22-94 School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity Franklin Incentive 345 544 LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White 63 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 Stephens Incentive Sub Total Incentive Schools 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 1,202 1,102 100 271 140 131 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 250 Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A 130 124 6 465 206 259 Gibbs Magnet Sub Total Magnet Schools 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A 102 88 14 198 83 115 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 : 362 328 34 1,124 491 633 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 331 317 14 217 17 200 Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 406 383 23 314 65 249 Woodruff (Area) Central Kindergarten Satellite Zones Contiguous Zones Grand Total 1,274 1*631 78 357 352 342 10 737 700 IB 1 531 82 449 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 156 113 43 75 33 42 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A 46 46 0 4 4 0 N/A N/A 4,503 N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 N/A N/A N/A 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 2,503 2,289 214 2,005 750 1255There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone 66 180 162 273 191 138 124 Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targeted school 33 66 60 71 72 25 39 33 16 114 102 202 119 113 85 23 29 29 32 29 22(ff - (3'^/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 John L. McClellan Community High School 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 570-4100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 February 23, 1994 RWU i. r? Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FcB 2 4 1994 Office ci Dessi Dear Ms. Brown\nI am writing to make you aware of a situation that we feel may be detrimental to our desegregation goals. Next month the Little Rock School District will print the brochure containing the 1994-95 course offerings for grades 9-12. (lam enclosing a copy of the 1993-94 brochure.) We have been notified by Estelle Matthis that approximately 25 magnet courses at McClellan High School will again not be included in this brochure. The reason given by Ms. Matthis is that \"there are too many courses for the districts course offerings brochure to include magnet programs. It is very voluminous and costly in its present format.\" While it is true that the 1993-94 brochure did not include magnet courses from McClellan or Parkview, at least six magnet courses were listed from the other LRSD high school with a magnet program, Central. We ask you to look at the following factors and to consider requesting that all LRSD secondary courses be placed in the brochure. This brochure is the only document that students, especially 9th grade students, use when scheduling their courses. It is also a document seen by people considering entering the district. As such, we feel that every course available to secondary students in the Little Rock School District should be printed in the brochure. Students looking at the brochure would see interesting courses offered at Parkview or McClellan and then perhaps consider enrolling in those schools, possibly increasing white enrollment there. If this brochure is to be the districts course offerings brochure, then it seems fitting that all district secondary courses be included. The argument that Parkview is a true magnet school may seem to justify their omission from the brochure. After all, their counselors go to the junior high schools and register their own incoming sophomores. Even so, it seems that inclusion in this brochure would benefit Parkview as well as McClellan by spreading the word about the wonderful programs available at the two schools, especially at a time when enrollment at both schools is down. A Business/Communications Magnet 1 Ms. Matthis suggested that we have our own course offerings brochures printed\nshe offered to distribute these with the LRSD course offerings brochures. We see several problems with this plan. First, this second brochure would be costly\nwhy not apply this cost to the inclusion of the McClellan and Parkview courses in the district brochure? Second, students consider the LRSD brochure as the primary source of course information. They might look at the individual school brochures, but the district brochure will be the one they keep and use as a reference for decision-making. Third, assuming that the district removes the Central magnet courses from the new district brochure, 9th grade students will be given four different brochures-LRSD, Central, McClellan, and Parkview-to help them select their courses\nthis would be terribly confusing for them as well as their parents. Finally, we feel that inclusion in the district brochure gives credibility to the magnet courses at all three high schools. Inclusion in the brochure says to everyone that these magnet high schools are a viable choice for all students. We at McClellan feel that it is imperative that all courses be included in the district course offerings brochure. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Steve Geurin Curriculum Coordinator Enclosure 'Of / Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: March 11, 1994 From: To: Subject: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Julie Wiedower, Student Assignment Coordinator Little Rock School District Shadow Zone Seats at Williams Magnet School As you may recall, the issue of Williams shadow zone seats came up yesterday during the meeting we both attended at the Student Assignment OfiBce. During that meeting I commented that the district had never met the requirement that 25% of the seats in Williams be reserved for students living in the shadow of the school. You said that the district assigned 15 neighborhood students to Williams for the 1993-94 school year and for the upcoming 1994-95 school year. If this is accuarte, 25% of the students entering the Williams kindergarten would be from the shadow zone. Your statement regarding the 15 shadow zone seats was not consistent with the information I received in a memo, dated 12/9/93, from Donna Grady Creer regarding the allotment of magnet seats. That document showed 10 seats allocated to LRSD white students. Since the vast majority of housing near the school is occupied by whites, I assumed and you later confirmed that the 10 white seats shown for LRSD represented the total shadow zone allotment. We discussed this issue during a meeting at your office on January 7, 1994. During that meeting I showed you the memo from Donna and you confirmed that it matched the magnet seat allocations you set for the 1993-94 school year. We even talked about the 10 shadow zone seats and the fact that 10 seats did not constitute 25% of the kindergarten classes. The figure of 10 was also mentioned at each of the recritmnet meetings held for Fair Park parents. In order to clear this up, I need some documentation regarding the LRSD policy on assignment of shadow zone seats to all magnet schools. Please furnish the following in writing:  Copy of the policy or procedures that govern allotment of shadow zone seats at each of the stipulation magnets  Definition of shadow zones  Number of seats allotted to shadow zone students during 1993-94 and for the upcoming 1994-95 school year As Russ Mayo said at the meeting, I think it is important that we all have accurate information. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Russ Mayo______r- '-' ^SS^^tnci^r' FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK 8. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH 8. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 8. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N . ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-201 1 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 March 16, 1994 received DIANE 8. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H. CHARLES OSCHWEND, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN MAR 1 5 1994 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. VRITER'a DIRECT MO. 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLRSD VS. PCSSD/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find the LRSD's Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines filed pursuant to the order of the Court.Attorneys and Mrs. Brown March 16, 1994 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, JLMzca Enclosure cc (w/enc): Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent LRSD Council Members IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 5 1994 Office of Oessgrogajj^ ^Qnitffrin^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO\n1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Notice of Filinq/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. By order filed and entered on February 4, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to develop and file specific guidelines regarding assignments to interdistrict schools in the LRSD. The order provided that the guidelines must be complete and filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. As such, the deadline was Sunday, March 6, 1994. 2. On Wednesday, March 2, 1994, counsel for the LRSD requested and was granted ten (10) additional days within which to file the required guidelines. Accordingly, the LRSD had through and including Wednesday, March 16, 1994.LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines March 16, 1994 Page 2 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines as developed by the District's Office of Desegregation and submitted through the Superintendent of the LRSD. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has been authorized by the administration of the LRSD to submit Exhibit 1 as its student assignment guidelines for interdistrict schools located in the LRSD. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B Y L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on March 16, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines It is the intent of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") that LRSD interdistrict schools exist primarily to bring non-black students from surrounding school districts together with black students from the LRSD. LRSD non-black students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the Districts assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to all interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. 2. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) b) There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50 percent black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. (Interdistrict Plan, p.3) This plan will permit the treatment of interdistrict transfers (including the NLRSD) where students are moving from a situation where their race is a greater proportion of the total student body of a school to a school where their race is a lesser proportion of the student body of a school as Interdistrict Majority-to-Minority transfers under the Courts Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The selection process will be as follows: a) Black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, a lottery will be conducted to determine assignments. Students who cannot be assigned because of capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. Their names will, however, be placed on a waiting list for the school. If the students closest school with capacity is an incentive school, that student may choose to attend that incentive school where such an assignment would not inhibit the initial reservation of seats for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. (However, these students still maintain their option to be assigned to an elementary area school in accordance with desegregation considerations.) These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Page 2 b) c) d) Non-black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be assigned through the Majority-to-Minority transfer process or appropriate State statutes. Seats will be reserved up to 49% of capacity as described by the LRSD Plan, page 147. After the winter pre-registration (normally held in or around February of each year), the number of seats reserved for PCSSD may be reduced to not lower than 40% of capacity or to that percent over 40% which is occupied by PCSSD students on that date. The remaining seats between 40% and 49% may then be made available for LRSD non-black students. However, LRSD non-black students will only be permitted to transfer to an LRSD interdistrict school where it does not cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of acceptable racial balance. Children of staff members will be assigned after attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the Interdistrict Plan, p. 141, Transfer of Children of Employees. 3. 4. Those LRSD students currently attending an LRSD Interdistrict school may remain until they matriculate out of the sixth grade. However, the siblings of those students may not be assigned to an interdistrict school unless such an assignment complies with these Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. In no event will non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be allowed to enroll in an LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that schools enrollment to shift from being majority black (i.e. at least 50% -i-1) to majority white, thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school.-i-o _ . _ . _____ ac\nft berf r3\u0026gt;o-a ffj n 4 -f-i '/e-d- /a/ aa^c. D-f I toff 4 March 20, 1994 MAR 2 1994 Oifica of Oeoegregaiion Mcmloring Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nRecently, I was made aware of reoccurring accusations about my principal, Robert L. Brown, Jr. The accusations follow: 1. Mr. Brown does not want White children at Garland as evidenced by the uniforms that the students wear and the African nature of the instructional content. I would like to respond to this by saying that I disagree very much. Mr. Brown has done everything within his power to recruit White and Other children to Garland. I, a White female staff member, came to Garland first in 1987 as Dr. Cheryl Simmons' secretary. Our school colors have always been gold and black. Our uniforms are gold tops and black pants or white blouses and gold jumpers. Some do have African print trim along the edges. No student is required or pressured into wearing the African print. We have White children and Hispanic children who wear these uniforms. They are very pleased with them and look very cute in them. I would not mind having a jumper myself. In reference to the curriculum at Garland, each child is taught to be proud of who he is as an individual, whether it be Black, Hispanic, or White. I transferred last year to Rockefeller Incentive School. When I came back to Garland this year as Mr. Brown's secretary, I couldn't believe the difference in the attitude of the children at Garland. They had a sense of pride about themselves that I had never seen before. Our enrollment of Hispanic students has increased tremendously this year. I asked Mr. Brown about taking a couple of teachers and myself to the Landmark School Supplies Multi-Cultural Open House at the Holiday frm-Airport in February. He said that would be fine, but to let the teachers know that we would only be interested in materials for Hispanic students. Mr. Brown is intent on reaching students from their cultural perspective. Our curriculum is multi-culturally based with more emphasis being placed on cultures represented within our school population. I think Mr. Brown has the right idea in teaching about countries and their cultures from around the world, not just Black and White. 2. Mr. Brown has little or no regard for white staff members. To this I disagree, also. Mr. Brown expects all staff members to put 100% into their jobs. He believes the children deserve the best education they can get. Like in all places of employment, there are people who want to sit down and not do the job they are being paid to do. Some of these people are White and some are Black. It is true that Page - 1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor April 5, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Debbie Gross 18 Fair Oaks Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Ms. Gross: I've received your recent correspondence expressing support of Garland Incentive School and your principal, Mr. Robert Brown. Because several of your fellow staff members also sent me similar letters on this subject, I hope you will not think me rude for mailing each of you this same reply which addresses your collective concerns. Many of the letters expressed fears that allegations of racial favoritism were circulating about Mr. Brown, along with rumors that he might be replaced as principal. I have not heard any comments or discussion, either \"on\" or \"off' the record, that give credence to such allegations and rumors. Adthough some of the letters were addressed directly to me, I want to explain that neither I nor Judge Susan Webber Wright, who oversees the desegregation case, make decisions about school district personnel. Those decisions are the responsibility of each district's Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the superintendent and input from others, which might include a staffing committee, for example. As you know, many factors affect personnel placement, and an employer has the right-as well as the obligation-to weigh those factors to determine where an individual can best serve the organization. At the same time. Judge Wright has made it clear to both Dr. Williams and the Little Rock School District Board that the Court will not tolerate reprisals against any district employee because of that individual's testimony in the desegregation case. This school year, Mr. Brown testified at Judge Wright's request during a hearing on the incentive schools. At that time, the Court directed the district to take no retributive action toward Mr. Brown due to his having testified. It is obvious from your letter that you care very much about Garland and Mr. Brown, and also that you take pride in the important job you are doing for children. I'm sure Mr. Brown's heart has been warmed by your endorsement and many positive comments about him. I have known Robert Brown for many years, and believe him to be a man of sincere conviction who earnestly wants the very best for co-workers and students alike. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of your school and, most especially, for all you are doing to make Garland a success. 'Fan i/t., Sincerely yours, Amn S. Brown f/fcj.' C-q// Qyf/a. Ah, ~ /Vlor'^ Srm'fA i /y- /4/A'lni* K) Little Rock School District March 21, 1994 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage Building - West 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 0nic3 oi Dessgrc- ion Monstcnng Dear Ms. Brown: During a review of the School Profiles which were produced for the second semester monitoring report, it became clear that there might be a possibility of incorrect interpretation of the staffing information included in the reports submitted last fall. The computer program which generates the information counted every individual holding a unique position in the school. This method of calculation caused us to count some employees in the same school multiple times thus possibly causing the reported racial balances to be in error. This method of calculation has been altered in the new set of reports which are being submitted at this time. This change will become apparent when you compare staffing information for this semester with last semester. We feel, though, that this alteration in the program will more accurately reflect the true staffing picture in the schools. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, A 1 MAR 2 1 1994 Dr. Robert Glowers, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney John Walker, Attorney r' 4 I 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 -['Ji J / / each LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 21, 1994 TO: Selected Employees FROM: Zj^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Blue Cross-Blue Shield Information Request The District has been notified by Arkansas Blue Cross-Blue Shield that recent federal legislation (Ommbus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) requires an aimual reporting of employee health insurance plan information to the Department of Health and Human Services. It is very important that the information submitted to Blue Cross-Blue Shield be accurate and current. Therefore, please verify the accuracy of the attached printout generated by Blue Cross-Blue Shield and make any necessary corrections, sign the form (anywhere near the bottom of the form) and return by school mail to the Business Office by March 28.1994. Again, this information is very important in assisting employees with the processing of claims. Thank you for your help in this required reporting. MDMxa Attachment ANN 3 C0CC75 \\BCBS.mdm PLEASE POST PLEASE POST Little Rock School District March 21, 1994 TO: All Employees 4! FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: Hen: --------, vi kjujypvil OC iiy Sbp^rintendent'of's^i Schools SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF APRIL 1, 1994 PAYCHECKS 1. Transportation Employees 2. Checks will be distributed at the Transponation Office Maintenance Employees on Friday, April 1, 1994. 3. Checks will be distributed at the Plant Services Office Substitute Employees on Friday, April 1, 1994. ChyCcks will be put in the U.S. mail in the same manner they are mailed each pay 4. All Other Employees Not Mentioned Ahove Adnunistration Bufldmg at 810 1 1994 Anv checks not picked up will be sent through the school mail - - -  a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 1994, on Monday, April 4, 1994. MDM:ca \\checks.mdin 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361MAR-31-94 THU 11:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX noMo 13246576 P. 02 March 2S, 1994 CLAUDIA HOWARD 108 NORTH DEVON SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS 72X16 'J'::. 1 -i Ma. Sadie Mitchell, Principal Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdiatrict Elementary School ( ..'f  905 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Ms. Mitchell, Ma, Dovers, and Staff: I want to express my appreciation to all of you for the chili supper and talent  \"a effort But I am not writing this letter just because of one event at King Elementary. . . - . . '  ------- wKw wAciucuLai y My pUrpOS my-Child finally in a-school where consistently positive, upbeat, and eager. From what i can see when I am in King, is that you and the staff is a job. Appearances show that everyone is working together and eager and are happy with what is going on. time I set foot into King, see so Appearances show that person works. and eager. From what are not there just because it to do I felt that atmosphere the very first 1 am of the opinion that no matter how hard a if their attitude does not come across in a positive matter, it that begins to affect their job and relationships. being bright as they ara, pick up on I also believe, that children, our dispositions and carry it with them. On a personal note about my child (Lauren), . uirrerence in her even SaJ wL'tt'\" r Lauren has always made good grades, but aV waS _ s  1 .  to King. I can see a difference in her Now, she is xnterested, and she wants to do good and she tell what sho is doing at school. 3 me me she does not want to Lauren absolutely loves King Elementary and tells me She doeo not want to go back-because at King, she says, \"they let you learn ,  oh for art, because she knows she does not possess a talent It does not come easy for her. Even though it may not be the most important area in her curriculum, Lauren tells me this is one of things at King.  child from {That and computer lab.) her favorite To be honest with you, switching was -- r- uonesu wicn my our neighborhood school and taking her away from her friends there. the hardest thing I have ever done, school, I know _I ^d_ the right thing. But every time I step foot into your Thank you for your desire and determination to succeed with our children. Yours truly. Claudia Howard CH CC\nThe Honorable Sus an Webber Wright, U, s. District Judge Henry Williams, Ph.D., Superintendent, Little Hock School District Donna Brady Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee FPOM TO ^10100 P.05 A . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 31, 1994 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Henr ^\n'intendent SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases ^=5S5=: Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994. '5 4 r I I I r- I r TOTAL P.05 nt* nn 04-04-199'-\nFROM TO 3710100 P.02 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY 1 - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (Required - Double Funding) a SCHOOL ITEM AMOU- 1. Franklin Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 Rockefeller 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maxirr' rn) 3 3. Rightseli .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maxintum) i 4- litchell .5 Spanish teacher 12.500 Garland .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 6 Stephens .5 Spanish teacher 12,500 n No impact on Incentive School Budget. o' 4 I ^1 h 1 1 - I ( M-,4-04-1994 11:17AM 1. 2. FROM TO Bb'SI.NESS CASES 3710100 CATEGORY II  DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE (Required - Need Funding) P.03 p I 3. 4. 5, 6. DEPARTMENT English Math/l.ang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science ITE.M AMOUNT English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science Total S 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 '5,000 $139,480 I Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) t11 1/ I 1^- J4-04-1994 11!17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.04 \nBUSINESS CASES CATEGOR Y III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE (Not RequiredBut Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHQGL ITEM AMOUNT I. 2. 3. 4. Science/Math (K-3) Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language Science/Math Reading S 18,000 Foreign Lang. K-I2 Revision (UALR) Secretary- Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 $ 54,000 GRAND TOTAL S193,4\u0026lt;S0 I I !f \u0026lt;'-04-1994 11:15AM FROM TO 3710100 P.01 s I p Arkansas Democrat I Q^azettc i I FAX NUMBER: NEVJ3 ROOM: (501) 372-3908 DATE: - TO: FAX NUMBER\nNUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: MESSAGE\nhflj__ \u0026amp;ilivbcaiin_rOI ce. VO cnn A:/f fewi i__ C u MbjrA Fpxkfeil :JjrS 2 E 9i zm v CAPiTOL AND SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 ns^ IM LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT gsw R  osH7:n. April 4, 1994 APR 5 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your letter of March 14, 1994, in which you requested several documents, I have enclosed the following: The Community Forum Matrix The District Dialogue Matrix Fast Track Evaluations Business Cases (With Itemized Listings of Cost) The following items are being reviewed and will be sent to you upon completion: Program Inventory Report Student Assignment Audit Needs Assessment Report Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. Sincerely, (? Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Little Rock School District April 4, 1994 To: Principals, Directors and Supervisors Through: Dr. He: Superintendent From: Dr. Ric iurley, Director of Human Resources APR 0 1594 Office of DeocGcs luui'i iviOhiiuiiny Enclosed you will find an Employee Intention Report for your site. Please meet with your employees to determine their plans for the 1994-95 school year. Indicate on the space provided whether the individual will return or resign. If any of your employees intend to retire or resign, please remind them that a letter to that effect should be forwarded to the Human Resources Department as soon as possible. (The deadline for the Early Retirement Incentive is May 20, 1994.) If we have left anyone off your list, please add them to the bottom. This report should be returned to the Human Resources Department no later than April 12, 1994. