Inserted legal documents include order to review progress of Little Rock School District's 1994-1995 budget development process, and notice of filings for exhibits 1-15 for hearings scheduled June 28-29, 1994 The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COURT SUBMISSION JUNE 20, 1994 LITTLE ROCK ScHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT June 20, 1994 JUN 2 0 1994 - -3:,.P Office of Desegregation Moniioring TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~am~t { SUBJECT: Court Submission - June 20, 1994 Provided for your review is a copy of the District's June 20, 1994, Court submission. The following revisions have been made to the appropriate revenue and expenditure line items to reflect the strategies under consideration at this time: 1. $2,000,000 reduction to the proposed draw down on settlement loan. 2. $158,776 additional deducted from salaries and benefits for projected savings on 144 participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. 3. $300,000 deducted from salaries and benefits for the proposed reduction to substitute expenditures. Also included are five-year revenue and expenditure projections, business cases addressing specific changes and other requested informational items. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description Page No. Exhibit 1 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 3) 1- 13 Exhibit 2 Budget Revisions Since May 18, 1994 Submission 14 Exhibit 3 Status of Budget-Balancing Measures 15- 16 Exhibit 4 Status of Negotiations/Reduction In Force 17- 18 Exhibit 5 New Budget-Balancing Measures 19 Exhibit 6 1994-00 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 2) 20- 27 Exhibit 7 Business Cases 28- 42 Exhibit 8 Budgeting Management Timeline Update 43- 50 ' Exhibit 9 Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections 51- 80 Exhibit 10 Needs Assessment Report (1993-94) 81-103 Exhibit 11 Program Inventory Report, FY 93-94 104-113 Exhibit 12 Desegregation and Non-Desegregation Related Programs 114 Exhibit 13 Board Review of Tentative Budget 115-117 , Exhibit 14 Incentive School Program Modifications 118 Exhibit 15 Progress Toward Completion of Task Numbers 5 and 6 of the May 31, 1994, Management Tool 119-120 Exhibit ,:r ----- ''"'"'''''''''. ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 31,899,357 38,196,979 39,701,855 39,625,387 38,600,327 (1,025,060) 40% PULLBACK 20,601,593 21,081,833 22,220,949 22,011,928 21,420,949 (590,979) DELINQUENT TAXES 3,214,974 4,250,186 4,293,380 5,666,289 4,802,692 (863,597) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 118,998 140,858 145,690 146,379 140,000 (6,379) DEPOSITORY INTEREST 317,646 241,476 360,734 313,341 300,000 (13,341) REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 120,412 224,667 245,162 182,353 180,000 (2,353) MISC. AND RENTS 317,978 406,878 574,918 250,000 345,892 95,892 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 141,376 354,446 208,519 319,042 322,232 3,190 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 91,322 100,857 87,005 74,416 87,005 12,589 { -:- ...:::Jt/::. : ?dti~Jt ji:r\ni~r ?}~?t~t r: ..... :-: --.- -:-:-:-.-.-.. :.:-: --.. - : -:~- :-==:-----.. -=:\:J ?: n :-:-: :t:5:~f:< ::::_::= =~{: ::=::::::::::::}~:==fit ~j~~ REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT -, /\. --"'' _,,,: 'i:/'"'":"'"'""t::''c" "'\ _ 73,971 16,232 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 28,585 95,588 613,166 73,419 73,428 73,210 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 9,385 129,428 394,675 1 25,275,221 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 17,749 25,594,035 8,094,112 0 0 1,341,887 1,339,549 240,873 3,540 3,663,681 505,260 2,720,581 792,081 40,866 40,000 171,006 1,250,000 0 500,000 73,419 18,000 26,778,326 6,042,591 1,000,000 0 1,200,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,540 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 792,081 38,000 500,000 400,000 209 251 1,184,291 (2,051,521) 1,000,000 -it 0 (141,887) 4,950 (6,881) 0 36,319 75,175 379,419 0 (2,000) (750,000) (100,000) I : .., .. l I/"''' i_::, . . .' !\l .. i''''''' ,.. ... I ...... ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 2,886,618 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,311,404 4,406,404 95,000 CHAPTER II 227,900 224,423 215,020 122,666 122,666 0 TITLE VI B 468,964 558,810 589,011 624,024 624,024 0 OTHER 974,090 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091 ,051 1,400,000 308,949 ..: .... ,.. ,,,,_.,,, ...................... ,.,.. .. :- -:..:-:-.-.-.'.=:-:.:.: :m , , tt\,,,, .. :ii ,. .. ... .. , ..... ,.. ,,., ...... ,. ,.. ., .,.. .. ,., ... .,. ,.,,, -... ... 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,952,534 397,864 :~=~--!!!=== EXPENSES SALARIES 65,192,947 73,191 ,213 71,912,128 75,925,133 73,396,806 (2,528,327) BENEFITS 8,032,967 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,300,055 10,475,737 1,175,682 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,735,854 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,683,431 22,149,419 465,988 DEBT SERVICE 6,646,769 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,533,631 (316,492) CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR 714,896 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES \ EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS ~ EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 4,190,920 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,035,052 6,547,138 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,952,534 (487,914) 397,864 -............. .-,--.-,:.--.,~---.::: .... ,.- r:: 111 :: ii~~i ii ~:~1~~M~1 : jai~t~mt5Pt 1at~t~ : ~lit~o.ss.~: ::~~~~16i INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 1,777,714 1,394,9TT (1 ,878,956) (3,545,656) (1 ,666,700) 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 (885,907) 634,844 2,321 ,867 4,985,188 3,992,139 (993,049) 643,181 964,951 79,044 85,000 5,956 2,321,867 3,395,074 3,992,139 440,5?7 (3,551,612) f Z'965~048 : 4i'360l025 (4i071~1S3 }525(527} (3 54St'656 2 FUNCTION SALARIES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0115 CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0121 MAINTENANCE 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0130 SUBSTTTUTE TEACHERS-SHORT 0140 SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SALARIES TOTAL BENEFITS w 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE 0250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0290 OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL PURCHASED SERVICES 0310 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL 0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES 0312 INSTRUCTIONAL PROO IMPROV 0313 PUPIL SERVICES 0314 STAFF SERVICES 0318 BOARD OF ED SERVICES 0319 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1992/93 $52,899,585.23 $5,386.52 $326,649.66 $15,668,717.99 $1,167,691 .67 $69,487.74 $1,363,632.01 $410,9TT.09 $71,912,127.91 $5,497,924.65 $7,755.35 $166,240.10 $3,985,992.66 $192,426.52 $57,835.84 $9,908,175.12 $295,885.37 $18,610.84 $768,382.37 $279,291.40 $61.60 $595,179.47 $64,266.08 Budget 1993/94 $57,841,367.85 $0.00 $305,885.31 $14,962,781 .62 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $1,226,321.00 $416,844.45 $75,890,145.51 $5,381,489.39 $6,882.48 $147,104.28 $3,467,184.64 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $9,257,660.78 $626,800.00 $21,015.00 $741,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $752,500.00 $75,100.00 Budget 1994/95 $54,186,760.79 $0.00 $291,797.11 $16,247,301.12 $1,089,626.75 $60,000.00 $1,121,320.00 $400,000.00 $73,396,805. n $5,462,459.03 $0.00 $155,000.00 $3,788,278.00 $200,000.00 $870,000.00 $10,475,737.03 $737,480.00 $11,115.83 $631,371.00 $54,752.00 $0.00 $1,172,000.00 $59,300.00 FTE 1994/95 1542 0 0 1298 50 0 0 1 2891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL $581,209.n $826,700.00 $725,500.00 0 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC $2,232,084.12 $2,879,165.00 $2,824,615.00 0 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ $149,273.82 $209,950.00 $189,200.00 0 0324 CLEANING SERVICES $207,407.65 $400,000.00 $250,000.46 0 0325 REPAIRS-BUILDINGS $259,257.67 $200,300.00 $330,700.00 0 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT $531,707.94 $505,785.09 $646,911 .00 0 0327 RENTAL OF LAND & BUILDING $135,447.85 $135,700.00 $142,012.00 0 0328 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT & VEH $12,944.93 $15,050.00 $21,502.00 0 0329 OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES $18,924.55 $128,650.00 $67,000.00 0 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $645,404.74 $628,067.30 $350,820.00 0 0332 TRAVEL-PAYROLL $1,286.44 $24,160.00 $0.00 0 0333 TRAVEL $112,709.23 $60,843.63 $124,676.18 0 0339 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERV $1,258.82 $0.00 $0.00 0 0341 TELEPHONE $338,295.60 $386,500.00 $406,000.00 0 0342 POSTAGE $91,2TT.58 $104,016.20 $88,717.06 0 0350 ADVERTISING $21,046.31 $18,006.00 $16,300.00 0 0360 PRINTING & BINDING-INTERN $91,146.74 $151,142.39 $170,721.02 0 0361 PRINTING AND BINDING-EXTE $116,235.20 $153,645.50 $126,169.54 0 0362 FREE PRINTED ITEMS $404.24 $515.00 $0.00 0 0365 COPIER LEASE $362,507.86 $503,000.00 $530,000.00 0 0370 TUmON $1,292,991.82 $1,195,000.00 $1,440,621 .16 0 0380 FOOD SERVICES $144,413.73 $178,062.69 $105,027.00 0 0390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES $165,837.05 $59,380.00 $162,500.00 0 PURCHASED SERVICES TOTAL $9,534,750.79 $11,034,850.80 $11,385,011.25 0 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0409 SUPPLIES ($64,411.96) $0.00 $0.00 0 0410 SUPPLIES $1,180,159.22 $1,041,625.83 $1,311,499.11 0 0411 SUPPLIES - SP TRACKING $870,780.43 $784,000.00 $764,642.13 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN $17,966.31 $32,157.04 $13,378.00 0 0413 SOFlWARE $31,128.18 $33,405.00 $100,050.60 0 0414 SUPPLIES $1,098.52 $2,000.00 $136,660.00 0 0415 TEST MATERIALS $39,900.00 $53,000.00 $42,000.00 0 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER $479,578.46 $466,941.10 $455,969.70 0 0417 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER $1,075.62 $2,044.55 $353.00 0 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES $0.00 $714,896.22 $0.00 0 0420 TEXTBOOKS $0.00 $862,542.00 $817,000.00 0 0421 TEXTBOOKS-LOCAL SOURCES $167,488.65 $362,420.00 $407,338.28 0 0430 LIBRARY BOOKS $0.00 $1,120.80 $375.00 0 0440 PERIODICALS $22,988.87 $26,498.35 $23,180.00 0 0450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS $3,898.09 $2,150.40 $6,515.00 0 0451 AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS $24,869.01 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 0 u, 0481 PLUMBING $18.54 $0.00 $500.00 0 0482 CARPENTRY $486.02 $0.00 $500.00 0 0483 ELECTRIC $708.32 $0.00 $15,500.00 0 0485 AIR COND/HEAT $172.70 $0.00 $5,000.00 0 0486 BOILERS/SM ENGINES $15,453.14 $15,000.00 $10,100.00 0 0488 PAINTING $282.25 $0.00 $200.00 0 0489 ROOFING $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0 0490 OTHER SUPPLIES $17,943.27 $10,300.00 $18,000.00 0 0491 UNIFORMS & SUPPLIES $79,376.33 $80,974.40 $85,967.85 0 0492 STADIUM OPERATIONS $82,828.00 $71,275.80 $64,540.00 0 0494 GAME RELATED EXPENSES $0.00 $2,224.80 $0.00 0 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TOTAL $2,973,787.97 $4,594,576.29 $4,299,768.67 0 CAPTIAL OUTLAY 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER $654,966.90 $600,575.24 $671,824.19 0 0541 EQUIPMENT PER PROP SP TRA $6,461.34 $10,000.00 $10,250.00 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .. Actual Budget Budget FTE FUNCTION 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0542 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0 0543 EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) $67,025.70 $60,000.00 $69,106.94 0 0545 EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE $1,546,013.55 $926,742.00 $1,253,100.40 0 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER $61,031.26 $52,093.00 $21,351.00 0 0551 VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE $618,895.35 $0.00 $0.00 0 CAPTIAL OUTLAY TOTAL $2,954,394.10 $1,649,410.24 $2,025,832.53 0 OTHER OBJECTS 0610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL $4,951,180.35 $4,074,616.00 $4,063,012.00 0 0620 INTEREST $4,597,390.58 $4,785,507.40 $4,462,619.00 0 0630 DUES&FEES $52,817.64 $58,539.50 $42,806.45 0 0635 DUES & FEES - NCA $15,023.01 $17,000.00 $19,000.00 0 0640 INSURANCE $920,983.15 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0 0642 LIABILITY INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0 0649 OTHER INSURANCE $52,791.12 $54,TT5.00 $54,000.00 0 0660 IMPROVEMENT TAX $14,769.85 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 0 0690 OTHER EXPENSES $3,567,012.06 $5,148,290.00 $4,914,000.00 0 OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL $14,171,967.76 $14,553,727.90 $13,972,437.45 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL ,,,, ,,., $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 $115,555,592.70 2891 Function Description 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROORAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1125 ELEMENTARY MAGNET 1127 SPECIAL 1Y PROO RAMS 1129 SPECIAL 1Y PROORAM 1130 MIDDLE\JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1132 JUNIOR HIGH 1135 JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET 1137 JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 1145 HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET 1151 BOYS ATiiLETICS 1152 GIRLS ATiiLETICS 1154 FOOTBALL/MINOR SPORTS 1155 VOLLEYBALL 1156 BASKETBALL 1157 TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF & SWIMM 1158 BASEBALL 1190 OTiiER REGULAR 1193 TRAVELING TEACHERS 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROORAM 1199 SUBSTJTIJTES-INSTRUCTION 1210 mNERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1240 HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL 1290 OTHER 1292 EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI 1321 MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP 1331 BUSINESS ED COOP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $1,195,358.85 $1,746,831.33 $3, 121,214.45 $3,261,957.67 $19,905,274.36 $20,414,196.37 $0.00 $956,385.00 $146,003.86 $196,675.45 $24,406.82 $0.00 $0.00 $86,475.45 $8,267,275.44 $8,870,100.00 $5,540.42 $26,480.41 $132,143.30 $453,430.57 $535,179.49 $539,265.87 $7,823,764.65 $8,651,142.90 $265,987.68 $104,648.26 $39,661.58 $44,506.65 $25,254.43 $9,798.71 $48,990.82 $49,680.00 $6,393.73 $7,416.00 $42,832.09 $45,880.20 $13,487.01 $11,354.40 $7,440.07 $10,800.00 $20,238.80 $17,936.19 $19,897.81 $15,000.00 $2,121,435.04 $1,300,017.05 $1,438,180.85 $1,434,535.20 $1,004,570.16 $1,123,449.98 $2,088,460.12 $2,229,816.67 $1,321,771.13 $1,321,770.46 $215,503.17 $319,407.51 $1,308,911.09 $1,246,285.43 $4,123.47 $5,705.28 $228,230. 75 $206,250.75 $195,778.88 $201,039.34 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $2,009,758.23 80 $3,269,209.33 93 $18,772,912.58 725 $889,073.86 5 $212,689.64 4 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $8,233,002.21 210 $24,359.35 1 $106,442.18 0 $576,992.68 19 $7,377,300.48 153 $79,954.07 0 $39,459.05 0 $12,580.00 0 $49,680.00 0 $5,793.00 0 $44,545.80 0 $12,400.00 0 $9,000.00 0 $20,790.97 0 $15,000.00 0 $1,588,755.78 74 $1,637,700.00 0 $1,169,835.49 33 $2,302,743.57 62 $1,148,951.07 4 $583,478.49 17 $1,192,896.90 5 $0.00 0 $209,433.82 4 $203,839.38 4 Function Description 1332 BUSINESS ED EXPL 1333 BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR 1341 HEALTH COOP 1351 TRADE & IND-COOP 1352 TRADE & IND-EXPL 1353 TRADE & IND-SKILL TR 1354 YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP 1360 HOME ECONOMICS 1362 CONS/HMKG 1371 CAREER ORIENTATION 1392 COORD CAREER-COOP 1410 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION 1420 ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION co 1430 ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1440 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1445 WORKPLACE LITERACY 1490 OTHER ADULT EDUCATION 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 1560 READING 1570 MATHEMATICS 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2111 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2112 ATTENDANCE SERVICE 2113 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 2114 PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2121 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2122 COUNSELING SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING SER urn.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $567,909.51 $647,155.07 $1,029,262.40 $1,001,393.89 $71,936.86 $30,058.48 $195,305.05 $202,903.96 $582,238.42 $552,265.88 $992,355.65 $919,838.00 $23,257.92 $115,764.01 $3,035.70 $0.00 $614,847.68 $727,503.40 $256, 111.14 $247,878.64 $205,769.71 $213,754.13 $437,414.74 $424,133.49 $331,299.86 $326,524.45 $0.00 $1,888.48 $0.00 $953.04 $16,895.83 $0.00 $13,933.79 $0.00 $220,694.23 $241,274.50 $27,887.91 $26,670.67 $8,814.04 $9,807.48 $233,266.90 $352,294.55 $869,433.11 $1,096,530.84 $813,857.18 $1,108,379.67 ($16.00) $4,758.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,287.10 $16,809.66 $119,044.71 $2,542,749.16 $2,798,345.63 $2,684.06 $8,563.51 $66,678.53 $38,551.19 $811,380.61 $765,214.