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor April 5, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Debbie Gross 18 Fair Oaks Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Ms. Gross: I've received your recent correspondence expressing support of Garland Incentive School and your principal, Mr. Robert Brown. Because several of your fellow staff members also sent me similar letters on this subject, I hope you will not think me rude for mailing each of you this same reply which addresses your collective concerns. Many of the letters expressed fears that allegations of racial favoritism were circulating about Mr. Brown, along with rumors that he might be replaced as principal. I have not heard any comments or discussion, either \"on\" or \"off the record, that give credence to such allegations and rumors. zAlthough some of the letters were addressed directly to me, I want to explain that neither I nor Judge Susan Webber Wright, who oversees the desegregation case, make decisions about school district personnel. Those decisions are the responsibility of each district's Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the superintendent and input from others, which might include a staffing committee, for example. As you know, many factors affect personnel placement, and an employer has the right-as well as the obligation-to weigh those factors to determine where an individual can best serve the organization. At the same time, Judge Wright has made it clear to both Dr. Williams and the Little Rock School District Board that the Court will not tolerate reprisals against any district employee because of that individual's testimony in the desegregation case. This school year, Mr. Brown testified at Judge Wright's request during a hearing on the incentive schools. At that time, the Court directed the district to take no retributive action toward Mr. Brown due to his having testified. It is obvious from your letter that you care very much about Garland and Mr. Brown, and also that you take pride in the important job you are doing for children. I'm sure Mr. Brown's heart has been warmed by your endorsement and many positive comments about him. I have known Robert Brown for many years, and believe him to be a man of sincere conviction who earnestly wants the very best for co-workers and students alike. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of your school and, most especially, for all you are doing to make Garland a success. (L- Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown i\\m ry Boil a y /-.ted-,March 20, 1994 I f'\u0026gt;if '* t j?9 bC'^\n3\u0026gt;nj MAR 2 5 1994 C\n'C3 0} Oeosg:\nai!on Monitoring J' Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nRecently, I was made aware of reoccurring accusations about my principal, Robert L. Brown, Jr. The accusations follow: 1. Mr. Brown does not want White children at Garland as evidenced by the uniforms that the students wear and the African nature of the instructional content. I would like to respond to this by saying that I disagree very much. Mr. Brown has done everything within his power to recruit White and Other children to Garland. I, a White female staff member, came to Garland first in 1987 as Dr. Cheryl Simmons' secretary. Our school colors have always been gold and black. Our uniforms are gold tops and black pants or white blouses and gold jumpers. Some do have Afiican print trim along the edges. No student is required or pressured into wearing the .African print. We have White children and Hispanic children who wear these uniforms. They are very pleased with them and look very cute in them. I would not mind having a jumper myself. In reference to the curriculum at Garland, each child is taught to be proud of who he is as an individual, whether it be Black, Hispanic, or White. I transferred last year to Rockefeller Incentive School. When I came back to Garland this year as Mr. Brown's secretary, I couldn't believe the difference in the attitude of the children at Garland. They had a sense of pride about themselves that I had never seen before. Our enrollment of Hispanic students has increased tremendously this year. I asked Mr. Brown about taking a couple of teachers and myself to the Landmark School Supplies Multi-Cultural Open House at the Holiday Inn-Airport in February. He said that would be fine, but to let the teachers know that we would only be interested in materials for Hispanic students. Mr. Brown is intent on reaching students from their cultural perspective. Our curriculum is multi-culturally based with more emphasis being placed on cultures represented within our school population. I think Mr. Brown has the right idea in teaching about countries and their cultures from around the world, not just Black and White. 2. Mr. Brown has little or no regard for white staff members. To this I disagree, also. Mr. Brown expects all staff members to put 100% into their jobs. He believes the children deserve the best education they can get. Like in all places of employment, there are people who want to sit down and not do the job they are being paid to do. Some of these people are White and some are Black. It is true that Page - 1 ftPR- 0-94 TUE 12:31 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 02 Office of Desegregation Monitoring UnKed Slates District Court  Eastern Disbict of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Flock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date: April S, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Irown Subject School Racial Balance and Student Assignment Guidelines As I stated during our joint staff meeting last month, 1 continue to disagree with some of the numbers which you are promulgating as racial guidelines for LRSD schools. Your February 2,1994 memorandum to me indicated that you and Chris Heller would try to work out 'an agreeable solution' regarding the racial targets. I responded in a memo, once again explaining that ODM calculations are based on what the desegregation plan sets forth as racial balance guidelines. I also emphasized that the most pressing need for the district was not to attempt to manipulate racial balance guidelines, but rather to recruit white students In numbers sufficient to desegregate the schools within the range the district set up for itself in the settlement agreements. That communication notwithstanding and without further discussion with me, you have recently published in the new LRSD Student Assignment Handbook for 1994-95 \"acceptable racial ranges* that are inconsistent with the desegregation plan. The Handbook reminds Student Assignment personnel and alt principals that titey will be held accountable for following what you have set forth as requirements. Im also disturbed by your March 17,1994 memo to principals of selected schools, evidently those having a racial balance below or veiy near the minimum \"acceptable\" percentage of black students. The directive states that you will reserve seats for black students and give white students alternate assignments or place them on a waiting list. Ive received numerous calls from distressed parents and district personnel who perceive the directive as counter to the spirit of the desegregation plan. Its obvious that we need to sit down together to talk over student assignment issues and to reach an understanding about what is reasonable, workable, and consistent with the goals of the desegregation plan. 1 think this kind of conversation will be preferable to asking judge Wright for an Immediate healing to sort out racial guideline and student assignment matters. HI talk with either you or Chris today (depending on wlilch of you I can find first) and arrange a time to get together this week. Thanks for your cooperation. cc Chris HellerAPR- 5-94 TUE 12:31 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To\nFrom: Date\nSubject: /bin iSnown, Monitor Russ M:wo, Associate Superintendent February 2,1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 Office of Desegregatioi'i Momtonng . Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday witJi data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so I may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approadiing solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, ratlier than the current capacities. We agreed tliat tliese would be more realistic. . We did not agree, however, on the niediod for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you arc interpreting the range to be fixed at 4(^ to 60%. This mat^ it As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. madiematically impossible for us to briiig all elementary scliools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Hellet and I will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate ray response to your question about the assistant comnjiunication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict betw^n my testimony and. reality is Easily explained. When I testified that we were , ,, completing interviews on Friday, Januaiy 28, that was true. Tire following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will dose early next week. Tliis means that three to four weeks may pass before the Polson selected Is actually on the job. This estimate Includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. G Dr. Hejuy P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, UtSD Attorney APR- 5-94 TOE 12:32 FAX NO. 5013710100 : L'ozvf. c^ P. 04 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)375^200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date\nFebruary 14, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: Brown Elementary Area Scliool Racial Balance Range 1 want to correct an apparent misunderstanding that appears in your memo to me dated February 2, 1994 which f received on February 7, 1994. In that correspondence, you stated that I was interpreting the range for LRSD area elementaiy school at a fixed 40% to 60^ Actually, in figuring the target racial balance range for LRSD elementaiy area schools, my calculations are guided by the specific relevant language of the desegregation plans. Both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and tlie Interdistrict Plan provide for the racial balance of LRSD elementary schools to be calculated differently from that of the districts secondary schools. The plans state that the target racial balance at the elementary area schools is 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. Tire LRSD plan refers to attendance zones that are drawn to establish this racial balance. The plans also state that Miite enrollment at an area school may not exceed 60%. Clearly, the desegregation plans do not provide for the target racial balance range of LRSD elementaiy area schools to fluctuate along with the districts black percentage. That you perceive it to be presently mathematically impossible\" to achieve the target range is not due to a matter of interpretation of a racial balance formula\nradier, it is due to the districts failure to do what the desegregation plans require of it\nto recruit white students into tlie LRSD in numbers that will allow schools to be desegregated within the range the district set up itself. One effect of a fixed target range is to act as an incentive for the district to maintain white enrollment that Is sufficient to achieve the racial balance that the parties agreed upon in their settlement. The challenge the LRSD is now fadng is not in reinterpreting its desegregation plans, but in living up its solemn promises, including the tough recruitment job the district committed Itself to do. cc: Hank Williams Chris Heller APR- -5-94 TUE 12:33 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 Tn Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges lF* The minixnum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent, The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimuin black percentage for each secondary Ounior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the districvwidc black percentage at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above (he district-wide black percentage at each organizational, level. The minimum and ipaximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. Student Idid all building prindpials will be hdd acieountabie for complying with desegregation requirements. Ip addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes In an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegregation to occur in classrooms. School desegregation requirements and equitable classroom assignments will be monitored by the L^SD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. The acceptable range is listed below: Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% - 78.75% 49.25%  73.75% I 1 fiPR- 5-94 TUE 12:33 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 06 TOs FROM! SUBJECT\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 March 17, 1994 RSC. MAR 2 Q 1594 Office of Desejragascn f.^oniicring Principals of Selected Schools C. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for tie segregation 1994-95 School Assignments I All students who pre-registered during the February preregistration period for entry level grades (kindergarten,7th and 10th) were assigned to their attendance zone school for the 1994-95 school year. As a result of these assignments, your' school's  racial balance is below or very near the minimum acceptable school year. percentage of black students. For that reason, all students who pre \"register on or after March 14 will be assigned by the Student Assignment Office. This procedure will apply to all grade levels. Basically, we will reserve vacant seats for black students while nonblack students will receive alternate assignments. Students who cannot be assigned will be placed on waiting lists. until further notice until further nutite, J am requesting that you allow parents of students in your attendance zone to complete the pre-registration paperwork at your school, enter the information on the database in the' \"NEW district and forward .the paperwork to the Student Assignment Office. If you have questions concerning this procedure, please call at 324-2271. meOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 7, 1994 Ms. Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Debbie and Wonderful VIPS Colleagues: Thank you so much for the snazzy and eye-catching invitation to An Evening For The Stars, which came in todays mail. Sounds like you are gearing up for a terrific event where a great time will be had by all. 1 wish 1 could be there to enjoy the show, but 111 be in California on April 26, visiting my folks. 111 be thinking of you on that Tuesday though, and have my family save newspaper accounts of the evening so 1 can read all about it when 1 return. Best wishes for a star-studded good time! Love to all, Ann Brown ?\u0026gt; I I j? itaaa^vs^^. ..saiaw.-.-: Lhtle Rock School Dihikict OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 bl\n1 J APR 3 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building of DsSOGi'S^aVCri ^'tu' Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. will be submitted to you upon completion. Additional documents Thanks for your patience. Sincerely He^y P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. I 810 W'est Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 2201 (501) 324-2000ren^ LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 AS iLaj:.0 APR 8 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Cic3 oi Dsssgregalion Mcr,\nc\nh!g Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. will be submitted to you upon completion. Additional documents Thanks for your patience. Sincerely e Y P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 CAO 1)324-2000  w* t' -t ye' Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: From: Mark Milhollen, Director of Support Services \u0026lt;^^^olly Ramer, Office Manager Through: Brown, Federal Monitor Re: Additional Pay for Linda Bryant and Jackie Banks Date: April 8, 1994 During the supplemental pay period beginning March 7 and ending April 8, 1994, Linda Bryant (431- 88-8471) has worked five days more than her regular work schedule (one half day on March 8, 29, April 5, and 7 and one full day on March 22, 23, and 31). Please include Linda in your next supplemental payroll, with her check reflecting 5 days at $71.51 per day for a gross total of $357.55. Also during this same pay period, Jackie Banks (432-66-0119) worked 3 days more than her regular work schedule (March 14, 16, and 18). Please include Jackie in your next supplemental payroll, with her check reflecting 3 days at $46.04 per day for a gross total of $138.12. If you need additional information, please call. Thank you. Garland 3615W. 25th Little Rock. AR 72204 \"Simply Tran^ormational\" 4* jii'Jii!a-08-94 -\u0026gt; ^Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr.. Principal Phone: (501)671-6275 eygsgjgA ^3 liini'ii ii! lai APR Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation 3 1994 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR OffiCQ cf 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: I suppose one can only conclude that I haven't been handling the I know I've got to get a grip on In reality, I haven't. pressure well. things and use better judgment in all areas of my life. Spring Break would give me some time to recuperate, but Dr. Glowers decision to instruct Mrs. Wagner not to use our comparative academic I thought performance on our brochures didn't help matters. Perhaps I will stop complaining and just allow events to unfold without any reaction on my part. I think that might be my only answer at this point, if I am to maintain a level perspective and focus my energies on the staff and students at Garland I didn't send the attached letter to Judge Wright, but since I wrote it. If you would I thought I would at least entrust it to your care. specifically note the February 18th entry, you will see what I documented hearing from Superintendent Williams. In our meeting on March 10, 1994, I told him I would take care of my own damage control. I had already informed my white staff members of the perceptions I didn't tell them where I had heard the allegations. shared with me. but I asked them to respond on my behalf. Any denial on my part When the Superintended met with them on would only be self-serving. March 11, 1994, he indicated he had no knowledge of the allegations or rumors XX J AAC iliVlxvi.xn.zKA c Naturally, his response left some stad^f members confused. Maybe I only thought I heard him say those things.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM RECEIVCO To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: April 14, 1994 Subject: Our Meeting of April 8, 1994 APR 1 5 1994 Office of Dssegrsgation ivoriiiOrinfj This is a brief summary of our meeting last Friday, April 8, as I understood it. Tlie meeting occurred as a result of your letter dated April 5, 1994. The primary concerns expressed in your letter related to the upper range limit for area elementaiy schools and the memorandum I sent to principals of five schools projected to be out of range for 1994-95. Items discussed were as follows: 1. 2. 3. Four Year Old Filing ~ You expressed concern about the lateness of the filing, about the naming of Stephens and Badgett as sites, and about the ambiguous last sentence in the paragraph explaining Geyer Springs. You suggested that we consider space remaining in buildings and demand. You suggested that we consider Dodd or Meadowcliff as sites. You noted that these questions will delay the response to the filing. You would like to hear from me on these questions. Elementary Racial Balance - You said that ranges were guidelines and not quotas. You also said that ODM has never said that we were out of compliance. You said that ranges published in our Student Assignment Handbook are incorrect regardless of the method. Melissa will meet with Julie Wiedower and Sue Pedersen to address this and other errors in the handbook. You disagreed with our removing the numbers of the original six magnets when calculating the racial ranges. We agreed to base range calculations on October 1 figures. 1 explained the memorandum sent to five schools freezing their enrollment of whites. Projections show them out of the acceptable range. This does not prohibit attendance zone students from enrollment. You believed that this discourages whites from coming into the district. In support of this position, Chris said that the plan states that I can make no assignment that will knowingly put a school outside of the acceptable range. Magnet Shadow Zone Question - You said that you were glad that I corrected the method of calculating the number of seats for the shadow zone. The 25% Shadow Zone seats come from the capacity before allocating seats to districts. In the past, they were part of the LRSD allocation. 4. Dunbar Magnet-Nou emphasized that Dunbar is a magnet school, not simply a magnet program. Someone in the Student Assignment Office is treating it as a program. Central and Hendersen are clearly programs within a school. You expressed concern about the Gifted and Talented program being predominantly white. 5. Educational Park - You suggested that we consider an educational park involving Mitchell, Dunbar, and Gibbs. Their convenience to each other allows for such, you said. 6. Interdistrict School Policy Filing - You objected to the limited consideration for LRSD whites within this policy. Why a maximum of 9% seats for whites? I explained thatAnn Brown, Federal Monitor April 14, 1994 2 PCSSD has a responsibility for participating in the interdistrict schools by sending whites to help us. I also told you that the county students bring us money. You suggested that we consider submitting an amendment to the policy to permit more LRSD whites. 7. King Interdistrict School Magnet Status - You asked where we were on this and suggested that something be submitted soon. You implied that you thought it may grow more difficult to achieve the status if we wait too long. Chris said that he made a request for information of Principal Sadie Mitchell a few weeks ago. She submitted it to Estelle Matthis for approval. Chris has placed a reminder call. You reemphasized the need to file soon. I will call you by phone with responses to your concerns. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 15, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: Brown Comments on your summaiy of our April 8, 1994 meeting Today I received your memorandum summary of the April 8, 1994 meeting between Chris Heller, Melissa Guldin, Bob Morgan, you, and me. I want to clarify, below, some of the points you chose to address as your understanding of the discussion. However, I want to first point out that 1 do not intend for us to routinely engage in this type of post-meeting correspondence. Since we verbally summarized the \"to do\" points of our meeting at its conclusion, I fail to see the necessity for trading follow-up memoranda. On the other hand. your memo reveals some misunderstandings that trouble me. If necessary, I will make arrangements for a stenographer to be present in the future so a meeting transcription can speak for itself, leaving us time we can devote to something other than creating paper trails. Since you concluded your memo by saying that you will phone your responses to my concerns, I believe that verbal communication should ordinarily suffice for other types of information exchange as well. A. Concerns expressed in my April 5, 1994 letter were for the errors in both the lower and upper range of the racial balance guidelines for secondary schools printed in your Student Assignment Handbook, not only for the upper range for elementaiy schools as stated in your memo. B. During our discussion of the U^D filing to add four-year-old programs, 1 asked why certain schools had been selected (such as Badgett and Stephens) and others excluded (such as Dodd and Meadowcliff, although I acknowledged that limited space at Meadowcliff might made additions difficult there). I named these schools as examples, not an exhaustive list. My questions regarding Stephens were more specific, focusing on the incongruity of the proposal with ree highly relevant factors: (1) very low enrollment in the schools single four-year-old class\n(2) the districts intention to propose a motion that would essentially substitute Washington for Stephens to satisfy settlement terms\nand (3) uncertainty about the future of Stephens. I asked about the criteria the district used in naming the proposed sites for new or expanded four- year-old programs. You explained that someone else had made the placement decisions and that you were not certain why specific sites were selected.April 15, 1994 Page Two C. 1 strongly disagree with your characterization of my remarks regarding compliance with racial balance guidelines. 1 stated that the Circuit Court has termed racial balance ranges as guidelines, not quotas. 1 stressed that, therefore, ODM has avoided using the term \"out of compliance\" in regard to target racial balance. However, we have repeatedly pointed out that a large number of schools do not lie within the target range. Semantics in no way excuse the district from striving to operate its schools within the specific target ranges set forth in the plan and court orders. My concerns included that the LRSD Student Assignment Handbook (1) contains ranges for secondary schools that are either mathematically incorrect or based on unknown or faulty enrollment figures\n(2) that the Handbook range for elementary schools directly conflicts with that named in the desegregation plans. We discussed ODMs 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report, filed January 12, 1994, to which the LRSD had not responded. The report is clear about how we calculated racial balance ranges based on specific plan provisions and October 1 enrollment figures. Yet the LRSD Handbook contains racial balance guidelines that conflict with those in the report. Part of my concern is that you are issuing directives about student assignments based on erroneous racial guidelines and, thereby, excluding children from their assignment zone schools. Im aware that the plan provides for the district not to make assignments that promote racial unbalance, but you continue to sidestep my primary point. My prevailing concern about your approach to student assignments remains is as 1 have repeatedly expressed it: manipulating ranges and freezing enrollment for certain groups of children amounts to taking the easy way out. Instead, the districts overriding obligation is to live by its espoused voluntary desegregation credo by consistently, energetically, and early-on carrying out the tough recruitment job to which the district has committed itself, but nevertheless continues to botch year after year. Recruiting to voluntarily move students in and out of schools is a big key to success. Another is returning children to their zoned schools after their families have moved, and 1 was pleased that you had issued a memo dealing with this assignment aspect. 1 also stressed the importance of your following through on the disaggregation of student assignment data that Bob Morgan had begun. 1 inquired about progress on the assignment study James Jennings is conducting, but received no clear answer about a finish date nor any indication of the \"who, what, when, and how\" of district plans for using this information to make important and pressing changes. D. Im pleased that you have modified some magnet school shadow zone assignments after Melissa Guldin brought a problem to the attention of Student Assignment. However, the issue concerning ODM was not the one you expressed in your memo. Melissa became aware that the district had been allotting less than 25% of kindergarten seats to shadow zone students at Williams. Although the district has now increased the number of kindergarten shadow zone seats to 15 at Williams, which is 25% of the available K seats, this number will not be sufficient to continue meeting the schoolwide requirement. SAO must also develop a system to add shadow zone seats at the first and fourth grades (when class size increases) and to place new shadow zone students in the school when others move out.April 15, 1994 Page Three E. The educational park idea stems from my suggestion that the district consider the feasibility of a new relationship between Dunbar, Gibbs, and Rightsell (not Mitchell as your memo stated), because the three schools are so close to each other. The federal government is significantly increasing magnet school grant dollars and the district needs to investigate how to take advantage of those new dollars. F. Regarding the filing on King intradistrict transfers, I have always understood PCSSDs responsibility for interdistrict desegregation, and am fully aware that M-to-M student transfers provide money for both the sending and receiving district. During the meeting, 1 hope Chris, my staff, and 1 clarified for you that funding for magnet school students is different from that of M-to- Ms, and that it does not \"cost you money\" in the M-to-M sense to \"lose\" a student from a magnet. Our concern was that the filing did not adequately take into account the issues raised in the Courts February 4, 1994 Order. Moreover, the districts new policy sets a highly restrictive precedent, severely limiting the number of white students you will allow yourself to place in your own interdistrict schools. Such a move cuts you off from a valuable tool for addressing racial balance challenges, such as burgeoning white enrollment in certain schools. The Court invited you to shape policies that would allow you to use voluntaiy intradistrict transfers to take advantage of the white enrollment in areas where you are now freezing white students out of their attendance zone schools. CC: Hank Williams Chris Hellerd/- 'T^ur'i /fr- 5 .LRSD,TRANS DEPT TEL:570-4009 Nov 2501 17:26 No .019 P.02 Little Rock School District Transportation Department April 19, 1994 Ms. Melissa R. Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern Division of Arkansas 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 LR, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin, With regard, Mr. Montgomery has asked me to respond to your request for information. Whenever there is a new student or an address change for an M-to-M student, a request from the LRSD Student Assignment Office is sent to this department by means of phone, mail, and fax. It takes approximately 3 days before a stop goes into effect from the time this information is received in our office. Bus routes are given to the M-to-M Drivers to pass out to the students whenever there is a change in a particular route. This action is because some M-to-M Schools do not feel that it is their responsibility to get this information to the students. This office has always made every effort possible to get current route information to parents/students and will continue to do so. Please feel free to contact this office for any further information or assistance. Sincerely, Jayne Agnes Safety supervisor 810 West MarkJiani Street  Little Rock, .irkansas 72201  (501)324-2000LRSD TRANS DEPT TEL:570-4009 Nov 2501 17:26 No.019 P.Ol LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Transportation Department 5400 Murray Street Little Rock, AR 72209 FAX (501) 57(M009 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT  4GtiO_________________________ parhJnfn M nL COMMENTS Numbar of Pagoa (ineluda covar page) rax rhoM NwtMr .!i\"1l-6!0OOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 3, 1994 I To: Mark Milhollen, Director of Support Services Little Rock School District From: Polly Ramer, Office Manager Through: 4J in S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: ODM's 1993-94 Budget I have sent with previous correspondence a copy of ODM's 1993-94 budget and the court orders adopting that budget. You will note on page two that LRSD's share of our budget, after the 1992-93 credit, is $200,498.00. Our records indicate that from July 1, 1993 through March 31,1994, ODM salaries have totaled $351,492.72, resulting in a difference of $150,994.72 between LRSD's budget share and the amount the district has paid. Enclosed you will find a check for that amount. By the end of May, you will receive a check to reimburse ODM's April salaries, in June you will receive a check for ODM's May salaries, and in July, a check for our June salaries. When the 1993- 94 books are closed, please send me a year-to-date print-out of each ODM employee's salary, social security taxes, and benefits. For your information, I am including a breakdown of the enclosed check\nSalaries FICA Insurance Total Regular Payroll 321,682.56 21,853.67 6,181.95 349,718.18 Supplemental Payroll 1,648.44 126.10 1,774.54 Total 323,331.00 21,979.77 6,181.95 351,492.72 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 5, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: in Brown Information on potential principal moves Yesterday, I asked Polly Ramer to contact you for a list of the principal changes you are contemplating. 1 realize both the tentative and sensitive nature of this information, so I assure you that I will neither release nor discuss the names on your list until such time as you make them public yourself. Im weary of the rumors and will appreciate having solid information from you. Thanks very much./ /Cs a Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 10. 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: n Brown Subject: Registration Information Now that the LRSD has completed its main thrust of pre-registration for the 1994-95 school year, please immediately forward to me the total number of children (whether new students, M-to-Ms, desegregation transfers, or magnet assignments) currently registered by school, race, and grade level (including kindergarten and the four-year-old program). Because 1 had not received a 1994-95 registration brochure, we called your office today to ask for one. Sue Pedersen said that the brochures are still being printed but did not know a delivery date. Please let me know when you expect to receive the brochures and also send me a few copies as soon as you get them. Thanks. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK i Ti J, MCRSCHEU H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM M. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOORE SVRON M. EISEMAN. JR., R.A. JOE 0. BELL. r.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV, R.A. FREDERICK 8. URBERY. R.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., R.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS r. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. RAUL B. BENHAM III. R.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, R.A. J. RHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 8. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. HOSE. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE. P.A. DIANE 8. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3413 TELEPHONE 601*370*2011 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 May 20, 1994 KEVIN A. CRABS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR . P A CUyOE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A GUY ALTON WAOE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA 0. SPAINMOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY.JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZSL JOHANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY received COUMBIk WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELOREOOE. JR.. P.A B.8. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A VNiTIH'S OIRiCT HO. (601) 370*1606 Mr. Michael E. Gans Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court \u0026amp; Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 MAY 2 1994 Oihce of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District - No. 93-3592 Dear Mr. Gans: The referenced appeal is one of three consolidated appeals concerning the Pulaski County desegregation litigation. The Little Rock School District and the Joshua Intervenors are appellants. Our reply briefs are due today. I have reviewed the briefs and deteirmined that there is no need for me to file a reply brief in this matter. Appeal No. 93-3592 raises the issue of whether the district court properly rejected a certain site as the location for the construction of a new interdistrict school. On April 20, 1994 LRSD filed a motion in the district court which could have an impact upon the issue on appeal. LRSD contends in its motion that it has already constructed the required number of interdistrict schools and that it should not be required to build another interdistrict school. If the district court agrees, the issue in Case No. 93- 3592 could become moot or could become intertwined with an appeal of a district court order finding that the required interdistrict schools have been constructed. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of LRSD's motion and brief in the district court.The other consolidated appeals are not affected by this situation. I am open to suggestions from you and the parties as to how to make the most efficient use of the Court's time in Appeal No. 93-3592. Yours ver' tru Christopher Heller CJH/k Enc cc\nM. Samuel Jones John W. Walker Steve Jones Richard Roachell Ann BrownBCC: Henry Williams Russ Mayo Jerry MaloneTO: 9t\" C^: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1994 May 26, 1994 Office oi Desesfegaion M\u0026amp;riiwing /r/. a/-/ REC^--^^^ Forest Height Jr. High School Principal Interview 'ommittee Members FROM: He 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.Ca^/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: June 1, 1994 To: From: Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, Little Rock School District Melissa Guldin ^ssociate Monitor Subject: LRSD Facilities Studies Members of our office staff met with LRSD Deputy Superintendent, Estelle Matthis, yesterday. During our meeting she mentioned that the Junior High Capacity Study is nearly ready for publication. As you are aware, the court has been concerned about this study for quite some time. The capacity study is an essential element of the districts long-range planning. I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the information you have prepared for the Junior High Capacity Study and any other facility study your department may have made. The deputy superintendent also indicated that the district had studied the feasibility of closing Baseline. If you have information on a facilities study related to closing of Baseline, or any other school, please forward that to me too. While I realize how busy the end of school is for all district employees, I do need copies of these reports by Friday, June 3,1994. Please do not prepare any special reports for our office. I will gladly accept the information in any format. If none of the reports are currently available, please let me know when we can expect their completion. Thank you for your cooperation./^z^c't/ZVf^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FSCSn/iD Date: June 14, 1994 JUN 1 4 1994 To: Board of Directors Offics of Oessgrogsiic.n Mi :cr\nng From: :e: :ams, (eimtendent Re: Great Expectations Pilot Project Great Expectations Teaching Model is an instructional model based on Je concepts implemented by Marva CoUins at the Westside Preparatory Srnnnl tn r*hi*zorTz\\ 'TTia j ..  . . School in Chicago. The belief that all children can learn is transformed to all children wiU learn. Teachers accept the responsibility to find a ..... ... every child and to believe in the childs ability to learn. The model seeks enhance self-esteem through academic achievement. a way to reach to an effort to support and strengthen instruction in our schools, we have ^entified Mitchell and Rightsell as potential pilot sites for the Great i^ectations Teaching Model. Each school staff has received a brief overview of the model in anticipation that we would be able to establish a oilot program for the 1994-95 school year. Great Expectations Summer Institutes will be conducted during June 20-25 Md July 25-29,1994, at Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma. A major emphasis of e inservice is the integration of curriculum areas. We believe these sessions provide an excellent opportunity to provide support for , P - * ----------rr'** ouuuui L lUi dehvery of our current curriculum. At least six teachers from each school have been identified as the core group who wiU receive the initial training We expect to build within the District the ability to support the model through existing personnel. Information relative to the basic concepts of the model is attached.cr LRSD Guidelines for News Media R JUN 1 1 1994 Oif!C3 cf ii3ssgrsg: iiion iVwiiiw''''j The main goal of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality education for all of our students. To that end, we must make every effort to minimize distractions during regular classroom instruction and to ensure the rights of privacy of oiu students, most of whom are under the age of 18. We also want to foster a mutually beneficial relationship between all media personnel and the LRSD staff. We ask for your assistance in reaching our goals and provide the following guidelines for yoiu: information: School level activities: Each Monday morning during the regular school year, the Office of Communications distributes a list of events and photo opportunities to central Arkansas media outlets. This news release serves as an invitation for all media to cover the events. The coordinators of these special events have planned for media coverage and will welcome the publicity for the LRSD. When planning a story around an event or person that is not included in the weekly release, please contact the Office of Communications and speak to the Director or the Communications Specialist for clearance to enter a school. Your contact in Communications will coordinate your visit through the appropriate personnel at the school level. If you choose to go directly to the school, you may be asked to wait outside the school until such clearance is obtained through the central office. Interviews, photography, and filming of teachers or students must be scheduled before school, during lunch, or after school when at all possible. We cannot give permission to interrupt classroom instruction. At times, a release form signed by a students parent or guardian may be required. The communications personnel will direct you in such cases. When reporting on a physically or emotionally challenged student (i.e. special Olympics, academic support programs) parental consent must be obtained. Further, no students may be interviewed or photographed in relation to the school health clinics. They are protected by physician-patient confidentiality rights. Clinic and administrative personnel are available to discuss these LRSD services. Administrative Offices: If you need information on the school district, please route your questions through the Office of Commimications. If the answers to your questions are not readily available, the appropriate personnel will be contacted on your behalf and your call will be returned. When planning to interview or photograph personnel in the administrative offices, please call the Office of Ci nmications ahead of time. This will allow the communications personnel to collect the information you need and to assist you in locating the correct person. If you choose to go directly to the administrative offices, you may be asked to wait until your subject's schedule permits your visit. Other Media opportunities: Board Meetings: All media representatives are invited to attend the monthly agenda meetings and regular meetings of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. These meetings are usually scheduled on the second and last Thursdays of the month respectively. Notification of Special Board Meetings will be made by fax in accordance with Arkansas FOI requirements. These notifications will include the scheduled agenda items of the meetings. Meeting agendas and special seating are available at the media table in the front of the board room. Personnel from the Office of Communications are available at these meetings to answer questions or provide additional information. News Conferences: Special situations may require the scheduling of a news conference. Central Arkansas media will be notified by news release of the date, time and content of the news conference. The LRSD is committed to upholding the policies outlined in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. If at any time you feel that your request for information has not been granted in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, please notify the Director of Communications.^i^prci-e, Cji^' \u0026lt; ' -y' * \u0026gt; ? B. LriTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 7? _ -1 M  2 1. June 21, 1994 JUN 2 4 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street, Suite 520 Heritage West Building urncs of usss^rs^i lion iwi. J Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have enclosed for your perusal and records a copy of a document that was forwarded to me by Mr. Eaton in response to your partial report on the physical condition of particularly Mitchell and Franklin. the incentive schools, The report provided by Mr. Eaton seems to suggest that the buildings are not being neglected and are on a regular maintenance schedule and obviously do receive special consideration when circumstances warrant special attention. It might be a good idea, Ann, for us to meet with Doug regarding the incentive schools so that you and your people are aware of what the capital plans call for with regard to the repairs of all District facilities. Should you require additional information on the incentive schools. please let me know, and I'll get it for you. In the meantime. please consider the possibility of scheduling a meeting with Doug to look at all of the facilities. Sincerely, Hl P. Willicuns HPW:nr Encl. Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .4ri\u0026lt;ansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 4, Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: July 1, 1994 To: Jeanette Wagner From: Subject in Brown Incentive School Brochure Review Thanks for sharing your mock-ups of the new incentive school brochures. I didnt find much that I ought you might want to think about changing, but I put a few comments down. Take them or leave them. Youve done a good job on these. Ill be glad to see them all done-and 1 know you will be too!B0708941 Date\nJuly 11, 1994 To: Robert Glowers From: Bill Mooney Subj\nJune Project Management Tool I have reviewed e June Project Management Tool and have a few items to offer for consideration. There are also several items I thought of which would impact the Cycle n Project Management Tool. Since we were not able to meet this week, I just wanted to write down these thoughts and offer them to you. Task 7. For Cycle II, I would consider including the following data reports in the needs assessment: * Report from the blue ribbon committee on safety and security * The report of the NASE/NCAC Curriculum Audit performed in 1990. * The Coopers Lybrand report. Task 80. I would recommend dropping this task into the Cycle II tool since it really has nothing to do with Cycle I. It also prevents you from closing out the Needs Assessment (Task 7), which makes you look way behind (Nov 4, 94). Task 98. I would recommend dropping this task into the Cycle II tool for the same reason. Tasks 99-116. The Community Forum tasks belong in the needs assessment section since they represent perceptual needs data. I would recommend leaving them where they are for Cycle I, but moving them into the Needs Assessment for Cycle H. Tasks 117-130. The District Dialogue tasks also belong in the needs assessment section for the same reasons. Same recommendation. Tasks 154-155. These tasks are critical input for the budget sub-process. In Cycle n, don't forget to follow-up with actions to gather data. Mark should start working on shortfall strategies as soon as they are identified and have the analysis ready by the December timeframe. The data does not have to be fresh in most cases. Get this work done so it will be available when you really need it. Task 168. The Program Development sub-process is the place for lining up all of your new, modified, or cut programs and preparing them for the budget development. Be sure to include tasking for any program changes in this sub-process. Initiatives like the changing to middle schools should be cranked into the program development sub-process right off so that everyone knows they must be planned for. In fact, I recommend not only including middle schools in the program development sub-process but also requiring the project leader to set up a separate, detailed project management tool for just managing that big project. Some other program development items need to be picked up\nsee task 210 below. Task 185. For Cycle 11, I recommend including a whole sub-set of tasking on contract negotiations within the budgeting sub-process. This critical item needs to be completely tasked out and put under watchful eyes. Some of the tasks are already included in the Cycle I tool. Task 191. Somewhere after task 191, Mark needs to include an additional task or tasking for budget preparation. This tasking should deal with analyzing actual expenditures, projecting them for the rest of the year, and basing the proposed budget on those actuals rather than budgeting on budget. If this is not clear, give me a call and we can talk about it. Tasks 193, 205, 238, 241. Last year, the district generated a proposed budget document, a tentative budget document, and a final budget document. The Cycle I budget sub-process was set up with this same progression in mind. However, this year's actual practice is not real consistent with the design. A proposed budget was generated for task 193. There never was a tentative budget generated for task 205, even though it shows 100% complete. Tasks 238 and 241 call for what appears to be the final budget, although it does not specifically say \"final.\" For Cycle II, I recommend defining \"proposed budget\", \"tentative budget\", and \"final budget.\" Mark, you. Bob and I need to get together and have this clearly defined, and work out the timing for next year. You might be able to save some time and work if this is done before you finish the Cycle n \"gray book revision and the Cycle II tool. Tasks 210, 214-232. These tasks aU belong in the Program Development sub-process instead of the budgeting sub-process. I recommend not worrying about it now, but move any of them into Program Development if they are carried over into Cycle H. Task 225. This task calls for business cases in January, 1995. This is a Cycle II item, and should be moved. Otherwise, your Cycle I will not end until January. Task 351. This task should not be 100% until all Cycle I tasks have been completed and aU reports for the Cycle I have been submitted. I recommend getting the Cycle II under control as soon as possible. The district is already slipping behind for the next budget year, and will soon be farther behind an our late start last year. I stand ready to help you in any way I can\njust give me a call. You and Marjorie have done a good job of bringing the project management process along. The district will be far more successful if it will learn how to maximize the benefits of this project management tool and use the fruits of your labor. Well done.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201. received July 12, 1994 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 5 1994 Offiea oJ Oasesrasanai^ iojtoinfl Dear Ms. Powell: Per your request, please find enclosed the results of the 1993-94 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. We have included a copy of the comparative five year district summary for the sixth and eighth 94. grade students and individual school summaries for the years 1990- Also, included is a matrix of those schools that will require a school improvement plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dr. Robert Glowers Director RLC:it cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent (?zcf\u0026lt;*c//'A/eZ? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 received JUL 1 9 1994 Oltice of Desegregation Moniionng TO: All LRSD Personnel FROM: ^I^Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation SUBJECT: Reorganization of the Student Assignment Office DATE: July 15, 1994 Effective July 18, 1994, the Student Assignment Office will be undergoing a change. This change will include:  Personnel  New Telephone Equipment and Numbers This transition will require time to train personnel on the new equipment and Student Assignment polices and procedures. Attached is a copy of the Student Assignment Timeline. Indicated are dates we will be involved in special training. We realize that the transition will be difficult, patience during this critical time. and we are requesting your The services which the new system will provide will be beneficial to each of us. Beginning July 18, 1994, all district personnel will be able to reach Student Assignment through the district system by using *44. This special number will connect you directly. All previous private numbers have been changed, therefore you must use *44 to reach Student Assignment personnel, use the published number, 324-2272. information will be heard by the caller, routed to a Student Assignment Assistant. The public will continue to A taped message with pertinent and the call will be The taped messages will be changed periodically to keep announcements current. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. RM:dk cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendent's CouncilSTUDENT ASSIGNMENT TIMELINE DATE EVENT July 12 - 18 July 21 Telephone Installation Telephone Etiquette Training 9:00 a.m. July 22 Completion of equipment installation. July 28 - August 5 August 1 August 2 5 Student Assignment Office will NOT accept paperwork during this time period so that assignments can be made prior to registration. This is done annually. Print Pre-Printed PIF forms August 4 Student Assignment personnel will be unavailable due to training on the new phone system and office procedures and policies. Registration Inservice Secretaries / Registrars August 8 and August 9  Incentive /Magnet - 9:00 a.m.  Area'Schools - 11:00 a.m.  Secondary -2:00 p.m. Registration All Schools 10:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m.1 0 e 5OS2 West 56 Little Rock, street Arkansas 72209 Thursday July 14. 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring JUL f 8 1994 201 East Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansa: 72201 Office of Dcjogre.jaiic.'i .V.: ., Dear Ann, Ai promised in our recent telephone conver letter and a sample of the writing of the Advisory perceive the Council to become. sation. here i Council as I my I realise that ample could be changed a\nome of the might tend to met and the p ee changed. per the need tipulations reflected in thi or desire ubiic is served. As long as the childrens of your office chool need must be changed. Whatever it takes. I am not alarmed if are ome of the wording least two I am a firm believer in advisory boards. uch board\nthe best of either world. and then Having served on at erving on governing boards. opinionated advisory board of true purpo\ngiddy governing board all to pieces! But I am fully aware that a strong, Ive seen and perseverance beat\na The crux of the matter i and read?/ to work - would. that\nuch a Council - once approved or hould give the hungering chool-house crowd the truest picture of whats going on in the citys public chools, because the Neighborhood Association would ee to that. and the Council itself It would be easier to send information down or back to the Neighborhoods from those persons vein of interest than to read it in the erving in that particular newspaper and much more truthful in content than the newspaper - while at the same time reach more honestly interested folk than the papers can, or do daily reach. We might even be able to reach into parents main interest children - and nurture the PTAs back into existence again. - their a new direction just over the horizon... but right in their own backyard. Thank you for your time and effort and your here in the city: we are each and everyone of u gratitude to your offices for the excellent way you Again, Ann. thi maze of if there i glad to do what I can.  interest in us Landing in out ee to our people. an?/thing I can do to help in any manner in chool business, all you need do i let me know. Ill be Sincerely. \u0026gt;a Stafford-Humphrey. Chairperson Southwe\nLittle Rock United for Progre\nLITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD ADVISORY COUNCIL With the consent and advise of the Little Rock Public School Board, herein notated a\nLRPSB, and the Superintendent of chool and the Little Rock Neighborhood Associations, an inclusive Council shall be established, each with equal representaion on the Council. personnel, The little Rock School District, it the Community a\nshall be utilised for the pupils. a whole, environs and it\ntheir parents and for commonly referred to herein a\nthe Public. (14)member The Advisory Council shall comprise not le and not more than ixteen member than fourteen (16). The Superintendent hall have two (2) designated appointees to the Advisory Council. Two (2) persons from each designated ward. or district, shall have appointment to coincide with the LRPSB member geographic locale. Each appointee shall provide a resume coincidental with the wishe of the Board, the Superintendent, Each appointee to the Council and the wishe of the Public. hall have a two-third vote from the three (-3) entities: the Little Rock Public School Board, the Superintendent, together with the approval of the (2/3) Neighborhood A:ssociation from whence the appointee i ma.jority vote where the appointee lives\nbut the Neighborhood recommended by a A: ociation hall have the actual and final vote to approve each appointee The term of office for the appointee shall be two (2) years. In the case of resignation or the death of an installed appointee, Neighborhood Association from whence came the appointee shall have the jurisdiction for appointing another erson to fill the vacancy. If the appointee should die within the time-frame of election to installation. person to fill the vacancy. the Neighborhood Association shall recommend another by the Neighborhood A\nociation. Any other vacancy hall be filled likewise or by the LRPSB, or by the Superintendent from whichever the vacanc?/ occur (30) time-frame from the time of the vacancy. , within a thirty-day Installation of each and every appointee shall occur at the first Little Rock Public School Board meeting following the appointment of the member, or the election of the Little Rock School Board members, whichever come: first. extended to the member unless the press No installation hall be and called the Public hall be addressed. he people otherwise either by mail or by telephone calling attention to the installation and an invitation issued to same. No busine: of any nature hall be conducted unless the press and the public shall have been notified and invited either by mail or by telephone from the three entities(3). the Little Rock Public School Board, from the Associations. uperintendent office, and from the Neighborhood The Neighborhood Association(s) receive material other i wherea\nPublic tated entitle: and/or information hall have due right to consistent with legalities to pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act\neach Neighborhood Association is intended as an arm of the and\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_1532","title":"Court filings concerning ODM budget, Pulaski County Special School District racial balance, legal proceedings, and project management tools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1994-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School board members","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM budget, Pulaski County Special School District racial balance, legal proceedings, and project management tools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1532"],"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":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_962","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/962"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS D/5TRICTL EVEL 1994-95 FRANCICALJ , JACKSON Director Of Student Affairs Ref_:. Date: Time: DIS032 6/29/9'5 7:29: 15 Ana l ys is of Disc Ip l I nary Act Ions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ==--=====---=--==-==-==-----====------=--==----==-=---r--====-=-:\n:z:iz::--=--=--=---------- 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ========~==================s====c==============m=========c===~========2=~=~~==~= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- ,.::. R EF f'CT/TOT ......R EF f'CT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT ...S TU ,:: STU ,:: STU ,..... STU ======m=========~======================================~=======:~=========~==~= 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 977 46.3X '529 25.1X 441 266 231 59.4% 60 15.4X 170 54 119 57.8% 39 18.9 87 34 168 61.1% 54 19.6 124 44 6 46.2% 4 30.8X 6 4 i 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41: STU 872 46.5% 431 235 so.ax 164 133 61.3 95 181 57.1 123 7 77.8 7 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41= STU 464 24.7 253 107 23.1 73 44 20.3Y. 36 68 21.5 55 1 1L1X 1 449 21.3% 240 76 19.5% 64 39 18.9 34 45 16.4\" 38 3 23.1% 3 -----NBM----,:: REF PCT/TOT =I= STU 412 22.0% 232 101 21.BX 76 32 14.7 29 62 19.6 44 1 11.iX 1 156 7.4% 82 22 5.7 20 9 4.4X 7 8 2.9X 6 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT 41: STU 127 6,8 77 20 4.3 17 B 3.7X 8 6 1.9% 6 0 .ox 0 2111 1029 389 308 206 162 275 212 13 13 1875 993 463 330 217 168 317 228 9 9 ===!============================-=====~==\n::=============::.::.========:========~=:========= COMF'ARISION -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF---- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) .. REF PCT(+/-) ... ..... ... ... ... REF PCT(+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ..\u0026amp; .. STU ----~-----=--=:---=--=-----=--=-------------==-s=-==-==-=~-====-=--=--==c-~--=:-= 09 S.A.C. 105- 10.7-X 65- 12.3-Y. 37- 8.2-X 29- 18.6-X 236- 10- 13- 8- 5- 36- 10 HOME SUSP. 4 1.7 \" 47 78.3  25 32.9 \" 2- 9.1- 74 6- 19 12 3- 22 11 BOYS CLUB 14 11.8  5 12.8 \" 7- 17.9-X 1- 11 .1-X 11 8 2 5- 1 6 12 E.A.C. 13 7.7 X 14 25.9 \" 17 37.8 \" 2- 25.0-X 42 1- 11 6 0 16 17 EXF'ULSION 1 16.7 \" 3- 75.0- 2- 66.7- 0 .o \" 4- 1 3- 2- 0 4- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/29/95 Time: 7:29:35 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Ana l ys is of Disc Ip l I nary Act ions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU 435 46.5% 228 35 43.2% 29 55 S6.7 44 0 .ox 0 5 50.0% 5 ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 230 24.6% 119 15 18.5 15 22 22.7% 20 0 .ox 0 3 30.0X 3 ,:: REF PCT/TOT ~ REF F'CT/TOT t: STU ~ STU 202 21.6% 68 7.3% 112 35 23 28.4% a 9.9 23 8 14 14.4 6 6.2% 13 4 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 2 20.0Y. 0 .O 2 0 935 494 81 75 97 81 0 0 10 10 ========================================~==~--=============================:=1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ,:, REF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT y. .. REF PCT/TOT ,:, STU ,:: STU ... y STU y. ..S TU ====c===========:===============:==~==========================================~= 09 S.A.C. S11 53.8X 209 22.ox 180 19.0% 49 5.2\" 949 243 128 109 31 511 10 HOME SUSP. 80 59.7% 14 10.4 36 26.9X 4 3.0X 134 57 12 32 4 10:S ii BOYS CLUB 89 71.8Y. 21 16.9 9 7.3X s 4.0% 124 57 19 8 s 89 12 E.A.C. 0 .O 0 .OY. 1 100.ox 0 .ox 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3Y. 0 .ox 7 5 1 1 0 7 COMF'ARISION -- .. --:::------:-\u0026lt;::=--=-----====--===-=-::c:.-::.:--::---==-m\n------c:.c::-==--=--=:a.::--=:-==----==r-c::= -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- y REF PCT(+/-) ~ REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF PCT(+/-) y. .. REF PCT(+/-) ,:: STU y. ..S TU ,:: STU ~ STU =------=-===-------==-------=--=-==t\n...----==---==-====----==s::-==-==-=-==-=--==---c: ...a. 09 S.A.C. 76 17.5 \" 21- 9.1- 22- 10.9-Y. 19- 27.9-X 14 15 9 3- 4- 17 10 HOME SUSP. 45 128.6 \" 1- 6.7-X 13 56.5 \" 4- 50. o--x 53 28 3- 9 4- 30 11 BOYS CLUB 34 61.8 \" 1- 4.5-X 5-- 35.7-X 1.- 16.7-X 27 13 1- s- 1 8 12 E.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 2- 66.7-X 1- 50.0-Y. 0 .o \" 3- 0 2- 1- 0 3- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/29/95 7:29:27 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -.--.-- BM------ ----BF------ -----NBM----- REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT .. ... ... REF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU  STU -.-.-.- -NBF----- ...... REF PCT/TOT ...S TU ==-=--=--=--==-==-==------=--===-=-=-i:::::---==-m=---=-==----:c::-=---\ni:,----=-=--=-----=------ 09 S.A.C. 542 46.1% 299 25.4\" 247 21.0X 88 7.5X 1176 213 147 128 47 535 10 HOME SUSP. 97 S3.3Y. 33 18.1 42 23.1 10 5.5 182 61 29 32 8 130 ii BOYS CLUB 64 S8.7X 17 15.6 25 22.9X 3 2.8 109 43 14 21 3 81 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 1 33.3X 1 33.3% 0 .ox 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =================:===========.:.-=:=:-\n:========--==================~============================ -----BM------ -----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU t: STU 09 S.A.C. 359 38.9% 255 27.7% 186 125 10 HOME SUSP. 107 43.5% 75 30.5 69 49 11 BOYS CLUB 44 47.3% 23 24.7 38 17 12 E.A.C. 0 .O 0 .OY. 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0 0 .O 2 0 ----NBM---- REF f'CT/TOT * STU 231 25.1% 122 49 19.9 30 23 24.7 21 1 100.0Y. 1 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ,:c REF PCT/TOT t: STU 77 8.4% 45 15 6.1 12 3 3.2\" 3 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 922 478 246 160 93 79 1 1 2 2 =======================--=====-===-===:===============-====-======-=====::::::=====:-::======= COMPARISION ----=-=-----=-----=----------=-==------- ..-.= --===-=--=-----=---=-----=-------:::--==-==--- ----'BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF------ * REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF F'CT(+/-) t: REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ,:, STU t STU ,:, STU t STU -----------===-=-----==-==--- -==---=--=--=------=-==------=s==-=--=-===--=-------==-= 09 S.A.C. 183- 33.8-% 44- 14.7-X 16- 6.5- 11- 12.5-X 254- 27- 22- 6- 2- 57- 10 HOME SUSP. 10 10.3 \" 42 127.3 \" 7 16.7  s 50.0 % 64 8 20 2- 4 30 11 BOYS CLUB 20- 31.3-Y. 6 35.3  2- 8.0- 0 .o % 16- 5- 3 0 0 2- 12 E.A.C. 0 .0 X 0 .o  1 100.0 X 0 .o X 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0  1- 100.0-x 1- 100.0-X 0 .o  i- 1 1- 1- 0 1- Ref: D.ate: Time: DIS032 6/29/95 7:29:18 Analysis of Discipli1,ary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- + REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU t: STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT ~ STU =~===================a=======================s============:=======09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .01' 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 99 78.6 12 9.5X 11 8.7,C 4 3.:::!Y. 126 80 10 9 4 103 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 168 61. 1% 54 19.6X 45 16.4% 8 2.9.% 275 124 44 38 6 212 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .01' 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======-==-=-=-==----==-=-----=-==-==-=-=-==----=--==----=--=------- ..- ==--==---=--=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- .... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT ,:: STU  STU .... STU ... ... ... STU ==============:==========================================:===:=~======~========== 09 S.A.C. 2 50.0X 0 .O 1 25.0X 1 25.0X 4 2 0 1 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 48 57.SX 18 21.7X 16 19.3% 1 1.2% 83 39 12 14 1 66 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 181 57.6\" 68 21.7 60 19.1 5 1.6% 314 1.24 55 42 5 226 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMF'ARISION =---=-=---=--:-- ---===-=----==----=-------=c----==--=------=---=---c.----:-c\n.--=-r=----=-= -.-.-.- --BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCTC+/-) ... REF PCTC+/-\u0026gt; ... REF F'CTC+/-) ... ...... ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...S TU ....... S TU ,:: STU ...... STU -=----=s:-=c.-------==----=-=-----=--=---=-----=-===--=--==-----==.::------=i:--=---=--==--=-= 09 S.A.C. 2 200.0 X 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 1 100.0 \" 4 2 0 1 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 51- 51.5-X 6 50.0 \" 5 45.5 \" 3- 75.0- 43- 41- 2 5 3- 37- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o  0 .o % 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 7.7 \" 14 25.9 \" 15 33.3 X 3- 37.5-X 39 0 11 4 1- 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o ,. 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/29/9'5 Time: 7:29:41 School: 012 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ ------NBM----- t: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 111 S5.2X 74 9 47.4 9 29 72.SX 24 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 t: REF PCT/TOT it STU 35 17.4\" 32 0 .O 0 5 12.sx 5 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0  REF PCT/TOT t: STU 51 25.4X 38 9 47.4X 9 5 12.SX 5 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT + STU 4 2.ox 4 1 S.3X 1 1 2.SX 1 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 201 148 19 19 40 3'5 0 0 0 0 ====--=--=--=-----=-------------==------===---m-------------=--==------==---- .. -=-- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSF'. 11 BOYS CLUB i2 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------  REF PCT/TOT  STU 164 SB.OX 87 21 70.0X 19 41 9i.1X 21 0 .ox 0 4 100.0% 4 -----BF------ + REF PCT/TOT  STU 55 19.4\" 42 1 3.3% 1 2 4.4X 2 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- t: REF PCT/TOT + STU 54 19.1 36 7 23.3% 7 2 4.4% 2 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- + REF PCT/TOT + STU 10 3.SX 7 1 3.3 1 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 283 172 30 28 45 25 0 0 4 4 =======,====================-=~====================!===:-==================-============== COMF'ARISION =============================================:===~=============c====~~==-.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... REF PCTC+/-) ...... REF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCTC+I-\u0026gt;  STU ... .... STU  STU ...... STU =============~========~====~==~================:==:====-=r.======~==~==09 S.A.C. 53 47.7 \" 20 57.1 \" 3 5.9 \" 6 150.0 \" 82 13 10 2- 3 24 10 HOME SUSP. 12 133.3 \" 1 100.0  2- 22.2-\" 0 .o \" 11 10 1 2- 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 12 41.4 \" 3- 60.0-X 3-- 60.0-X 1- 100.0-\" 5 3- 3- 3- 1- 10- 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4 400.0  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 4 4 0 0 0 4 Raf: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:29:53 013 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu9h JUNE LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- 4: REF PCT/TOT :t: STU 324 44.1X 156 24 40.0% 19 26 45.6% 20 0 .ox 0 5 50.0X 5 1 9 9 4 :\n: REF PCT/TOT t STU 195 26.6X 87 15 25.0X 15 17 29.8 15 0 .ox 0 3 30.0\" 3 - 9 5 :1: REF PCT/TOT :t: STU 151 20.6% 74 14 23.3\" 14 9 1S.8X 8 2 .ox 0 2 20.0X 2 -----NBF----- :\n: REF PCT/TOT :\n: STU 64 B.7X 31 7 11.7 7 5 a.ax 3 0 .ox 0 0 .o\" 0 734 348 60 55 57 46 0 0 10 10 ========================================================~============~====~==== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF---- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,.. REF FCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT ,,..._ REF PCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT  STU ,c: STU  STU ... ...S TU ===================~================================~===a======================m 09 S.A.C. 347 51.9 156 23.4\" 126 18.9 39 s.0x 668 158 88 73 24 343 10 HOME SUSP. 58 57.4 11 10.9 29 28.7% 3 3.0% 101 37 10 25 3 75 11 BOYS CLUB 48 60.8 19 24.1 7 8.9 5 6.3 79 36 17 6 5 64 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3X 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 .o\" 3 1 1 1 0 3 COMF'ARISION ~=----i=--zzi::--=--==--==-~=----=i:===--:a--=---=-=--=--=----=--======-=-----=--=---==--==-= -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEIF----- REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ,.. STU ...... S TU ===========~==================~===~=========n===========cc===============a==a== 09 S.A.C. 23 7.1 \" 39- 20.0-\" 25- 16.6-\" 25- 39 .1-X 66- 2 1 1- 7- 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 34 141.7 \" 4- 26.7-X 15 107.1 \" 4- 57 .1-X 41 18 5- 11 4- 20 11 BOYS CLUB 22 84.6 \" 2 11.8 \" 2- 22.2-x 0 .o \" 22 16 2 2- 2 18 12 E.A.C. 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0- 2- 66.7-X 1- S0.0-Y. 0 .o \" 7- 4- 2- 1- 0 7- Ref:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 Time: 7:30:03 Schoel: 024 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis cf Disciplinary Actions by Schoel From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- C: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 276 46.8X 96 68 53.5% 44 19 51.4% 13 0 .ox 0 1 33.3X 1 1 9 9 4 C: REF PCT/TOT  STU 135 22.9 65 22 17.3 21 4 10.8\" 3 0 .ox 0 1 33.3 1 - 9 5 C: REF PCT/TOT C: REF PCT/TOT C: STU C: STU uo 23.7): 39 6.6)( 68 24 29 22.sx 8 6.3% 21 6 12 32.4% 2 S.4\" 10 2 1 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 1 33.3X 0 .ox 1 0 590 253 127 92 37 28 0 0 3 3 ==============================================================.--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT STU ... ... ...S TU  STU ...... S TU =========~======:============================================================== 09 S.A.C. 1.31 30.0X 128 29.4X 122 28.0X ss 12.6X 436 73 57 53 32 215 10 HOME SUSF'. 72 39.8% 61 33.7% 34 18.8X 14 7.7X 181 41 38 19 11 109 11 BOYS CLUB 18 54.S 4 12.1\" 8 24.2X 3 9.1X 33 16 4 7 3 30 12 E.A.C 0  OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- .. .RS TEUF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)  RSTEUF PCTC+/-) .........SR TEUF PCTC+/-)  REF F'CTC+/-) ... T STU ... ... ========================================~=======================~===09 S.A.C. 145- 52.5-X 7- s.2-\" 18- 12.9-X 16 41.0 \" 154- 23- 8- 15- 8 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 4 5.9 \" 39 177.3 \" 5 17.2 \" 6 75.0 \" 54 3- 17 2- 5 17 11 BOYS CLUB 1- 5.3-X 0 .o \" 4- 33.3-X 1 50.0 \" 4- 3 1 3- 1 2 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  1- 100.0-x 1- 100.0-x 0 .o \" 2- 0 1- 1- 0 2- Rl!f: DIS032S Date: 6/29/95 Time: 7:30:06 School: 025 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. i1 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. i7 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AU~UST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM---- 0: REF PCT/TOT + STU 108 55.4\" 54 1 100.0X 1 28 84.8\" 19 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 -----BF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU 49 25.iX 29 0 .ox 0 3 9.1X 3 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 - 9 5 -----NBM----- ,c, REF PCT/TOT  STU 33 16.9X 25 0 .ox 0 2 6.iX 2 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----NBF------ ::, REF PCT/TOT t STU 5 2.6 4 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .o\" 0 195 112 1 1 33 24 0 0 0 0 ====~~=~====:1m=============================s==s======~=~====s=====~======~==~==~= .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT STU  STU ... ... ...S TU  STU ==================================:=================~=========================== 09 S.A.C. 97 51.9X 47 25.U 41 21.9X 2 1.1% 187 56 31 29 2 1.18 10 HOME SUSP. 8 40.0X 5 25.0X 6 30.0X 1 5.0X 20 8 4 6 1 19 11 BOYS CLUB 8 27.6% 14 48.3% 7 24.iX 0 .ox 29 5 8 6 0 19 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====~================================================================~====COMPARISION ==----=--==-=-----==--a::::----=-===--=--=--=--=-------=--=--=--==--=----=---==--==-= -----BH------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... ... ... REF PCT(+/-) STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ,. ... STU =~=================================:===========c=========================09 S.A.C. 11- 10.2-x 2- 4.1-X 8 24.2 \" 3- 60.0-X B- 2 2 4 2- 6 10 HOME SUSP. 7 700.0 % 5 500.0 ,: 6 600.0 \" 1 100.0 X 19 7 4 6 1 iB 11 BOYS CLUB 20- 71.4-% ii 366.7 \" 5 250.0 \" 0 .o \" 4- 14- 5 4 0 5- 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 13 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ==================================c=====~==========c~c==c=~==========:====c= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- t: REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ... ... ,.. REF PCT/TOT ... STU  STU t: STU  STU .. ====c========c========a=====a===========a=acn:============a=============== 09 S.A.C. 158 40.4X 11:5 29.4\" 74 18.9X 44 11.3\" 391 67 56 36 20 179 10 HOME SUSP. 28 52.8\" 10 18.9X 13 24.:5X 2 3.BX 53 17 7 11 2 37 11 BOYS CLUB 17 44.7\" 9 23.7% 11 28.9X 1 2.6X 38 13 7 9 1 30 12 E.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-========-==-------=-=---=--=--=-=--=---=-----==-=- ...=. --=---=------=--=-=---==-= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ==================mi======-===============================:=m:=====-================== -.-.-.- -BM------- -----BF------ ----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU =========c==::~=~======\"======m==========================c====================== 09 S.A.C. 132 44.0% 78 26.0 69 23.0X 21 7.0X 300 61 37 43 12 153 10 HOME SUSP. 26 59.1% 9 20.5 9 20.5X 0 .ox 44 20 8 6 0 34 ii BOYS CLUB 18 58.1 5 16.1% 8 25.SX 0 .ox 31 17 5 8 0 30 12 E.A.C 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0X 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 1 0 0 0 1 ====:::.:==================:....===============:=====::.:=====:=====-===:=====:..:=========:.:=-============== COMF\"ARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- :I= REF PCTC+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) :I= REF PCTC+/-) ,..... R EF PCTC+/-) ......S TU  STU ......S TU ...... STU ~======================~=========~~================~===============-============ 09 S.A.C. 26- i.6.5-X 37- 32.2-X 5- 6.8-X 23- 52.3-X 91- 6- 19- 7 8- 26- 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 7 .1-X 1- 10.0-x 4- 30.8-X 2- 100.0-x 9- 3 1 5- 2- 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 1 5.9 X 4- 44.4- 3- 27.3-% 1- 100.0-x 7- 4 2- 1- 1- 0 E.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .0 \" 1 1 0 0 0 1 Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7 :30: 14 School: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu9h JUNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ====c=\u0026amp;============c=\"==n======-a======\u0026amp;====~===========c===== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF PCT/TOT t: REF' PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT \u0026amp;. .. REF PCT/TOT ...S TU t: STU t: STU 0 STU ==================c======ssmsc====================Ec================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 so.ox 1 so.ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 0 8.3% 0 .0% 12 s 4 1 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.=. --====-=-=----=-=-------=--=--=-==::-------=--=--=-------------------=------=--=-- 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 STU ...... S TU ...... S TU ---===--====--- ..- ---=--====---=-====-------=--=--==--=---------=------- .....: --:::=-==--=-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 0 .O 1 25.0X 0 .ox 4 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 9 34.6% 9 34.6 8 30.8 0 .ox 26 9 6 6 0 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====a:=================================\"\"======================:::=.::.:====:=...:...:::::========== COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; \u0026amp; REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) T T ... T STU  STU ...S TU  STU ... ==~========================~==~=~=========s=~=\"=a====~========~====c\ncnc======= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 % 1- 100.0-Y. 1 100.0 \" 0 .o X 2 1 1- 1 0 i 1.1 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o  s .o \" 7 .o X 0 .o \" 14 0 1 7 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o X 0 .0 X 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Ti\"'9: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:20 Schoo L: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ ----NBM----- C..:. R EF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: REF PCT/TOT ...S TU ,c: STU :t STU -.-.-.- -NBF----- ...... REF PCT/TOT ... STU =======~======c=a========c=========n=========================~===09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 83.3X 2 16.7 0 .o\" 0 .ox 12 8 1 0 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 17 73.9% 4 17.4\" 0 8.7X 0 .ox 23 13 3 2 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 .01' 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- C: REF PCT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT ,:: REF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT ,c: STU ,c: STU ... STU ... ... ...S TU =============~=========\"====a====~============s============g==~=========09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 so.ox 3 37.SX 1 12.5X 0 .ox 8 4 2 1 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 4 23.SX 9 52.9Y. 4 23.5 0 .ox 17 4 5 3 0 12 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .0Y. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- ...... R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ,:: REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ...... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) C: REF PCT(+/-) STU ... ... ... STU ,.A ..S TU ...... STU ==~=:-c==================================================='.:z:=====:z::========::===-===========:::-:za 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6- 60.0-X 1 50.0  1 100.0  0 .o X 4- 4- i 1 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 X 0 .o  0 .0 X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13- .o X :s .o Y. 2 .o \" 0 .o \" 6- 1- i 2 0 6- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .0 X 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rf: Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 Tiffie: 7:30:15 School: 033 Ana l ys i s of DI sc i p L i nary Act ions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ============a======~=======c======-====c===m=a====~===ac==========z========== --- -R-BEMF --P-C--T- /TOT ..--..-..-R -BEFF- --P-C--T/TOT --- -R-NEBFH P--C--T-/TOT ..--..-..-R -NEBF F-P-C-T--/TOT  STU  STU  STU * STU ============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% i 11.u, 1 11.1% 0 .ox 9 7 1 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 12 75.0% 0 .ox 0 25.0% 0 .ox 16 12 0 \"' 0 16 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==---~=-=------=--=---------==-=---------=-=--=-----------=-----=---------=---= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~=================~==============~=============~n================~======~===== .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT .... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... ... REF F'CT/TOT STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ...S TU =~==============================~==========~================-=======~======:aEc 09 S.A.C. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 85.7% 0 .ox 1 14.3\" 0 .ox 7 5 0 1 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 14 66.7% 2 9.5X 5 23.8% 0 .ox 21 9 1 4 0 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMF'ARISION .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) STU ,:: STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ~~=========\n.===================~=====\n=====~============================:===-==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOHE SUSP. 1- 14.3-X 1- 100.0-X 0 .o \" 0 .o  2- 2- 1- 0 0 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o \" 2 .o X 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 5 0 2 1 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref_:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:17 038 Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ t: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 0 .ox 0 6 66.7X 6 0 .o\" 0 12 S4.5X 11 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ t: REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 4 1B.2X 3 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 S ----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT f\nSTU 0 .ox 0 2 22.2x 1 0 .ox 0 0 18.2% 3 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 1 11.1\" 1 0 .ox 0 0 9.1\" 2 0 .ox 0 0 0 9 8 0 0 22 19 0 0 ==----=--===-=-=-=====-==---==-=---=------=-=====----------911:---=-=-----=--=-==-==-= 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT =Ii STU 1 100.ox 1 2 66.7X 2 0 .ox 0 46 73.0% 29 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 4 6.3 4 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- f\nREF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 1 33.3% 1 0 .ox 0 12 19.0X 6 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- f\nREF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 1.6 1 0 .ox 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 63 40 0 0 =~-======---=========================-==:...::===================================:========== COMPARISION ==-----==----==-------=-----------=-=-----=--=---Z::-------------==-=--=-=-==-::'\" .. ==== .--.-.- -BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ,:: REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-)  STU ~ STU ......S TU  STU ==~=:=============~==a===~~:s=======~=====a=====~================~============\"= 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSF'. 4- 66.7-X 0 .o \" 1- S0.0-Y. 1- 100.0-x 6- 4- 0 0 1- 5- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 34 .o % 0 .o \" 8 .o \" 1- .o \" 41 3 0 8 1- 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:19 School: 042 Ana Lys is of Disc: i p Li nary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- :t REF PCT/TOT :t REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT :t STU :t STU ~ STU ================================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 75.0% 1 8.3 2 16.7 0 .O 12 8 1 2 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 61.9 6 28.6X 0 9.5% 0 .O 21 7 6 2 0 15 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==--=-----===-=--==--=-==--===-----===--=--==-=-.---=--=-= ..- ----=--=====------=- 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ===================i:::====================::J\n=========================::::==c.:===:=:::,::===i=:=:::::=:= -----BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- T. . .RS TEUF PCT/TOT T. . .. SRTEUF PCT/TOT ....... SR TEUF F'CT/TOT ..a.. . SRTEUF PCT/TOT ==----=-----==-------=--=-----==--= ..- --------=- ...=..= ==--=---------=--------------=a::---==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55.6 4 44.4 0 .O 0 .ox 9 4 3 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 26 83.9 3 9.7 2 6.5 0 .O 31 17 2 2 0 21 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===--------:=-==:=-=--==-------=====-==------ .-. -==--==--------=--=---=-----------------= COMPARISION ==--=----=----=--=--===-=--==-=-----==---:::-i=-=---=-==--=---:,:\n---=---- ..= n:.-==-==--=-===- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF F'CT \u0026lt; -/-) ... ......R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF F'CTC+/-) ...... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: STU ... T STU t: STU ... STU ... =======================~=====:=================================~==~===========09 S.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 44.4-% 3 300.0 \" 2- 100.0-% 0 .o \" 3- 4- 2 2- 0 4- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 .0  3- .o  0 .o  0 .o \" 10 1 1- 0 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:21 046 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 2 100.ox 2 0 .0% 0 6 60.0X s 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ + REF f'CT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 1 10.0% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF F'CT/TOT + STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 20.0X 2 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 10.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 10 9 0 0 ----------==--=----=--=-=--==------=--= .-. -=--=-==--=------------=-----==--------===-- i 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU ------Dr----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT + STU -----NBM----- + REF PCT/TOT + STU -----NBF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU ==-=-~==-=--=---=---------=--=--==---====-=--==-=-----=--=-====-==i::c:-==---=-==--=--=...::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 7i.4X 1 7.iY. 2 14.3 i 7.1% 14 6 i 2 1 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 7 77.8 2 22.2 0 .ox 0 .ox 9 6 2 0 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ==============================c~==:.=c:==c================:==~=====~=:==-.-.-. -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ......R EF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ....... REF PCT(+/-) ... STU ...... S TU ......S TU ...... STU =====-========-=:\n.i===-===========:===\n===::i:==:================~\"===::-===================-:==c:=:tr.=:::==-== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 10 HOME SUSP. 8 400.0 X 1 100.0 \" 2 200.0 \" 1 100.0 \" 12 4 1 2 1 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 1 .o  1 .o \" 2- .o \" i- .o \" 1- 0 i 2- 1- 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:21 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ==========:r:======================--=======iau:::\nz=m:=======m:11:111::===nc:=========c::======r===:== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT ... REF F'CT/TOT ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT T  STU  STU ......S TU ::, STU =========~=================c=======c=======as============~======m=D=m===c== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 2 0 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 3 so.ox 3 so.ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 6 3 3 0 0 6 17 EXF'ULSION 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-=--==--=---=----=--=-=--=-----=-=---=-=--==-=-------------------------------=-- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ 0 REF PCT/TOT ::, STU 0 .ox 0 1 so.ox 1 0 .ox 0 4 44.4% 4 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ 0 REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .O 0 i 50.0 1 0 .O 0 3 33.3 3 0 .O 0 ----NBM----- 0 REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 2 22 .. .2 2 0 .O 0 -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT 0 STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 9 9 0 0 =================================-===================================-======-:=====:::====== COMPARISION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- 0 REF PCT(+/-),:, REF PCT(+/-),:, REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) 0 REF PCT(+/-) ,:, STU O STU t STU\nSTU =--------=----------------------==--=-------=---~------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .OX 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 50.O- 1 100.0 \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o X 0 1- i 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 2 .o : 0 .o \" 3 0 0 2 0 3 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/9S 7:30: 14 Schoo L: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ===============:====s===a==============================s=================== -----BM------ ----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- it REF PCT/TOT ,:, REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT C: STU ,:, STU .. ...S TU ...... S TU ========s===========-=a=n===c========B==s========~====n=========~==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 76.9,C 4 15.4X 2 7.7X 0 .ox 26 13 3 1 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13 81.3X 3 18.B\" 0 .ox 0 .ox 16 9 3 0 0 12 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ============================================================~==================:-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM---- -----NBF----- it REF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT C: STU ... STU .. ... ...S TU ...... S TU =============c=================\n=====~========================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 75.0X 2 16.7 1 8.3X 0 .ox 12 6 2 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 3 37.5Y. 4 50.0 1 12.sx 0 .o\" B 3 4 1 0 B 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0  O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--==-----=--=-------=--=---==-=--==-----=-==-==----------=--=--=--=---==--=-=--=-- COMPARISION ---BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- -----NBF----- . .R EF PCT(+/-) ~ REF PCTC+/-) ......R EF F'CT(+/-) ...... R EF PCTC+/-) STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ...... S TU ==-------=--------==-==--====-==-==---=\"\"==-=-==--=-=----=-=-==--=--=::::-=-=-:=:::==-=---= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11- ss.o-x 2- so.o-x 1- so.o-x 0 .o  14- 7- 1- 0 0 a- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 10- .o X 1 .o \" 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 8- 1- 0 1 0 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 16 037 Date: Tlcne: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ii BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analy~is of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ + REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .o\" 0 5 100.0X 3 0 .o,.\n0 6 66.7X 6 0 .o\" 0 -----BF----- + REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 11.1X 1 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ ..a.. .R EF PCT/TOT ......R EF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU -----NBM----t REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0  o\" 0 0 22.2,c 2 0 .ox 0 -.-.-.- -NBM----- ...R EF PCT/TOT it STU -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -.--.-- NBF----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT ...S TU 0 0 5 3 0 0 9 9 0 0 =--==---- ..-.= -==-=--=--==---=---------------=-===--=-:=-----=-==-=-========----==-==-==-= 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 . ox 0 .ox 0 .o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 25.0\" c:\nJ 4L7X 4 33.3% 0 .ox 12 3 2 4 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 8 44.4% 7 38.9 3 16.7% 0 .ox 18 6 7 2 0 1.5 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ============================:====================:=========~=:====c==~=====~===~ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF F'CT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) ... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) .a. STU ... STU ... ... ... ...S TU ...... STU ===~=z~==~=========~========m======~===========r===~a================c====a== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o r. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 40.0-Y. 5 500.0 \" 4 400.0 \" 0 .o \" 7 0 2 4 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 2 .o  6 .o \" 1 .o \" 0 .o \" 9 0 6 1 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o :\u0026lt; 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref.:. Date: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 18 040 Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Ana L ys i  of Di sc i p l i nary Act i ans by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT * STU 0 .ox 0 2 50.0X 2 0 .ox 0 12 75.0X 7 0 .ox 0 ----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .o\" 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 3 20.ox 3 0 .ox 0 ----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT C: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 7 46.7% 6 0 .O 0 COMF'ARISION -----NBM----- * REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .ox 0 1 25.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 18.BX 3 0 .ox 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT t: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 5 33.3 4 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 1 25.0 1 0 .ox 0 0 6.3% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,t REF PCT(+/-),:: REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) t: REF PCT(+/-),:: REF PCT(+/-) C: STU ,:: STU C: STU ~ STU 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o\" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 2- 100.0-x 0 .o \" 1- 100.0-X 1- 100.0-x 2- 0 1- 1- 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 9- .o \" 7 .o  2 .o \" 1- .o \" 1- 7 2 1- 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 0 0 0 0 4- 4- 0 0 1- 2 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 18 School: 041 NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT ..a.. .R EF PCT/TOT C: REF F'CT/TOT ...S TU ..a.. .S TU ..a.. .S TU -----NBF----- ~ REF fCT/TOT ,:, STU c===c==================~====================~~============================ 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 81.8 0 .ox 1 9.1 1 9.1 11 8 0 1 1 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 22 39.3 13 23.2X 0 30.4 0 7.1% 56 17 10 14 2 43 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... REF F'CT/TOT ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ... STU =c=======================~====~=========================================c===== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 1 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0  OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 26 61.9 8 19.0,C 5 11.9 3 7.1X 42 15 7 5 3 30 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====================~=================================================:~=======~= COMF'ARISION =-----=---=-==-=--=---=-=-==--=-=-=----=---=-------=-----=-=--==-==-=-==-------=-== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,:. REF F'CT(+/-)  REF PCT(+/-) :C= REF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) :C= REF F'CT\u0026lt;+/-) :C= STU :C= STU :C= STU :C= STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .o\" 0 .o 1' 0 .o \" 0  0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8- 88.9-X 0 .o \" 1- 100.0-X 1- 100.0-x 10- 7- 0 i- 1- 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .0 X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 4 .o  5- .o \" 12- .o \" 1- .o \" 14- 0 0 12- 1- 13- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:19 043 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ to REF PCT/TOT to REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU O STU 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 9 90.0% 1 10.0 9 1 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 5 100.0% 0 .O 3 0 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ to REF PCT/TOT fr STU 0 .0% 0 1 100.0% 1 0 .O 0 2 22.2% 2 0 .O 0 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 1 11.1 1 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- * REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .on 0 -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT to STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 6 66.7 3 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ,:: REF F'CT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ~ REF F'CT/TOT 4' STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .O 0 0 0 10 tO 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 6 0 0 ==--:::c=z=-=--==-=-----==-=--=----=--=---=--=---e::---=----==--==-=--=-=--- ..c :---:.::--= COMPARISION -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT(+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) ...S TU ..a.. . STU ,:: STU .:, STU -- .-. ---------=-----------=-------=-----=--==-== .-.=. ==----=-=--=--:.=:i:i::=-:=:=---=--=---==--=-:::- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 8- 88.9-X 1- i00.0- 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 9- 8- 1- 0 0 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 3- .o \" 1 .o \" 6 .o \" 0 .o \" 4 1- 1 6 0 3 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:20 044 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----B11------ 4: REF PCT/TOT + STU 0 . ox 0 11 91.7 7 0 .ox 0 6 85.7% 6 0 .O 0 -----BF------  REF PCT/TOT  STU 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- C: REF F'CT/TOT t STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 14.3% 1 0 .ox 0 -----NBF----- ::, REF PCT/TOT  STU 0 .ox 0 i B.3X 1 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 0 .O 0 0 0 12 a 0 0 7 7 0 0 =========================================='~===========:=====-::===============:==:::======= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----r-111------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF------ .\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT .....R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT  STU  STU ... STU ... ... ... STU ==--=-=:==--=--=--=--==---------=-==::.i---==-==-==-==-------=--=--=--=-=---=------== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 15 83.3 3 16.7 0 .ox 0 .ox 18 10 3 0 0 13 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0  O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================-=========::.z:===::.:::====================================-====:==~=====:===== COMPARISIDN =----==----=-=-----=--=----------=-----=---=-=---==-=-----------=-==-=r-=---==-===- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- * REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt;* REF PCT(+/-)* REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)~ REF F'CT(+/-) ~ STU ~ STU ~ STU ~ STU 09 S.A.C. 0  0 \" 0 .o  0 .o  0  0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 10- 90.9-X 1 100.0 X 0 .o X 1- 100.0-x 10- 6- 1 0 1- 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .0 % 0 .o \" 0 .o :\u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 9 .o X 3 .o Y. 1- .o \" 0 .o \" 11 2 3 1- 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 Schoo L: 7:30:22 049 Ana L ys is of Disc i p Li nary Act I ens by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====--=--=--==-====-==----=-=---===-=-=--==----===---=--=-----=----------- ..- --==-- 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ================================n================~=================-=r-=========== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ...R EF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT ...... REF PCT/TOT  STU ......S TU  STU ...... STU ==========:::n======~=ac=======c======================================m=~==:~= 09 S.A.C. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0X 1 12.5% 0 .ox 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .or. 0 .O 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 22 51.2% 14 32.6X 0 16.3% 0 .ox 43 12 9 4 0 25 17 EXPULSION 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==-=------==-------==-----=-===-=---====--=-==--=--=--=--=----------=-=-::-::---:--::r- ..= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =-----==-=--=-----==:r.= ...-.= ----=---=::car.--==--=~-=---=--=----=--------==----==-r-==::: ...:.: ==r:.::c -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT .... REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT  STU ... ...S TU ......S TU ...... S TU ==========c::====-======================:==========:=========================:===-:====c=u=== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 9 39.1 6 26.1 6 26.1 2 8.7X 23 3 4 5 2 14 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .OY. 0 .O 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COHPARISION -=-------=-----=-----=-----------------=--------=----~=-----=-------------------- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... ...... ...R EF PCT(+/-) ......R EF PCT(+/-) ...... R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) STU  STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==~=============:~==x==========~========~===========~==========~==~=====~a======= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 100.0-x 2- 100.0- 1- 100.0- 0 .o \" 8- 5- 2- 1- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 13- .o \" 8- .0  1- .o \" 2 .o \" 20- 1- 1- 1- 2 11- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 16 School: 035 Ana L ys is of Disc Ip L I nary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ -----BF----- -----NBM----- ,.\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ~ REF PCT/TOT 'r ,\u0026amp; STU t: STU ... ... ...S TU -----NBF----- ...a... .. R EF PCT/TOT ... STU ===============================~============s==s===================c=====~==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF'. 1 so.ox 0 .o\" 1 so.ox 0 .ox 2 1 0 i. 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 12 92.3 1 7.7X 0 .o\" 0 .o\" 13 10 1 0 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=-=---=-----==-------=-----=-=---=--=-- .-. -=-==-==---=-=::::--=-==--------==-----=-=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 --------=-=-=------------==-=-----------==--==-=--=--- ...:i ::-----=====--=-----=-----==- -----BM------- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ,\u0026amp; REF PCT/TOT ... ... ... ... REF PCT/TOT  REF F'CT/TOT .... STU ... STU ... STU ... ... ... ... ... STU =======================================================================-====- 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 37.S\" 0 .ox 5 62.SX 0 .o\" 8 3 0 3 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 5 62.5% 0 .ox 3 37.SX 0 .ox 8 5 0 1 0 6 17 EXPULSION 0 .or. 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISION ============================:============~====================================\"= -----BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- * REF PCT(+/-) ... ...R EF PCT(+/-) .......R EF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; ~ REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) * STU ... STU .\u0026amp; STU ... ... ... ... STU ======================================~==============================~========== 09 S.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 % 0 .o \" 4 400.0 \" 0 .o \" 6 2 0 2 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 7- .0 X 1- .o \" 3 .o \" 0 .o X 5- 1- 1- 3 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o % 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref.:. Date: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30: 13 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BARING CROSS CENTER 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ===========c=========================s=====s================~~====~========~= .--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ...R EF PCT/TOT .\u0026amp; ..R EF PCT/TOT \u0026amp;. .. REF PCT/TOT ,. STU t STU t STU \u0026amp;. .. STU ============m===================================~============================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 .O 0 .0% 3 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ==--=-=--=-===-==-=--=---===----==-===-=--=--==-==--------=-==--=-=-=------==-==--= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ....... R EF PCT/TOT ....... R EF PCT/TOT t REF PCT/TOT ..... R EF PCT/TOT ... STU ,t STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==c================================:=====================~====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .0% 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 so.ox 1 50.0X 0 .ox 0 .O 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .o,: 0 .ox 0  o,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .o:\u0026lt; 0 .o,: 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXF'ULSION 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==========================================================================~~==== COMPARISION -.-.-.- -BM------- -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT(+/-)  REF F'CT(+/-) STU ... T STU  STU ... STU ... ... ===-====================================================:::=========-===:::===============::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 50.0-% 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 .o \" 1- 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 \" 1- 100.0-Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1- 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 .o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:30:22 Date: Time: School: 120 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.A.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disc i pl i nary Act ions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE DROPPED ALTERNATIVE CENTER 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT it STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0% 0 0 .ox 0 -----BF------ * REF PCT/TOT ~ STU 0 .O 0 0 .ox 0 0 .0 .,,. 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBM----- t REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .ox 0 0 .O 0 -----NBF----- ~ REF PCT/TOT ~ STU 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 .ox 0 0 0 =====================================================================~~======~== 1 9 9 4 -----BM------ * REF PCT/TOT * STU - 9 5 -----BF------ ,:: REF PCT/TOT t STU -----NBM----- ,:: REF PCT/TOT ,:: STU -----NBF-----  REF PCT/TOT C: STU -=----===-=--==--=---==--=--=---=-=----=--=--=-==- ...-.- -=-----=--=====----=--==---:r:::::::ac 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 1 100.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .ox 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====-==:==~===========================================::::=================:-:===:==========::= COMPARISION ==-=---=--==----=--------=-==------------~=-- .. =--=------=--=----=--=-:=s==--==--=-----=-- -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ ----NBM----- ----NBF----- REF PCT(+/-) ... REF PCT(+/-) .. ... ... ...R EF PCTC+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) * STU .. STU .. ... ... STU ...... STU =m:======i=====-===:.======:==========-:=======::=c==c======:..-::==:!=:===========r.a:===c.:c:==::==a1:=r:s=::-.1cci=:.::= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .o \" 1 100.0  0 .0 \" 0 .0 \" 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 X 0 .o Y. 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 () 12 E.A.C. 0 .o  0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o  0 .0  0 .o X 0 .o  0 0 0 0 0 0 ... Ref: Dte: Time: DIS032S 6/29/95 7:29:53 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ALTERNATIVE CENTER - ELEMENTARY 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ====c=m:=========s=====u===========sn~=:===~=====~===~====~=~=========a== -.-.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NBH----- -----NBF----- ......R EF F'CT/TOT * REF PCT/TOT  REF f'CT/TOT ...... R EF PCT/TOT STU * STU ... STU ... ... ... ... STU ==========================c=====r.=========================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====----==-=-----=-=-=---=====---=--===-----=-=--==----==-===-=-==----=-----==-=--= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =============-========================================================.--.-.- -BM------ -----BF------ -----NEtM----- -----NBF----- REF PCT/TOT ... REF PCT/TOT  REF PCT/TOT ... ...... ... ...R EF PCT/TOT STU ... ... ...S TU C: STU ...... STU =---==------------=-------=------=--------=- .-.= ---=--=------=--===--=-=----_.\n.--==--=--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .o\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 1 100.0 0 .ox 0 .ox 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .ox 0 .OY. 0 .ox 0 .on 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .O 0 .O 0 .O 0 .ox 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======================:=============================================================== COMPARISION ==---===--=--=--------=-------a:-:::-L.=-----------==----::t::=::aC----=---=---- -----==--::ate-= -.-.-.- -BM----- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- .....R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ......R EF PCT\u0026lt;+/-)  REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) ...... REF PCT(+/-) ...S TU  STU ......S TU ...... STU ====~======~================~======:=c============c~=*===========~====~==n===n= 09 S.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .o \" 1 100.0 \" 0 .o \" 0 .o \" 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 .o \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.A.C. 0 .o X 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .o \" 0 .o  0 .o \" 0 .0 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0\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_414","title":"Discipline, annual report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School discipline","School management and organization","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/414"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF Senior High /CENTRAL /^AIR 100 35 V' 16-' 4 75 33 7 6 t HALL 108--t 17 24-1 5 MCCLELLA 94- METRO 26-' '\"8 4 8 1 Junior High Elementary J PARKVIEW CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR 27-( 105-*/ 119- ' 109 123 / 82- 5 14 26 48- 27 70 63 86\n42 26'' 21 24 18\" :\u0026gt;-l h'l 3 15 11 10 10 RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OM OF Total /I 0 ,2 2 0 0 Senl nIorHi ligh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 156 121 156 /O 134 23 74 1-? 664 183 11 r 231 1.? 204 243 153 itr J 4 MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE I/6OOKER /brady CARVER 7 CHICOT 'DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN y FULBRIGH ''^GARLAND Vgeyer SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 53 48 9 2 0 135 90 35 30 \" 8 4- I 1 1 165 124 83 26 15 *' 2 1 251 5 3 0 0 3 8 14 7 20 7 21 8 33' 4 11 2 1 1 5 0 4 1 3 1 6' 2 2 1 0 0 4 2 3 2 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 3- 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 CiQi^) Junior High 1565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 24 9 309.^ 10 28 10 40 S L 8 13 3 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary Z * GIBBS '/jEFFRSN 7 3 2 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - M L KING 8 1 2 0 0 0 11 /MABEL EL / MCDERMOT 26 3 6 5 2 3 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 4 / MEADCLIF 10 3 2^ 2 CP 0 18 J MITCHELL 26 8 1 1 0 0 36 OTTER CR 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 PUL HT E 15 3 1 0 0 0 19 RIGHTSEL 17 3 1 0 0 0 21 vROCKFELR Bromine /terry 16 5 2 0 1 0 24 5 1 0 oV^ 0 7 12 0 1 0 1 0 14 yWAKEFIEL 7 2 2 1 0 0 12 /WASHNGTN \\/WATSON JwESTHIL ^WILSON 13 14 12 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 16 3 3 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 4 WOODRUFF 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 Elementary 485 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total 2714 Page 2 of 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 60 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM DISTRICT TOTALS IIIIIIII IIII II II 3494 509 157 bhb SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED BF n BLK TOT 311 UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT 2b 6 32 25 1 32 3 2 5 3837 703 4540SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 1 TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan ^Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Sale Drg V As Sf Pos Weap In Riot Weapon CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 062 090 110 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 110 123 030 072 090 120 121 6 3 2 2 8 15 1 1 1 1 7 1 10 3 2 1 1 5 5 16 6 2 3 2 9 20 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 49 29 78 2 3 2 8 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 4 4 1 1 1 8 1 4 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 18 6 2 3 3 9 20 1 2 1 1 16 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 90 3 11 19 6 3 3-^ 11 23 1 2 1 1 17 1 3 2 3 1 1 101 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan l,Drug/A 1 jDrugs 1 Tardies Assault Theft Mischief Dis Cond 4 Drugs 2 V As Sf In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 110 131 132 133 010 030 080 110 040 072 120 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 1 2 SUBTOTAL 6 9 2 2 1 7 2 32 1 1 1 2 9 6 10 2 3 2 9 2 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 6 10 2 3 2 11 1 3 1 48 1 1 1 5 4 6 1 11 2 3 2 11 1v^^ 3 1 53 Fighting Foul Lan -'Drug/A 1 U5rugs 1 Tardies Battery Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 030 110 131 132 133 020 110 4 1 1 7 5 2 1 1 5 2 1 7 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 7 5 1 3 2 2 1 2 8 4 7 1 3SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 2 TOT Paging D T/llrugs 2 Pos Ueap CLASS 12 2 3 3 123 040 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 20 2 4 2 24 6 1 7 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 102 42 144 18 4 22 4 4 1 1 1 2 28 1 8 1 2 36 17 6 23 1 1 1 1 167 24 191SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 3 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 02 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 07 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det yfoul Lan /Drugs 1 Assault Battery Dis Cond Smoke 2 Paging D Sale Drg /Drugs 2 V As Sf CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 090 110 132 010 020 110 121 123 030 040 072 1 12 1 6 17 3 5 6 2 7 20 1 5 4 1 3 1 1 16 1 7 20 3 5 6 2 7 21 1 5 3 3 SUBTOTAL 1 2 89 9 1 2 98 1 1 2 2 8 1 1 2 3 3 10 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 16 1 7 20 3 5 6 4 8 24 1 5 3 1 3 4 8 2 4 10 2 2 1 8 110 3 1 11 1 19 1 7 21 3 5. 91/ 4 8 24 1 8 1^ 8 121 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan -w'Drugs 1 Assault Battery False Al Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Arson V As Sf Poss Exp CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 050 062 090 110 132 010 020 060 080 110 123 060 072 100 1 11 3 14 1 4 2 1 1 1 11 3 16 2 1 4 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 6 5 1 1 1 13 6 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 16 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 52 9 1 61 9 2 11 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 13 6 1 2 1 64 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 13 1 12 3 19 3 2 1 2 1 2 14 6 1 2 1 77LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 4 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan ^Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 070 080 110 123 080 5 4 3 3 1 2 1 3 5 SUBTOTAL 27 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 171 1 1 2 20 5 4 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 6 29 191 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 28 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 33 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 14 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 4 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 31 208 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 36 1 6 1 1 k 1 1 1 2 2 6 7 1 244SCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 6 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 110 123 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 3 6 4 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 11 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 050 062 110 010 3 SUBTOTAL 1 4 6 1 7 9 1 1 11 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 11 2 1 1 4 2 10 1 2 15 Paging D CLASS 12 2 123 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 15 23 3 1 4 1 1 23 5 28SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 23 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Foul Lan t/brugs 1 Assault Battery Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 070 090 110 132 010 020 070 080 110 071 072 120 5 8 1 6 9 1 1 2 2 6 3 10 2 1 7 14 1 9 19 1 3 3 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 40 27 67 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 10 12 1 4 1 1 5 1 16 1 1 7 14 1 9 19 1 5 8 1 1 3 4 9 1 83 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 7 16 1 10 23 6 9 1 1 4 4 9 1 94 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Ueapon CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 062 090 110 010 020 080 100 110 071 072 090 120 121 5 3 6 1 12 3 2 2 2 5 1 2 7 3 11 2 14 3 2 2 7 7 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 6 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 39 10 49 11 11 1 15 7 1 22 1 1 2 7 3 11 2 14 12 3 2 1 3 1 9 1 1 1 71 7 2 1 2 1 13 7 3 18 2 16 12 4 2 1 5 2 9 1 1 1 84 Fighting Ref Ruts Ref Det Foul Lan *^rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 090 110 132 010 020 030 070 100 110 071 5 2 2 6 4 1 8 5 6 3 14 3 1 1 3 2 5 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 6 6 3 14 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 8 11 4 16 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 6SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT V As Sf Ueapon CLASS 09 3 3 072 121 3 3 6 SUBTOTAL 18 16 34 13 13 9 6 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 51 15 6 1 66 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 97 53 150 33 1 34 36 17 53 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 205 39 244LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 11 SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 08 1 2 062 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 09 1 2 062 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 010 020 030 110 123 071 072 090 13 2 24 3 4 1 2 2 4 3 2 9 5 2 3 1 16 4 33 8 4 1 2 4 7 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 55 1 26 1 81 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 12 5 2 1 7 2 2 1 2 17 16 4 35 9 It 4 It 9 1 1 2 1 98 1 2 1 4 16 It -ib 9 6 8 It It 10 1 1 2 1 102 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan KDrug/A 1 ^Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 030 080 110 7 1 3 (\u0026gt; 2 3 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 24 1 9 8 1 It 11 3 3 1 1 1 33 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 8 4 4 8 1 4 11 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan x^Drugs 1 Assault 1 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 132 010 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b 3 2 1 1 37 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 11 1 4 13 1 1 1 6 3 2 1 1 ti 2 1 3SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 12 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 12 2 3 110 072 SUBTOTAL 3 1 9 3 3 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 13 2 3 1 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 91 40 131 7 7 14 17 5 22 153 14 167LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 19 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan p'Drug/A 1 \u0026gt;-T)rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 090 110 131 132 010 020 030* 050 070 100 110 122 123 071 072 120 20 4 1 2 7 9 1 8 1 14 1 3 SUBTOTAL 71 7 1 1 3 3 1 1 17 27 5 1 1 2 7 12 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 2 4 88 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 7 28 5 1 1 2 7 13 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 28 5 1 1 17 2 k 1 b 5 103 1 1 1 1 9 15 1 2 8 1 1 18 2 5 2 6 5 112 Dishon. Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan '^Drug/A 1 i^Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 062 090 110 131 132 010 020 030 050 110 123 080 120 1 7 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 29 2 1 2 2 1 9 5 1 b 1 2 k 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 7 36 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 5 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 38 2 1 3 1 11 5 1 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 41 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan '-Orug/A 1 Assault Ind Exp Dis Cond 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 050 062 110 131 010 100 110 7 It 1 3 1 2 1 2 7 1 b 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 7 1 7 1 1 1 8SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 20 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Paging D Poss Gun CLASS 12 2 3 123 080 2 2 SUBTOTAL 17 6 23 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 26 4 2 1 30 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 117 30 147 11 3 14 11 1 12 1 1 2 \"6 8 167 16 183LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 7 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 09 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Dis Cond Poss Gun CLASS 10 1 1 2 3 050 062 110 080 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 i, 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 4 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 7 3 5 3 1 12 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan ^Drug/A 1 l/Drugs 1 Assault Theft Dis Cond Smoke 2 Paging D CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 010 030 050 062 100 110 131 132 010 030 110 121 123 7 1 1 4 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 18 5 1 6 12 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 1 3 2 1 24 1 2 1 1 21 2 3 2 7 1 1 3 10 2 3 12 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 28 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 10 2 3 1 13 b, 11 2 7 2 3 1 1 3 2 4 1 24 3 1 1 5 1 1 32 5 1 1 7 1 2 56 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan --/Drug/A 1 k/Drugs 1 Battery Theft Loiter Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 062 110 131 132 020 030 070 110 123 1 4 2 1 2 1 5 4 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 9 1 1 5 1 3 14 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 30 14 44 1 1 1 1 6 31 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 41 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 2 3 17 1 1 1 1 1 . 7 1 7 4 1- 1- 2 2 1 2 3 24 48 46 94LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 25 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan vDrugs 1 Assault Theft Gambling Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D Extort CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 132 010 030 050 100 110 123 110 9 24 1 1 1 2 12 5 11 36 6 1 1 2 9 1 2 10 SUBTOTAL 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 6 44 23 67 13 1 14 1 9 2 1 11 11 36 6 1 3 1 2 3 13 1 1 78 2 10 1 1 14 13 46 6 V 3 2 2 3 14 1 1 92 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 110 010 020 080 110 122 123 071 072 3 2 5 1 1 13 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 52 4 7 2 3 16 7 2 31 5 2 1 1 16 1 1 1 68 1 1 8 8 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 12 12 5 5 1 1 1 1 7 2 31 5 k 1 1 18 1 1 1 2 74 1 8 1 2 12 8 2 39 5 It 1 2 20 1 1 1 2 86 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 iZDrugs 1 Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf Poss Gun Pos Weap Extort Weapon CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 062 110 131 132 010 020 080 110 123 071 080 090 110 121 6 2 23 4 4 3 1 10 2 26 5 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 10 2 28 5 1 2 2 1 17 2 10 1 1 27 3 2 2 2 3 3 60 20 80 2 1 2 4 1 4 4 9 5 14 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 2 3 1 2 1 4 2 1 31 3 3 1 3 1 2 97 4 1 1 2 4 1 14 11 2 32 6 6 2 1 35 4 3 1 3 1 2 111LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 26 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 156 59 215 34 6 40 25 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF 4 BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 29 5 249 40 289KWH Mi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 9 SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Har Conn Forgery Paging 0 V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 062 110 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 120 122 123 072 1 28 2 kk 4 k 13 12 1 2 1 41 2 56 5 6 8 2 10 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 89 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 33 2 1 1 1 1 2 122 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 19 2 7 1 3 3 10 2 2 4 1 1 1 41 2 56 5 6 4 3 3 1 10 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 5 133 1 1 1 1 1 23 1 51 2 59 5 7 7 4 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 6 156 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan ^rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Har Conn Forgery Sale Drg Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Exp CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 120 122 030 071 072 100 19 38 1 8 19 1 27 57 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 66 1 3 3 1 2 38 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 6 4 1 4 1 1 27 58 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 6 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 104 9 11 20 3 1 3 1 2 6 1 5 2 110 2 20 33 62 3 4* 1 k 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 5 2 130 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan -^Drug/A 1 'Drugs 1 Tardies Assault 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 030 040 062 110 131 132 133 010 5 2 15 1 2 1 ma 5 9 2 1 10 2 2k 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 frt nAiflMiHflgB 10 2 Ik 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 26 k l'-- 2*wx 2 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 10 SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Gambling Mischief Dis Cond V As Sf Poss Gun Poss Exp CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 050 080 110 072 080 100 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 1 5 3 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 37 24 1 61 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 1 5 4 8 1 1 67 1 7 1 1 5 4 9 1 1 74 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 10 1 1 030 062 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 193 95 288 26 20 46 16 6 22 3 2 5 1 1 311 51 362SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 13 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan i/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Arson V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp Ueapon CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 060 100 110 122 060 072 090 100 121 18 1 50 8 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 9 1 3 SUBTOTAL 103 4 2 15 2 8 1 1 6 1 1 41 22 1 2 65 10 1 12 2 4 2 1 1 15 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 144 11 1 12 3 1 3 1 1 6 1 1 24 1 2 65 10 1 12 2 4 2 1 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 1 150 4 3 1 4 1 13 28 1 2 68 11 16 3 4 2 1 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 1 163 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan i/brug/A 1 ^rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Gambling False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 133 010 020 050 060 100 110 072 090 120 11 1 11 22 1 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 22 1 10 3 32 4 1 5 2 1 1 2 2 6 4 22 1 3 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 110 3 2 3 6 2 1 1 4 3 2 8 1 3 4 3 6 2 1 1 12 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 60 35 95 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 8 18 6 1 3 1 9 32 4 1 3 4 3 10 2 1 1 14 4 1 1 104 2 6 4 1 1 1 18 7 2 9 16 2 1 1 1 1 15 8 6 3 21 11 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 17 2 22 11 1 2 2 1 25 1 2 38 8 3 5 3 10 2 1 1 15 5 1 1 122 18 2 2 24 12SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 14 TOT v'l Drug/A 1 (/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Paging D Sale Drg (/Drugs 2 V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 080 110 120 122 123 030 040 072 090 7 1 1 4 3 7 1 1 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 10 6 16 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 63 1 1 30 2 1 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 5 14 6 3 9 226 106 332 30 14 44 15 9 24 1 1 2 3 1 2 17 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 102 356 1 1 14 45 It^ 1 2 10 2 2 3 1 18 1 1 2 1 4 1 116 401SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 21 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan\nZ0rugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Robbery Mischief Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Gun 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 032 080 110 120 122 071 072 080 15 1 13 4 1 10 8 2 2 1 10 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 69 1 8 1 13 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 1 41 1 23 1 1 26 7 1 13 11 2 4 2 14 1 2 1 110 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 5 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 28 7 1 13 13 3 4 1 2 14 1 2 3 It 2 4 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 12 3 3 125 1 20 1 28 1 5 33 8 2 16 14 3 5 1 3 14 1 2 3 k 1 145 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan t-'Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap In Riot Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 030 080 110 071 072 090 120 123 12 22 3 3 1 1 2 2 17 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 64 5 19 6 1 1 2 1 1 10 2 48 17 41 3 9 2 2 4 1 2 1 27 2 1 112 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 1 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 22 41 3 3 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 20 3 13 4 3 17 2 2 1 1 9 2 2 5 2 2 1 32 1 4 1 1 3 131 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 22 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 030 050 062 110 6 2 7 3 12 5 3 18 2 12 6 1 1 5 5 4 23 2 12 6 1 4 25 3 46 3 1 11 2 6 3 3 1 36 1 5 1 1 3 153 24 2 16 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 22 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT -41 Drug/A 1 Mlrugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conn Smoke 2 Paging D (/Drugs 2 Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap Ueapon CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 131 132 133 010 020 080 100 110 120 121 123 040 071 072 090 121 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 37 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 170 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 18 1 41 130 2 25 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 78 300 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 14 45 1 15 14 3 17 4 28 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 95 1 5 1 15 10 55 37 9 46 2 2 4 1 5 351 57 1' 3 2 5 1 1 4 33 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 110 408LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan iZDrugs 1 Battery Loiter Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Other of CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 062 110 132 020 070 100 110 123 071 072 000 10 24 2 3 13 6 23 30 2 3 3 6 1 3 1 6 7 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 47 25 72 1 1 2 1 1 14 5 19 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 23 30 2 3 1 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 77 6 7 1 4 1 19 29 37 3 3 1 1 1 15 1 1 3 1 96 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan .XT) rugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D iXOrugs 2 V As Sf Pos Ueap Other of CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 030 062 110 132 010 020 030 050 110 123 040 072 090 000 6 30 3 3 4 1 2 1 12 1 8 5 3 1 10 14 35 6 It It 1 2 1 22 1 1 3 4 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 65 1 2 30 2 1 2 95 10 3 3 2 8 4 6 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 18 4 4 8 3 3 1 1 15 35 6 4 4 1 2 1 27 2 4 1 2 104 4 6 4 1 3 3 21 19 41 6 8 4 1 2 2 30 2 3 It 1 2 125 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan ^Drugs 1 Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Paging D Arson V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 020 030 050 110 123 060 072 3 1 18 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 RBB 2 1 3 5 1 19 3 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 19 3 1 2 5 1 3 10 2 22 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 11 1 2 1 iTtirBiMTn iTSCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 28 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Pos Ueap In Riot Ueapon Other of CLASS 09 3 3 3 4 090 120 121 000 SUBTOTAL 1 36 6 1 42 9 3 12 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 149 61 210 33 16 49 10 7 17 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 50 12 1 1 1 2 62 CD 5 232 52 284SCHOOL: 003 MANN MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 090 110 010 020 030 110 17 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 2 25 16 2 1 1 1 1 22 33 3 1 1 4 1 1 3 9 3 12 1 1 9 3 12 1 1 33 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 48 12 12 45 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 60 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs ^oul Lan Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Loi ter Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Sale Drg Drugs 2 Ass Staf CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 030 050 062 070 110 132 010 020 030 070 080 110 123 030 040 071 15 3 1 1 5 1 4 1 20 1 7 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 1 20 1 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 6 1 1 22 2 8 2 1 6 1 7 2 13 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 31 23 54 9 5 14 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 13 3 1 1 57 2 1 1 15 6 3 k 1 2 14 3 1 / 1 1 72 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan vDrugs 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 070 110 132 010 110 123 7 2 1 1 3 4 2 6 10 6 3 7 SUBTOTAL 3 2 1 17 4 19 3 6 1 36 4 4 1 2 2 3 16 2 1 3 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 75 64 139 34 11 6 4 1 2 3 3 19 45 3 1 4 1 1 10 6 3 7 3 6 1 36 6 4 1 2 3 3 19 1 1 143 46 16 10 4 9 3 9 1 55 1 1 189SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 15 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Other of CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 030 040 062 070 110 010 020 030 110 122 123 072 000 11 2 13 2 3 3 22 1 SUBTOTAL 57 4 1 2 1 8 1 17 15 2 14 2 5 1 3 30 1 1 74 8 8 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 2 14 2 5 1 1 3 31 1 1 1 8 5 1 2 2 4 78 1 15 24 2 19 2 5 1 1 4 31 1 1 1 1 93 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis . Foul Lan 7 Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery Sale Ale V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 030 100 110 122 010 072 090 9 24 1 1 1 1 3 1 16 1 SUBTOTAL 58 1 4 1 10 16 9 1 28 2 1 1 1 3 1 26 1 74 6 6 5 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 22 8 1 30 1 1 3 3 9 1 28 2 1 1 2 3 1 27 1 1 77 6 7 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 30 15 1 35 3 1\u0026gt;-- 2 2 3 1 36 2 1 1 1 107 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 090 110 131 4 1 1 10 1 2 3 1 5 2 5 1 1 15 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 1 1 15 1 4 3 2 1 4 7 1 1 16 1 8 3SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 16 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT yOrugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Comm Ass Staf In Riot Ueapon CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 132 010 020 030 080 100 110 120 071 120 121 1 2 1 32 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 59 Gambling CLASS 10 2 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 175 1 1 10 23 56 3 1 1 42 1 7 7 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 82 12 3 15 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 46 1 1 1 88 1 7 1 16 2 1 3 1 1 53 1 1 1 1 104 1 1 1 1 1 1 231 50 12 62 9 4 13 1 1 244 63 307SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 17 TOT Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 110 133 010 020 030 060 110 123 072 26 3 1 17 5 15 9 11 2 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan '/Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 100 110 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 I/O rugs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 010 030 040 050 062 070 090 100 110 131 132 2 2 1 11 1 69 12 2 I, 25 It 8 2 1 19 2 79 12 2 30 1 9 12 1 6 43 6 10 2 6 1 1 7 33 1 12 5 15 1 5 11 41 3 1 26 16 2 2 2 1 17 1 112 18 2 4 35 6 14 1 1 2 1 26 2 112 1 24 2 5 45 2 14 23 1 3 1 3 3 4 14 4 1 5 1 7 4 22 5 1 1 3 2 7 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 1 I, 5 8 20 5 1 6 1 1 7 7 28 6 1 3 (\u0026gt; 4 1 8 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 41 3 1 26 16 2 2 k 1 17 1 1 115 18 2 4 35 6 14 1 1 5 1 1 29 2 119 1 24 2 5 46 2 14 23 1 4 1 I, 3 1 8 21 5 1 6 1 1 7 8 29 6 1 3 6 4 1 8 1 45 3 2 30 19 2 2 4 1 1 25 1 1 136 23 2 5 41 7 21 1 1 5 1 1 37 2 148 1 30 3 8 52 2 18 1 31 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 18 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Tardies Assault Battery Theft False Al Mischief Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 133 010 020 030 060 080 110 123 072 090 1 1 2 2 11 1 SUBTOTAL 85 1 1 Fighting CLASS 10 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Fighting CLASS 11 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 12 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 236 4 1 1 1 2 2 15 2 1 6 1 2 6 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 18 2 4 1 1 56 141 23 11 34 1 10 3 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 1 154 2 36 1 2 7 1 2 2 22 2 2 1 190 134 1 1 1 1 1 1 370 59 23 82 18 5 23 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 393 86 479LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 29 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Battery CLASS 04 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 4 10 10 10SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 33 TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 1 4 4 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 8 SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Battery Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 2 062 020 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 4 6 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 5 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 080 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 2 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 9 Battery CLASS 06 2 020 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 08 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 6 1 7 17 7 24LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 30 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ass Staf CLASS 02 3 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 020 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 020 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 9 Assault Battery Dis Cond Gang Hem CLASS 06 2 2 2 3 010 020 110 123 2 2 4 SUBTOTAL 8 2 1 3 2 2 6 1 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 1 11 2 2 2 2 8 1 13 Ref Ruis CLASS 08 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 2 2 4 28 4 32SCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK WHT 32 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 V As Sf CLASS 05 3 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 06 1 2 062 020 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl CLASS 11 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 7 2 2 7 2 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 39 SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 12 1 1 2 1 12 1 12 Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Assault Mischief Arson Pos Ueap CLASS 02 1 2 2 3 3 030 010 080 060 090 1 1 11 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 11 3 1 2 2 11 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 622 1 SUBTOTAL 10 1 1 3 7 23 1 13 1 1 1 1 7 23 1 13 1 1 8 23 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 16 7 16 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 7 9 1 1 3 7 10 1 1 1 1 3 7 10 1 1 3 8 11 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Arson CLASS 06 1 12 2 2 3 030 062 030 100 110 060 1 1 1 1 1 111 11 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 35 8 43 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 11 111 5 1 1 1 11 11 1 6 43 6 49 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 42 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS 02 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -/Drugs 1 Assault CLASS 03 1 2 132 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1' 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 2 050 010 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Ref Ruis Assault Theft CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 2 2 9 2 11SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 34 TOT Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 01 1 1 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 110 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 4 1 1 9 3 4 1 1 9 3 4 1 1 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 020 110 123 1 7 1 1 8 SUBTOTAL 3 1 12 1 3 1 13 1 6 1 8 1 6 1 1 8 8 3 1 13 1 6 1 8 2 14 1 3 1 21 Fighting Ref Ruis Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 123 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 1 6 2 2 1 5 1 1 8 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 30 4 34 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 8 1 1 1 6 1 1 9 9 34 9 43LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 35 SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 03 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Pos Ueap CLASS 04 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 030 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 10 2 2 10 2 12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 36 SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS K 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 12 2 2 030 062 010 020 110 SUBTOTAL 5 4218 20 1 1 2 6 5 21 8 22 1 1 1 1 6 5 21 8 22 1 1 6 621 8 23 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 41 5 1 1 5 16 5 1 6 5 16 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 03 1 11 2 3 030 062 110 110 090 2 1 2 1 2 11 2 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 1 11 2 1 1 21 7 2 11 21 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 1 22 030 062 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 11 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault Pos Ueap CLASS 05 1 2 3 062 010 090 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 12 1 12 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 3 8 2 2 21 3 10 4 21 3 10 4 21 3 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 47 6 53 1 1 1 1 56 1 57 SCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 56 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Battery Pos Ueap CLASS 06 1 1 2 3 062 070 020 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 2 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 37 FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 010 020 110 SUBTOTAL 4 5 1 2 1 13 1 1 4 5 1 3 1 14 4 5 1 3 1 14 4 5 1 3 1 14 Fighting Assault CLASS 06 1 2 030 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 20 2 22 22 22SCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM Ass Staf 3 071 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 47 TOT 1 1 1 1 Theft CLASS 04 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 06 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 3 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 38 SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 03 1 2 062 030 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 / 3 11 3 3 11 3 14SCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 41 TOT Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 035 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 45 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Arson CLASS 04 1 1 1 3 030 062 110 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 062 110 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 5 8 3 11SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 54 TOT Fighting Harass Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 1 1 030 040 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 It 1 1 2 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 4 15 1 1 3 7 1 5 16 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 16 2 2 3 9 1 5 18 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 02 1 1 1 2 030 062 110 010 SUBTOTAL 6 1 1 8 6 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 10 Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft CLASS 03 1 1 1 2 040 062 110 030 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 7 2 2 1 6 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 9 1 1 1 7 1 1 10 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 04 1 1 1 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 2 062 010 110 1 SUBTOTAL 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 7 2 1 4 7 2 1 4 7 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 110 2 1 3 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 5 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 45 7 52 7 2 9 52 9 61LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 31 SCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 03 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 04 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Assault CLASS 06 1 2 030 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 5 5SCHOOL: 033 MEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 43 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Assault Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 010 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 5 6 1 1 1 6 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 1 2 3 2 8 10 Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 2 14 3 2 5 14 5 19SCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 44 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery CLASS 03 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 04 2 2 3 010 110 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 062 110 010 110 123 SUBTOTAL 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 1 1 1 1 2 12 7 1 9 1 32 1 1 2 12 8 1 9 1 33 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 062 070 110 110 072 5 3 1 3 4 4 SUBTOTAL 16 1 5 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 5 7 1 3 4 1 21 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 51 7 58 1 1 58 1 59LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 57 SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 04 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 48 SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault CLASS 01 1 2 062 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Foul Lan CLASS 02 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Assault Theft CLASS 04 1 2 2 030 010 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 030 050 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 3 4 12 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 5 14 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 4 5 14 2 1 3 1 1 5 4 6 17 Ref Ruis Assault Theft Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 062 010 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 26 3 29 3 3 29 3 32SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 49 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting LeftSchl CLASS 05 1 1 030 050 5 SUBTOTAL 5 1 1 2 6 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 100 110 SUBTOTAL 5 6 1 1 2 15 5 6 1 1 2 15 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 5 28 1 1 5 6 1 1 2 15 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 16 1 1 28 1 29LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 46 SCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault Battery CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 070 010 020 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 1 2 3 030 062 010 071 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Ref Ruts Bus Regs CLASS 03 1 1 062 070 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 5 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Theft CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 030 062 070 030 3 SUBTOTAL 1 2 6 2 2 3 2 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 8 1 1 3 3 1 2 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 030 062 070 010 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 9 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 24 7 31 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 4 9 1 1 1 4 1 4 10 32 4 36SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 50 TOT Assault CLASS 01 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 3 11 11 11SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 55 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault CLASS 02 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ass Staf CLASS 03 1 3 062 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Poss Exp CLASS 05 1 2 2 3 062 010 110 100 SUBTOTAL 3 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 8 1 1 2 4 3 2 1 10 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 030 062 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 4 10 2 1 1 2 k 10 2 1 1 2 I, 10 2 1 1 2 4 10 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 23 2 2 23 2 25LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 58 SCHOOL: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Foul Lan CLASS 01 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 2 110 010 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 110 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 2 11 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 2 3 1 3 7 3 1 4 11 4 15SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL WF WHT TOT BLK WHT 51 TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 03 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 4 2 2 8 1 1 5 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 13 1 14 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 10 1 1 6 3 2 11 2 2 1 1 15 2 17SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL UF UHT TOT BLK UHT 59 TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Theft Ind Exp CLASS 02 2 2 030 100 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Battery CLASS 03 1 1 2 030 062 020 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 062 030 4 1 5 SUBTOTAL 1 5 1 1 6 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 1 15 5 1 1 1 2 2 5 4 6 1 6 2 2 4 7 2 1 10 15 6 21SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 06/20/95 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 40 TOT Ref Ruis Poss Gun Pos Ueap CLASS 01 1 3 3 062 080 090 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 06 1 1 1 030 062 110 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 13 2 15 3 3 15 3 18LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 06/20/95 PAGE 52 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: 6/05/95 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting Battery CLASS 05 1 2 030 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 07 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/22/94 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/05/95 EXPELLED 06/20/95 PAGE TOTAL 53 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ueapon CLASS 02 3 121 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 04 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Assault CLASS 06 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4\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_395","title":"Downtown Schools","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Downtown Schools"],"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/395"],"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\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each document. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and 1 met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours, 'J Ann S. Brown co: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselSchool Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools________________ Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries\neast of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.Corrected 2-22-94 School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity Franklin Incentive 345 544 Garland Incentive 205 346 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White 63 59 66 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 116 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 Stephens Incentive Sub Total Incentive Schools 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 Booker Magnet Carver Magnet Gibbs Magnet Sub Total Magnet Schools . King Interdistrict Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Interdistrict Schools Woodruff (Area) Central Kindergarten Satellite Zones Contiguous Zones Grand Total 1,454 5^305 63 851 769 749 20 1,202 1.102 100 271 140 131 595 595 299 ? 1.489 553 721 1,274 236 50 N/A N/A 4,503 656 613 353 692 939 1,631 324 50 N/A N/A 5,932 91 61 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 259 97 85 02 80 77 78 73 100 N/A N/A 76 18 54 433 139 218 357 88 0 N/A N/A 1329 N/A N/A 90 262 352 17 N/A 747 313 2,198 N/A N/A 130 124 6 465 206 259 N/A N/A 102 88 14 198 83 115 0 0 362 328 34 1,124 491 633 89 253 342 15 N/A 722 253 2\u0026gt;081 1 9 10 2 N/A 25 60 117 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A 2,503 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 200 249 449 42 0 N/AThere are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area\nBrady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone 66 180 162 273 191 138 124 Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targeted school 33 33 16 66 60 71 72 25 39 114 102 202 119 113 85 23 29 29 32 29 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin_________________ Garland_________________ Mitchell_________________ Rightsell________________ Rockefeller_____________ Booker_________________ Carver_________________ Gibbs _______________ Williams________________ Badgett________________ Bale___________________ Baseline________________ Brady__________________ Chicot__________________ Cloverdale Elem Dodd__________________ Fair Park_______________ Forest Park____________ Fullbright_______________ Geyer Springs__________ Jefferson______________ M L. King_______________ Mablevale Elem_________ McDermott Meadovi/cliff____________ Otter Creek_____________ Pulaski Heights Elem ___ Romine________________ Stephens_______________ Terry__________________ Wakefield______________ Washington____________ Watson Western Hills___________ Wilson_________________ Woodruff_____________ Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten_______ Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks .c c 2 u. 194\" 10' 5' 4' 4' ' 10' 4 1 12 2 26 3 15 5 0 \" 0 14 18 16 _8  20 1 2 35 30 1 18 7 10 12 1 3 0 TT 1\u0026lt; 1 1 2 a \u0026lt;D O 1' 136' 6' 1 ' 2^  0 2 4 3 0 4 3 4 3 0 4 6 1 1  '14 5 0 8 18 4 1 2 19 14 1 1 1 14 4 5 1 1 0 fa 5 1 109' 6 7' 1' 6 9' 2 3 6 4 8 9 3 5 3 10 5 ' 6 12 5 15 14 7 1 0 3 3 2 4 0 0 9' 7 11 0 1  eg o' 1' 8' 129' 7' 8 6 31 1 0 3 2 3 6 1 3 1 5 2 6 13 4 2 3 11 3 9 __0 0 6 6 1 2 1 Z _i 3 0 0 \u0026amp; 4 4 3 4 '118' 8 3 7 __ 4 4 2 _4 6 3 6 0 7 0 6 1 2 2 4 3\" 1 3  2 ' 0 3 20 0 1 3 __ 4 6 2 1' 0 c -c Q. CO 3' 9 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 9 2 1 1 8 5 2 0 15 5 0 11 7 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 1  5 3 0 0 539 3121 318 320 257 200 o o w O) X.5 Q 'S 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 5 a S Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller________________ Stephens_________________ Badgett___________________ Bale______________________ Baseline________________ Brady_____________________ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Elem__________ Dodd_____________________ Fair Park_________________ Forest Park_______________ Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson_________________ M L King_________________ Mablevale Elem___________ McDermott________________ Meadovycliff_______________ Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem_____ Romine Terry_____________________ Wakefield_________________ Washington_______________ Watson___________________ Western Hills_____________ Wilson____________________ Woodruff North Little Rock__________ Pulaski County____________ Legal Transfer____________ No zone .c c jL 194 7 5 0 4 3 0 14 5 6 3 T 1 9 2 5 3 1 3 0 7 20 6 4 3 9 2 9 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 Q C C (D O io' 136 1 1 4 9 0 6 0 74 i 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 6 2 0 0  3 0 4 a 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;b c  5 6 109 8 3 * 1 0 7 q  \"3 J ^0 4 2  3 2 1 6 1 1 3 3 20 1 2 1 0 11 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 (b c .O) s 4' 1 6 129 4 0 0 0 _ 0 0 \"0 2 0 1 0 4 3 1 0 8 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 o o q\n4' 1 1 7 118 1 8 14 9 1 '12 J  3 2 8 12 6 39 2 2 6 1 6 6 3 8 4 \"TT 5 1 4 10 1 13 7 0 w (1\u0026gt; -c Q, CO io *19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 2i 29 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 o o X O) u 45 C V\u0026gt; 2 C C o a\u0026gt; o F- W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 ______9 41 _ Z Z15 Z. Lli 11  13 ______15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 4 14 16 8 17 8 2 Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools 336 204 221 187 380 145 1473 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Name Class K K K K K K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 I 19 I 19 I 19 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park  Franklin I Franklin I Franklin I Franklin Name Class 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 Student ID [ Zone Block 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name ][ Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson I Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ^1 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams Totals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Springs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 Totals / Averages $12,286,784.19 FTE Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 Totals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 \"Inner City\" Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff, King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-Incentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 32 43 28 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7872 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School T T I Attending School Badgett____________ Bale Baseline Booker Brady_____________ Carver Chicot Qoverddle Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fultonght Garland Geyer Spnngs Gibbs Jefferson M L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowdiff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Bem Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Sending School S 106 1 o' 6' o' 1 ' o' 1 ' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' 1' o' 0 o' 0 o' 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 135 2 158 ' o' 14 ' 15' 7' 4 ' o' 9' 5' 5' 14 ' 3' 6' 3' 12 4 5 0 7 4 7 2 6 0 14 14 0 5 1 11 0 10 12 7 2 1 0 0 1 cS 0 0 196 15 1 3 8 19 6 2 2 5 0 0 11 2 0 3 15 0 S' CD a 0 3 1 11 173 9 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 9 2 0 0 8 4 10 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 12' 6' 1 ' 4 2 7 14 ' 1 0 13 0 3 1 2 0 1 13 1 15 2 25 0 1 21 2 5 0 0 2 0 1 I o 1 1' 20 12 4 10 269 28 3 0 0 3 1 1 11 4 0 5 41 2 8 3 7 1 0 12 I LU o  g g 1 0 9 17 4 9 27 190 Q 2 2 2 11 1 5 2 1 e CD 2 s \u0026amp; CO O) s 369 336 361 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 5 1 7 20 0 4 0 6 1 3 6 1 0 4 12 12 35 6 4 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 14 18 12 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 146 2 1 ' 1 ' 3' 3' 2' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 4 1 1 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 4 0 12 9 11 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 13 8 8 1 1 0 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 ' 10 2 o' 5 6 2 0 13 0 2 6 1 3 2 20 0 8 41 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 5' o' 5' 4' 2 o' 1 ' 2' 12' 265' 2' 22 o' o' 7' 9' 11 3 16 3 3 2 9 1 8 0 0 2 4 8 0 2 11 1 19 1 0 0 0 0 2 26' 3' 10 ' 15' 4' 5' o' o' 14' 18' 194 ' 16' 10  8' 7 20 7 2 35 30 5 1 18 4 4 7 10 12 1 3 0 11 12 11 10 1 1 0 0 2 0 9' o' 19' 44' 20' 4  o' 2' 5' 7' 5' 336' o' 2' 9' 8' 2 o' 26' 3' 2 ' 1 ' 10' 0 12 21 3 19 0 23 0 2 13 17 5 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 4 3 0 4 2 3 0 4 6 7 7 1 136 1 4 ' 14 ' 5 0 s' 18 6 4 1 1 1 2 19 14 1 7 1 14 3 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 V) oo s 1 0 o' 20 6 0 4 5' 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 152 5 1 0 2 0 12 1 1 2 4 6 c! OJ s! 5 \"3 0 0 19 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 2 11 314 10 533 375 276, 343 441 539 637 312 1 1 2 17 4 4 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 6 2 17 3 39 2 1 1 3 29 3 2 10 3 3 2 0 1 1 0 S o' 1' o' 14' 5' 6' 10' 2' o' 7' 5' 3' 1' 0 7 16 6 253 7 0 3 7 18 6 7 2 1 0 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 I LU  CO s s 0 2' 7' 6' 1 ' s' 28' 26' 1  o' o' o' o' o' 3 0 0 0 264 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 9 23 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 2 J s 11 Q CD 1 6 4 5 13 10 1 o' 7 ' 12' 9' 7' 20' 8' 7' 2 6 4' 0 295 0 3 0 10 8 6 8 6 12 0 19 0 5 18 5 9 0 0 1 0 0 X 0 19' o' 12' 6' 9' 2 1 ' 7 4 7' 20 5 6 18 4 ' 7 2 5 5 247 3 2 6 2 7 0 1 5 7 7 2 2 6 3 8 1 1 1 0 0 13 o I \u0026amp; SI s 3 6' 4  7 ' s' 6' 9' 3' 5' 3 10 5 s' 1 4 ' 9 6' 12' 5 15 14 109 7 1 6 7 0 3 3 2 4 0 0 2 9 7 11 0 0 0 1 1 3' 3' 8' 2' 2 16' 50 9' 6' 3' 6 1 2 6' 3 1 ' 15 54 0 16 20 260 1 1 6 3 0 4 4 11 16 0 6 2 1 3 3 0 2 1 271 594 407 397 527 450 318 551 I LU w ex X CD 0 2 o' 3' 3' 4 0 o' 3 2 6 4 5 0 0 19 10 5 0 6 0 1 0 205 0 6 3 0 3 0 7 0 0 8 1 19 1 0 1 0 0 327 1 ix 0 3 2 8 3 eg 4 4 2 8 4 6]3 6 1 3 1 5 0 2 1 6 31 13 4 2 3 11 8 3 9 129 7 0 0 6 6 29 1 2 1 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 320 I i gi c C I  g t eg 6 3' 6' o' 7' 4 ' 0 4 ' 6 7 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 118 1 0 6 3 20 0 1 1 3 4 6 2 0 0 1 0 5' 2 7' 17' 11 ' 2 o' 24' 3 2 3 15 0 0 2 4 1 1 9 0 2 0 3 3 3 177 1 41 0 4 1 19 30 11 1 0 3 0 0 4 CO o' 1  o' o' 9' o' 2' 1 ' 1 ' 8' 5' 3 2 9 0 2 15 5 0 11 7 1 0 1 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 3 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 16 16 26 2 4 1 2 8 9 31 3 0 3 8 2 1 13 3 1 1 15 0 8 2 346 1 14 0 0 20 1 5 2 0 2 0 1 1 5 2 7' 9' 15' o' 6' 10' 7 4 1 4 2 0 0 17 7 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 323 7 6 1 4 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 c p O) (/) CD 5 52 4 16 32 2 42' 23 6 12' 4 15 9 8 4 13 4 20 10 6 4 12 11 3 14 3 31 1 5 4 16 268 6 2 5 11 1 8 0 0 3 0 I \"cd 5 0 2 8 10 0 12 32 20 5 0 1 3 4 0 3 2 2 3 31 0 2 3 8 0 1 5 6 0 0 11 8 295 1 55 5 0 6 1 6 2 3 257 411 200 582 4571 690 6 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 491 11 2 1 1 3 2' 3 1 ' 0 5 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 8 0 7 1 2 1 190 7 24 2 0 1 0 0 1 290 I 5 0 12 0 14 10 13 1 1 15 2 4 3 14 2 0 11 3 1 0 11 1 4 0 3 1 4 25 0 17 2 30 2 20 19 216 = I s 0 o' 2' 4 ' 2' 1 ' 1 ' o' o' 1 ' 3' 0 o' 0 4 4 2 o' 2 1 1 2 0 12 0 10 C5 c CD CD S cc g I z if 5 CD 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1' 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 88 o' 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 35 0 0 59 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 164 3 191 0 0 3 0 0 1 7 0 0 45 0 151 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 13 4 1 2 0 62 0 1 117 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 467 153 28 357 785 o 8 z 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 _0' 1 ' 1  1 ' 2' 0 _0' 0 12 _2 1 ' _2 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 TO  \"S a\u0026gt; ? c CD  a g 184 304 319 591 386 595 487 380 284 261 455 336 520 204 303 300 500 548 478 508 420 221 345 392 __W 380 335 __1^ 553 448 720 421 324 473 366 231 50 ___19 ___19 20 20 14032 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitwing based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedO LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L. king Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Hts. Elem Race BL__ WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL O) D ra CO 67 39 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2  to (p 1 __1_ 111 47 1 0 0 0, X X X 0 y 0 0 y + 1 I 0 T 0 0 1, 0 X 0 0\" 0 T ol It + \u0026lt;0 m \"y 0 0 0 0! 153 0 43 8! 11 6 13 2 5 2 3 4  2 1 D 2 m 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 9 99 74 2 7 o u U 1 0 1 0, 12, 8 4 8 3 E UJ to o \u0026gt; o O 1 0 0 0 Q 1 i 1, 4 y IS 1 4] 1 ] 12 2 3] 0 2 1 T 6 T 2 3 2 (O cn 1 7, 3 3| 2il73 5 2 1 0 96 1 7 ly HI 11 3, 6, 24 \"y 17 147' 1 5  2! 0\ny  0 0, 0 0 y y r 0 li 0 2 2 3 2 2 + li 1 y 4 0 11 0 2 5 2 0 12 2 1 0 1 11 0 Hi 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 y 5 6 3, 1 ] 0 6 3 2 1 0, _li -Qi D S Q 0 2 1 1 2 0 8 3 1 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 to (0 0 0 3 y Hi 0 y y y y 3 5 1, 0 1 0 0, y 96 0 45 0 12i 0 y 2 0 6 i 0 Zi 2, to 0. IS  o 1 0 0 0 S 3, 2. c c (0 3 3 5 0 o' 1 0 0 3 0 0 oj 26, o| 15 1 0] 0 X 0 X 0 X X 1 5 X 1 0 4 3 19 0| X 3 y S 3 1 1 0 5 8 2 0|___5 0 y 0' 1' 0 ot 3 3 0 4 3 1 1 y 11 2 li 0 y 2 0 22 4 3 0 1 3 4! 13 0, 2^ 0 S 0 1 0 I 0 0 6 3 0 _0 11 8 29 to (0 O 0 0 4 0 3 Q. \u0026lt;/)  0 0 0 2^ 15 41 13  5 4 y 0 0 0 9\n13, 3 1^ 9 205 60] 18 0 X 7 3, 1, li 0 2 _0 4 1 + c   3 0 CT 5 s 0 0 1 3, 6 2 1 1 0 A 0 1 1,190 1 + 4+ 4 A 3, 2 0] 10 o' _4  i $ 2 6 0 2 JL 0 7 4 18 0 0 0, 0, 3 1 8 4^ 7 5 0 1' 10I 6 fj 0* v' 4! ol o' 4I \" 6 1 15, 126 1,210 \"Z 0 6, t 4 3| + 20 0^ s 2 0 6, 33 t 3! 30 y 0 0 1 y 2 f 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 0, 0! ol Jl 2- 0 3! 0 0 0, zy 0, 6 0 6: 1 -Hi 0 1 y 123 13 17 3 i 0| oj pl 4! 14 2\\ lx 5 3 0__2. 3 36 ll 2 0 14 0 5\n0 6, 0 E  UI (0  (0 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 2 4 1 0 5 0 o E Q o S 0 1 6 o I a \u0026lt;0 V 5 0 0 14 0^ 3 5 li 1___ ol 10] E q, in ~y Ol 14' 2) 12 0 3 y 3 y '2^ 0 y 0, 18| 6^ y 9, 0, 0 0 0 0 1 y 0 3 0 3 5 0, 14 0 3 0\" 0 0 0 0 1 103 0 49 4] 0 14 o' 4] 1 ] 0] X 8 X X 0] 6 -A 4  0 1 3] Xl 16 0 X X 8 1 ' 0 2 O' 5 X 0 75 1 239 0 y 2 0. 0^ 8, y 1 J o' io 17 y 2 0 0 0 1, 0 4 1 3 y 11 20 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] 0 \"y X 1 0 16 0 6 ' 0 I 9 245 1 2 0 0 'T 1 0 6 0 2 0 8 Ol 0~ o' 2~ 1 ' y y 0 0 ? 7 139 0 125 5 I 4\n-K 1 0] X 4, 3 12 ' 0] 8 1. 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 X 0, 2 2 4 2| 2 0, 0 2' 15 0 0, 3 0 5 2 18 r 109 0,186, 2 0 1 0 2 I + 0 7X' 6  0 I Ji 1' X 1 2j 5, 4' 0 6, 1 16, X 5 0 6 0 9] 9 3' 1, 1 0 11 1 X 0 5 0,  s 3 0 6 0 4 0 6 1 8 0 6 0 8 1 3 0 0 I 2 2 3  2 2 8 2 2 0 I 3 t  = V) (0 0 0 y H li 0 y  CT  0 0 3 0 1 1   1 or 4 0 4 0 2 0  c I a 5 2 + 0 134 0 113 3 0 0 ol 10' Page 1 \"y rr _5 ly 7 _5^' 4 8 3 6 y Y 0, y 2 y 0: 0 0 \"F y 0 0 pi 0 2 10 3^ 1' 0 0^ 5 5 0 5 0 y li 4 0 HI 0, 6 0~ 111 1 ' -X -X- iy  0 14 0 5  0 2' 0 6 0 3 ~y 1 iX 33 cT J Q! 2 104 1 2 2 5 + 5 7 i 18' 0, 189 6 X 0 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 2^ 17] 5 5 0 5 0 0 4 2 0 Z7 1 0 0 1, 46 -y -i- 2 X 0, 1! oi .11. 0 4 1 0, 0] 2 0 y ~y 6 -X 3y 1 Pl 6] 4] 0^ 2| 0 z? o7 11, -y y _A 3 0, 8 2 j4 ' o' 3' o' 4 ' 2' 3\" 2 6 A 0: X 7\n0 X Ol y 0 y Q 6 O' 3' 4] 1 0* i 2 I 01 y 11  2, 1 lx 5 14 3 X 1, 2 0] Qj 0. 19 5 2 1 1 3 0 14 1 C   Q.  0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0. ZS 0| 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 3 4 0 61 10 + if ~y Hi 0, 4 + I. a\u0026gt; to g 2 0 2 8 1 c tn X c 5 tn c \u0026lt;0 Vi 5 A7 5 3 o 43 (0 5 0 0 2  (Z\u0026gt; o (/\u0026gt; V gl g 0 6 ii o.i0 161 0 el 3oi y 2. 2 0 8  2 4- 4 42 2 0 y Hi -Qi 9 22 28j ij f 4 2 0 8 4 1 g \"y 0 0 0 to CT O 1 a 1 0 1 or   2r c 3 o O 42 8 u 5 w H lx 8 y y 0! 3 y y 0 2 0 t 1 2 1, y y 6 21 17 Ol 14, 0 y 0 0] 2, '0^ 0, 0 y 4 15 0 O' y 1 y 0 0 3j 0] 0, 0 11 2. 8 0 5 1 9 11 0, y  7 0 1' 0, 6 y 0 i 0 2 0 Oj___- 3| 3' 3 0, 1 4 0 1 X 0, 0] \"y 0 4, 13 S' 2 0 4 0. 15 0. 9 0 8, 0 3 x Hi 1 4 0 0 20 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 9, 1 6' 0 A 0 4] 12' 0 0^ 0 1| i^hL-H 0\nn 0 0 1 + 0 0, 1 tllL y 0, 2. 2 31 0 HI 15, y 4. 0 0 ~y- 0, 3 0, 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 2^ 1 26 5 y 3 3^ oi ZX 1 2 2 0 y 0 0 1 0 2 oj 2! 0 o z 0 0 0 0 (A \u0026lt;0 3 0. 0 0 0 3 0 c o 8 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 _0_ 0 T _o^ A _o, 0 A 0 0 3 It- X 4 X 9, 4 1 . 0 0 1 12 3 1 X 1, 3 X 2 5 9 1 1 0 0 2' 9 1 2 0 4' o' 2~ o' 0, 1' 1' y 0| 0 0, O' y 1 ] A 0 0, 0, 0] 0 1 li 42 oj 0] 0 64 1' 461100 0\n0 0 0 1 3 7 0\n51\n65] 0! 64 126 3, 0 0 1 X 0 y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 o' 0 4\n0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0, 0 0 -y 0 0] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Or. 0. 22 0 0, 0 y 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 \"o' 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 16 27, 0 1 0 0] A 7^ 4' y 1, 2 2 0 0, 3, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 2^ 0 0 1 oj 0 0! o' 1 2 0 0: 8 0 151 11 0, T 4 0 0^ T 0~ 0 0 y 0 2 1 0 0\n0 0 0^ y 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 O CT E 5 S O \u0026lt; 135 49 228 76 256 63 318 273 253 133 330 265 348 139 295 85 179 105 195 66 194 261 291 45 233 287 178 26 214 89 171 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 295 125 198 23 146 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hail Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Race WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL_ WH BL WH BL WH BL_ WH BL BL WH BL WH BL WH Parkview Kindergarten BL Grand Total Zone Schools____________ T LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E q\u0026gt; ' LU !  ai ro m 0] 01 0] 3 5 0 0 1 0, 01 0 0 11 0 y 0 2 0 1 0 0 01 1] Ol ~y 01 O' 0] 0 _u 0] 0] 41 14 m 4 Ol 0 5 9 4 10 0 0 y 2'. 1 0\n31 8] 0 0 xy 01 9 3 6] 1! Ol 2 11 0] 0] 0 0] zs Oi y T to c t/t to m ' 01 0 0 2 T 2 0 0 0] O' 0 3 5 0 IP 2 0 0 0 1 9 4 1! 0 1 8 21 0 9 4' 16 5 51 2 0 6  o 1 _o 6\no \u0026gt; D 00. 01 oj 0 2 11 (0 1 - ' Q I I/) D) .2* c O) E di tu (0 0, 10 o (0 (9 1 IP 1 o 1 ,E ' ?,! I or , H re V (S O  Ol 8 4 y 0 0 y 3 1 1 4 2 2_ 0  T 1 8 1 15] 0 2] 0\n91 14 3 0 + st 101 81 01 28] 10] 0 1 0 11 01 10' 01 0 0 0 01 0] 01 u 0] 2 s 0 1' 1 1 4 0] O' U 6, 01 4 0] 5 4] 01 11 0 1 2 4 0! p 0 y 1] 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 Jt 0 3\n5 0 QI 4 0 0 4 1 0 4 -0. 0 T 16 5, X 0 1 01 2] 01 4 0 0 4 32 0 0 y y y 0 2 2 0 0 O| 10 01 3 Ol 0] + 2 0 0 0 01 0] y 01 y y y I 2 y '\"o 01 ^T 17' 0' 0 8 0 10 31 19 X X 4 0 X 3 0 0 2 .OJ 0 61 1] 35 9 y y 0 0 0] y ZI 1 i y 1 X 2 6 1 1 ' 2 0' 0' 2 0 2 9 1 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 11 0 3 y 0 01 11 0 121 0 11 \"y 10 o y 0, Oi 0 9 14 10 0 ~y 9| 14 0 \"y Ul 0 7] 6 15] 'y 4 11 0 IT y T 2, 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1: 11 0 1 01 11 0 14 01 3' 01 4\\ 01 5] 0 y y \"y 11 0 y oi oi 0 6 y 2 0] O' It 1 y y y 3 25 1 4 0! 1 ] 0 6 41 3] 0] 2\\ 0 OT 0] 10] Ol 0 2 0 O' 0' y 0] 0 0 y y 2\\ Ji 2 0 11 + 0 1 0 0 I 135, 3691 336] 361 i 533| 375] 2761 343I 441 539] 637 i + + + 4- V) 8 _ o J3 w o or H- c i E a\u0026gt; i I  S' il ,i 11 i u \u0026lt;0 \u0026gt; o . \n, 10 0 4) 5 5 , S S 0: 7j 0^ 0!q[ p. s, s o 1 12 I I ! q\u0026gt; I 1 C ' O 2 0 1, 01 0] 0 2 Ol 2 O' 6 01 1 0] 2 01 2 0 1, y 1 0 2 01 0 01 y 1 01 y 0 0 r 0 0 0, 0 0 11 01 2 8l 0 Ol 6 3] y 6 Ol 3 9 0 Ol 3 1 2 0 4 31 Ol y 1 1 16 21 2 0 0, 2'\\ 2 y 21 01 ~y 0 \"y ~y 01 0, 01 51 0 9 9 5\nO' 4 51 0] + IT i 0, 4'^ y 5 y 4 y 11 11 y 0 7. y 0 0 3 01 3' 0 0 2 4 0 : 0. O! 159 I .5? or .S\u0026gt; o T| 0 \"iT 1' 4i 2! 3 y 61 2 1 ' 1 0 qI I 0 0! 0! 0] 01 I '  : ' I I I 312| 2711 594i 407\n397j 527| 450 + + i Page 2 n 0 5 1 3 01 0 y 2 2 4 y T\\ 4 It I  I C ' E o o: : 0 12 0 0 2 0 9 0 5 y 111 0 0 ~y y 01 0, 1 41 0 0 6 0 0 \"IT 1 0 3 y 31 y 2\\ Ol 1 0, 128 0, 2 2l 1 0 01 3' 0 01 0 1 4+ 5 101 2 17 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 4 26 31 O' y 0 y 2 y 01 \"y 8' 11 1 11 y y 0] 0 01 01 31 1 0 y 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 2 1, y y V) g .c , Q.   (n 1 UT 0 y y 1, 155 oi 22' 1 0 1 y 82\ny 6 39 01 3 ut 18 2\u0026lt; ~y 0 2 \"oT 0 21 2 1 O' 11 16 ot 3 11 30i 0 0 y y 6, 01 0' 2 $ 01 y 0 y 1 y y 0 2_ JL lot 4. a: i I 1  I I w 1 i ?i I c  o ., _ I 1 1. \"^i^'tc S  O T5 iC y iS 1 iS , S 1 r? .  ' a  ,  Z1 5! 51 51 5' 51 5y 31 Ql O' O 01 0] 4! 01 O' oj 3] 1 O 1j 0, 0 0 01 O 0 \" ''  6 1, 26 51 2 31 5\noi 1 1! li 6 1, 0, 0 0, 1! i .S I \u0026gt;5 I  ! ot 01 v\u0026gt; ra 0 1, 26 o IS oT 01 X 0, o 0 2 1 c o  ,  N O : , O z. \\ Q- 1 Z 1 y 3 1, 12 85 01 261 3! J 01 2| 112371 Oi IT 0 86\n51 1] 0 Ui 0 4 16 01 4 oi 10 3 263 0 y n 01 0 01 0 0 y 11 y ZT 4\n2 jI 0 4 5 O' 0, 0 71 4 51 3 1 \"y y 0 0 6 1 1. 18 0 0, 2 8\n6 1 0 1l 10] 1 1 2 0\n3 01 0 41 0] 0 0 1' 0 0 0] ol 1 0] 0] 0 4 0 r 4 0 0 0^ IT 0 0, 0 01 01 9I 0 OU 21 0 4__0 9, 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 2 0 0] 1 01 0 11 1 Il 27 6 235 0 60 Ji 0 r Qi 35 61! 0 2i 0 4 1j 87, 0] 103 IT  0 0 0 9 y 0 5^ 0 y 1] 11 01 0 y o' 1 oi r 2 2 y X 2 X 2 0 IT' 01 6^ 0 131 7' 51 16 0 0 0! 0, 0! 01 01 0 0 0 ot 0 0 2 Oi 0 0 0 11 0 jH 0 1] 0 8 3 01 + y 0! 01 2 3\n1] 171144 11 O' 26' 441 1 0] 0 33 73, 1 IT + 0 J. 0 1 r 1 0 21 0 2 o X 0 0 0 1! 72 01 01 ol 0 0] 57] 0: 11 36 01 1 y 31 y 01 y 1 oi 0 01 01 0'1 o 01 0\no' 0 o' 01 01 0 01 0 u u 01 I 0 y 01 y y 0 U- 0.  0 0 01 0 3\n1 0] 0 ol 0 ii 0 Ol 0 0\n0 o' 0 o' 0 01 0 2 S O 5 203 180 7 254 126 243 ___ 141 ____4 238 315 340 108 448 272 338 ___83 207 117 258 215 267 99 146\n___85 50 7 12 ____16 3 ____18 2 20 i ' ' I 1 I i ' ' I '  : I 318j 551 i 327. 320' 257^ 411 j 200i 582^ 457: 690] 491 j 290, 467' 153i 28 357\n785i 45 14032 T T 1 ,1111 I Printed February 1^4 Preoared bv the Office Of Desegregation Monitoring 1 1 1 based upon infomration supped by the UtBe Rock School District I I Unaudited iOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 22, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nI have discovered an error in a footnote that appears on one of the charts I sent you last Friday. In the section entitled Enrollment in Downtown Elementary Schools, a note under the chart on the second page states that incentive school capacities are based on a 20-to-l or less student-teacher ratio. That statement is incorrect. The capacities we actually used in our calculations are those that appear in the April 1992 LRSD Desegregation Plan, which are higher than a 20-to-l ratio. A corrected chart is enclosed. I regret any inconvenience ODM's error may have caused. Sincerely yours, -K ~Arm S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Octi Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White Franklin Incentive Garland Incentive Mitchell Incentive Rightsell Incentive Rockefeller Incentive Stephens Incentive vb Total Ince nt' Booker Magnet Carver Magnet Gibbs Magnet Sub Totnt Magnet Schools King Interdistrict Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Iniui Jis ici Schools  345 205 230 189 340 145 1,454 595 595 299 1.489 553 721 1.274 544 346 346 346 425 298 2.3ft5 656 613 353 1,622 692 939 1.631 63 59 66 55 80 49 63 91 97 85 52 80 77 78 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 116 157 85 153 61 18 54 133 139 218 357 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 7^ 749 29 1,2c? 1,102 fAn 271 140 131 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 259 N/A N/A U 90 262 352 N/A N/A 5 89 253 342 N/A N/A 0 1 9 10 130 124 6 465 206 259 102 3S2 331 406 737 88 14 198 83 115 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 156 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A 46 Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A IM 102 25 32a 317 383 700 113 46 N/A 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A 1,\u0026lt;24: 491 33 217 314 531 75 4 17 65 82 33 4 200 249 419 42 0 Contiguous Zones Grand Total N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 N/A N/A N/A 4,^ 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,0-31 117 2,503 2.29 750 NotQ: Incentive^hoolpapacMes are based on a20t0'1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18to 1 in prograrrtsforfbur-year-olds, 18to 1-in programs for three-year- olds, \\|7 tO l in programs forlwo-year-olds. and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area\nBrady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Count of Studio 3 O O O) s c 3 o O a\u0026gt; 3 O c o O 1 c 3 O o m c o O o g a 3 O o 1 a 3 O O 5 0 i c 0) I LU ? s o c 3 O O Q \"E 3 O O 3 O O a Crosstab of Downtown Name_1 Bale Map Grid 521 531 532 534 Bale Count Brady 540 591 592 593 Brady Count FairPailr 511 512 513 554 Fair Park Count Forest Par 412 413 420 553 556 Forest Park Count Franklin 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 539 571 575 3 O O s Z3 o o 3 c e c o O o\u0026gt; c  \"3 c o O o c (0 s  3 o o (A O) c as 3 3 o O w 0 o O X c o O c o I c o O cn c 5 i c \u0026lt;D E LU o ffl \u0026lt;D 8 'X' 3 E  o  o s c o O o i Q o 2 3 O O I 8 o 2 c 3 o o o 1 o o 1 o I o O I I 3 O O E Ol as X tn co 3 O O 42 o\u0026gt;  3 O O o a: c o o 0) I Cd c 3 o O (A C o 3 O O r O O c o O \u0026lt;0 s g CO 5 3 O O c o 5 c o O 42 X tS s c o O (A E .S s c 3 o O I  c 3 O O 3 I c  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 20 23 13 0 1 7 0 0 7 T 2 0 0 0 2 J 6 1 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 o 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 T 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 T 0 2 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 T o' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 3 0 0 0 2 T 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 0  0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1  0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 5 8 45 27 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 T 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 2 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 7 _0i 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 o' 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 o' 0 0 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 1 7 38 12 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 1 o 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 o' 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 o' 0 16 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 16 29 22 29 8 19 9 0 16 IT 11 13 11 0 0 4 3 0 1 7 7 1 2 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2| 2, 0 0 3 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 7 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 0 4 2 2 2 9 0 0 2 4 3 1 2 0 1 4 1 0 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 43 53 38 24 158 17 44 4 1 66 14 12 64 56 146 8 1 20 93 40 162 55 54 86 59 28 40 33 11 38 33 15 46 41 PagetCrosstab of Downtown Franklin Count Garland 581 582 584 585 586 587 Garland Count Jefferson 111 112 121 122 210 431 434 435 Jefferson Count M.L King 432 433 438 439 473 476 477 479 480 485 M L. King Count McDermot 552 561 562 McDermott Count Meadowcli 533 535 536 537 o o s CD 1 3 o O 49 3 o o c 1 o O 1 c 3 o o t 3 O O g o o o 0) o c o O I o I o I LLI 4) * o a c 3 O O XJ g a o O B c 3 O O B c o O K \u0026lt;D is 3 O O c C o o c o O e 05 C 3 to  c 3 O O to 3} c co c 3 O O co Ji a c o O \"a X c o O o 1 c 3 o O) s c o LU 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; O -8 2 T c 3 E E o O c CD C_\u0026gt; o S c 3 o o s i Q o 2 c o o 4) 2 3 o Q u s c 3 o o 1 o s C 3 o o .1 (D 3 o O O) to (0 c o o 1 a: 3 o o Q or o O 4} C i oc c o o (O c a  $5 3 o o \u0026amp; 0) 3 O O   s c 3 O O c o \u0026amp; to (0 5 c 3 o O I CD 3 O O to E I to 4) s c o O to I 3 c 3 o o I g c o O 5 s 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 o' 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 1 0 7 7 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 7 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 11 26 19 47 8 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 3 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 5 0 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 7 5 0 6 2 6 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 2 7 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 12 1 12 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' 0 7 4 2 10 18 16 8 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 25 0 4 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 4 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22 22 23 30 24 29 28 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 T 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 9 2 1 1 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 5 2 3 1 3 _3 2* 2 0 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o' 9 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 3 4 3 5 7 0 0 7 0 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 6 T 2 0 6 0 1 1 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 o' 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 19 18 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 7 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 7 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 s 539 44 57 64 77 27 43 312 22 37 11 31 89 34 34 15 273 34 42 34 47 45 51 37 34 31 52 407 68 51 61 180 35 40 54 62 Page 2Meadowcliff Count Mitchell 442 443 444 445 446 451 452 453 457 458 459 Mitchell Count Otter Cree 471 472 475 Otter Creek Count Pulaski He|660 ~ Crosstab of Downtown c o O  co 1 3 O O  2 3 O O  .E  c o o CD 3 O O 3 O O  c 3 O O 8 (D o o O  o S' I E q) LU O O c 3 o o Q c o O 9 3 O O a 3 O o 1S  c 3 O O 2 s 3 o o ,o\u0026gt; 3 O O \"c c 3 o o M 03 C c 3  5 3 O O (A .o Xi o c o O X c: 3 o O c o I 3! to 3 o o o\u0026gt; c s S' c E  LU   8 s T 3 E E o o c to a O o s c 3 o o o o o 2 c o O u I   2 o o \"5 5 c o O 1 9 s c o o 3 2 I 3 O O c ' X  o o  U) be\nc 3 O Q o a\u0026gt; o o a: o o tv c I O' 3 o u M (D a 05 c o O S' o o tv iS 5 c o O o O) V) (0 5 Z3 o o c: o  o o w 5 E (D IS (U s c 3 O O w E .2  3 O O c s g c: 3 o Q 3 5 p \"c 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulaski Heights Int Count Rightsell 448 449 450 454 455 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rightsell Count Rockerfell 232 440 456 460 461 462 463 0 0 0 1 7 0 3 Rockerfeller Count Stephens |441 572  0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 7 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 1 7 9 3 4 1 5 5 18 20 12 21 11 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1_ 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 _0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 4 10 3 11 13 15 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 54 0 1 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 1 9 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  7 0 0 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 K 0 19 0 3 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 4 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 7 33 29 29 5 14 19 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 1 5 0 17 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 T 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 T 7 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 o' 7 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 18 11 14 10 39 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 6 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3| 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 o| 0, 0 0 0 K 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0  T 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? 0 0 6 20 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 35 34 10 19 10 25 44 35 30 38 38 318 27 52 45 124 99 99 93 43 64 20 54 46 320 6 37 34 46 29 64 41 257 24 38 Page 3Crosstab of Downtown 573 574 583 Stephens Count Teny 437 438 563 Terry Count Washingto 123 124 125 126 127 220 240 301 474 478 481 482 483 484 Washington Count Woodruff |670 Woodruff Count Grand total c 3 o o  O) 1 0 3 O O O) 0 0 3 O O I 0 0 c o o 1 0 0 3 O O I 0 2 3 O O o s o 0 0 3 O 2 c g 0 1 3 8 0 o' 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 I o E Q\u0026gt; UI  S 0 0 1 0 0 4 o o Q 0 1 c o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3 o o Io o 2 3 0 0 0 1 c 3 O O i 0 0 5 1 1 3 c 3 O O 3 e 0 1 0 4 c 3 O O .O) c 3 o a o c 0 1 0 3 0 4 (0 I 0 5 4 E 3 O o u\u0026gt; at c C \u0026lt;8\" is 1 0 0 0 S' 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o o ta g 1 0 1 E o U TB X 0 0 0 c 3 o o I 3 0 3 c 3 O O O) g 0 0 4 c a\u0026gt; I LU \u0026gt; 8 s 0 0 o' T c 3 E g o c (0 5 o 2 0 0 0 3 O O s i o 2 0 1 o o I s 0 4 0 o \"5 s 0 0 1 c 3 O O 1 d I 0 0 0 c 3 O O I I o O I 3 1 4 0 1_ 'o 4 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0  0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 3 o o 1 0 0 0 3 O O 1^ 'o 0 0 3 o o o c I tr 0 0 0 3 O O (A 0} \u0026amp; ii 28 17 c 3 o o r 2  5 c o o  s 0 0 2 c 3 O O I c 8 s 0 2 1 c 3 o Q I s 0 0 0 c 3 O O J2 if c s 0 5 0 c o O (/\u0026gt; i g 1 0 1 o o 1 S 0 o 1 c 3 o O 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 3  0 1 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 2 2 6 0 18 10 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 8 4 2 1 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 12 8 5 6 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 3 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 o' 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 4 0 2 1 0 0 J 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 2 0 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 T 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 1 3 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 jL 'o 0 0  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 12 11 1 8 7 41 4 1 5 16 42 49 44 27 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 0 9 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 71 67 153 37 130 116 130 45 71 22 55 8 160 172 281 57 187 59 106 4 189 354 32 5 169 192 191 83 5 166 166 238 22 133 102 50 405 12 54 55 53 156 3 p o 5 23 56 59 200 45 34 59 138 40 56 29 52 21 123 37 9 21 38 68 79 76 41 690 112 112 4692 Page 4Live Downtown and Attend Downtown Sending Schools Count of Studio Ethnic 01 Name_1 I Bale Brady I Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M.L. King McDermot Meadowcli Mitchell Otter Cree Pulaski He Rightsell Rockerfell Teny Washingto Woodniff Name Booker Carver Central Attending Schools Franklin Gariand Gibbs 01 Count 02 Bale Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M.L. King McDemnot Meadowcli Mitchell Otter Cree Pulaski He Rightsell 2 o' 1' o' 3' o' 2' o' o' o' 1' o' 0 0 2 0 2 0 13 6 2 3 2 7 0 14 14 0 6 6 2 1 \"8 1 o' o' o' o' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' 0 2 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 3 2 4 2 35 6 4 3 6 2 2 4 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 11 3 o^ 3 2 3' 2' o' 2 o' o' o' 3' 2 o' o' 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 1 3 1 190 7 0 3 4 13 5 5 0 3 0 0 o' 0 o' 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 0 6 123 1 0 4 6 1 2 0 1 1 o' o' 0 3' 0 1 o' 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 3 14 1 0 1 1 4 4 5 16 0 2 9 2 2 30 M L. King o' 0 o' _______1_' o' 1 o' 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 3 0 0 4 6 4 9 245 1 1 11 13 0 4 Mitchell 0 0 o' 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 3 3 2 1 3 6 6 5 3 2 104 1 8 Rightsell o' 0 _______o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 7 5 1 6 1 0 128 Rockerfell 0 o' 0 3 3 _______o' 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 5 6 39 3 0 1 3 0 1 32 2 0 1 _______7 4 1 5 Stephens 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 10 19 0 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 Washingto 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 1 20 2 6 0 4 3 7 25 6 3 4 4 3 4 26 Woodruff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 31 39 0 1 0 18 10 5 2 1 4 6 5 0 5 4 Grand total 9 3 8 5 ________13 2 11 10 6 2 6 1 5 9 25 1 14 43 173 34 19 16 38 248 180 134 307 34 47 178 54 16 221 Page 1Ethnic Name_1 Rockerfell Stephens Terry Washingto Woodruff Booker Carver Central Live Downtown and Attend Downtown Franklin Garland Gibbs 02 Count 03 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rockerfell Washingto Woodruff 03 Count 04 Brady Franklin Pulaski He Rockerfell Terry 04 Count 06 Forest Par Franklin Jefferson Mitchell Stephens Woodnjff 06 Count Grand total 6 0 5 30 4 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 3 0 4' 42 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 6 3 1' 8 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 45 4 3 5 9 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 0 3 0 169 4 12 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 3 2 1 4 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 M L. King 2 5 0 9 0 _____ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mitchell w 2 1 0 9 0 176 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 r 0 0 3 191 Rightsell 3 0 0 3 0 _____1^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 165 Rockerfell I 101  o 4' 26 1  192 _______o _______o o 2 o 2 4 o 1' o' o' o' 1 ' 0 0 1' 0 1' o' 2 238 Stephens 0 82 0 5 4 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 Washingto 18 3 1 263 0 382 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 Woodnjff 3 5 4 1 38 112 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 155 Grand total 155 113 ________25 412 48 2279 5 12 1 2 2 3 25 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 1 2 1 1 9 2493 Page 2Couit of Studio Name I Live Downtown but Attend Outside Downtown T Ethnic 01 Name_1 Bde Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Gadand Jefferson M L. King McDermott Meadowdi Mitchell PiJaski He Riflhtsell Rockerfell Washi ngto WooOuff 01 Count 02 as I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 02 Count 03 03 Cant 04 04 Cant Bale Brady Fair Park Forest Par Franklin Garland Jefferson M L King McOennofl Meadowcli Mitchelt Otter Cree Pulaski He RockerM Stephens Terry Washnglo Woortuff Bale Fair Park MikheM PUaskiHe Bale McOermott 06FairPar 06 Count Grand total Meedowcfi Weshingto 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 26 o' o' o' 4' o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ' 0 31 41 1 3 5 22 4 0 1 6 12 6 3 1 3 4 1 2 I 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 1' 0 0 0 1' 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 2 I 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 30 2 3 13 4 3 5 4 ' 5' 8 0 3 3 4 9' 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 5 3 1 10 0 1 A A o' 6' 4 2 5 I Cu TB 1 o o' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 o 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 4 A 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0| 0 4 2 5 3 IS s n 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 1  0 0 0 5 0 1 0 i I X c 5 3j 1 4 3* 3 6 1 0 47 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 3 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 153 16 2 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 2 1 22. 1 1091 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 71 6 o 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 1 o' 3 o' 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 75 8  13 6 2 7 12 4 3 0 0 1 0 8 1 4 0 147 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 160 1 o' 0 o' o' 1' o' o' o' s' 2' 3' o' 55' 18  6  14' 4 8 3 10 3' 0 4 7 5 4 15 2 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 0 o' 0 0 1  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 15 1 1 1 4 4 5 0 1 2 o' 2 7 8 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 s 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' 1' o' o' o' o' 1' o' 2' o' o' 1' o' s' 1  2' 7' 6' 1 4 2 0 6 6 0 0 12 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 TB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 g {H o 5 a\u0026gt; 0 0 2 o' o' o' 2' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 20 14 69 6 2 2 s 3 $3 S X3 I 3 S s 1 as 7 6 0 3: 13 1  15' 4' 20 2 185 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 0 ' 0\" o' 0 ' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' o' 0 ' o' 0 o' o' o' 3' 2 o' 1  7' o' 2 5 2 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 0 o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 o' o' 0 1  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 o' 0 o' 2' o' o' o' 2 o' o' o' o' o' o' o' 4 4 o' 1 ' 6 33 8 o' 0 62 4 15 0 1 3 4 11 3 4 1 160 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 169 0 0 o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 3 30 18 1 3 o' 70 14 7 0 11 3 7 3 12 1 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 I 0 0 o' o' 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 IS 0 0 7 39 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 I o' o' o' o' 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 2 14 2 0 2 7 18 1 12 6 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 5 0 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 12 1*. 10' 4 s' 1 ' 43' s' 3' 1 ' 9' 14 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 0 3 6 6 12 25 4 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 166 3aag I 102 o I 0 o' o' o' o' o' o' 0' o' o' 2' o' o' o' o' o' 2 o' 1  2' 4' 1  1' 3' 2 o' 5 0 2 0 6 3 2 0 16 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 so I il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 11 14 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 2 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 I s 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o' o' 1 o' s' 6' o' 2 2 12 3 0 2 3' 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 4 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 11 4 0 1 5 2 9 0 0 1 3 1 1 11 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 a s 1 28 3 10 8 10 1 __2 1 4 3 3 13 3 2 8 2 101 82 40 109 109 260 117 125 89 134 136 127 69 62 87 72 86 76 253 15 2048 3 2 1 1 7 2 2 4 1 3 1 5 2165Count of Studio Ethnic 01 Name_1 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Gatland Gibbs 01 Count 02 Dodd Fair Park Forest Par Fullbright Geyer Spri Jefferson Legal Tran Mablevale McDermot Meadowci i North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Wakefield Watson Western H Wilson Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 2 4' 4' 8' 8' 9' 3' 8' 2 8 2 2 1 4 5 2 43 0 99 2 1 9 8 2 2 8 246 4 2 11 0 4 1 8 0 1' 1' ?' 3' 6' o' 3 o' 7' 1' o' o' o' 4' 4 63 0 123 2 1 20 1 0 0 4 251 1 4 2 1 1 5 0 o' o' o' 0 o' 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' 1' 2 1' o' 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 1 23 0 2 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 o' 0 o' o' 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 '? 0 1 0 0 0 s' o' 4' 1 o' 0 8 3 6 2 5 0 0 2 0 15 0 26 14 0 2 2 1 1 9 106 1 5 2 2 3 5 1 M.L. King o' 1' _______ 1 2 3 0 2 6 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 150 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 183 0 0 2 0  J 4 1 Mitchell 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 Rightsell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Rockerfell 5' 9 7 1' 4' 2 1' 1 2 3 2 1 6 0 6 3 4 1 9 4 0 2 3 0 1 1 1% 3 2 2 0 8 4 2 Stephens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingto 0 5 4 12 8 8 2 12 2 11 1 3 0 6 15 3 35 4 61 3 0 7 4 3 1 27 237 1 ? 0 3 4 10 2 Woodruff 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand total 7 28 17 38 29 29 11 43 17 39 8 14 15 10 33 18 167 7 475 38 4 43 20 7 6 53 1176 13 20 24 7 34 35 24 Page 1Count of Studio Ethnic Name_1 I Fair Park Forest Par Fullbright Geyer Spri Jefferson Legal Tran Mablevale McDennot Meadowcli North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Teny Wakefield Watson Western H Wilson Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Garland Gibbs 02 Count 03 Bale Brady Cloverdale Fair Park Fullbright McDermot Pulaski Co Wakefield Wilson 03 Count 04 Bale Brady Fair Park Fullbri^t 1 1  11' 4' o' 1 2 o' 4 42 6 64' 0 6 1' 6 8 4 4 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 o' 13' 3' 1' o' 5' 2 2' 51' o' 65' 0 10 1' 4 12 3 9 204 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 o' o' o' 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 3' 3' o' o' 0 o' 3' 0 o' 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 o' o' o' o' o' 0 2' o' o' 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 a 0 3' 3' 3 o' o' 0 0 1 22 1' 18 0 2 0 5 0 4 2 83 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 M.L. King o' o' l' _______o' 0 0 o' 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0  0 ' 0 Mitchell 0 o' 2 1' 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rightsell 0 0 _______0 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockerfell 0 0 7 4 0 1 2 0 3 3 1 4 1 3 2 1 5 0 3 61 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Stephens 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 _______0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washingto _______3 1 9 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 2 3 5 1 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Woodruff 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand total 4 5 56 28 ________1 6 12 8 14 118 14 152 5 32 8 20 40 15 28 723 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 14 1 1 1 2 Page 2Count of Studio Ethnic Name_1 Jefferson Mablevale McDermot North LittI Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Western H Wilson Name Booker Carver Central Live Outside Downtown but Attend Downtown Franklin Gariand Gibbs 04 Count 05 Cloverdale McDermot 05 Count 06 Brady Cloverdale Fair Park Fullbright Meadowcli North LittI Otter Cree Pulaski Co Pulaski He Romine Terry Watson 06 Count Grand total 1 0 o' 1' 1' o' 0 1' 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 457 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 463 0 o' o' 0 o' 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"o 0 4 0 o' o' o' 0 0 o' 0 1' 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 54 0 o' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"o' 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 198 M.L. King 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 0 1 205 Mitchell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 28 Rightsell 0 0 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Rockerfell 0 0 0 0 _______0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 Stephens 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Washingto 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? 6 313 Woodruff 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Grand total 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 23 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 21 1959 Pages\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)\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":98,"next_page":99,"prev_page":97,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1164,"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}}]}}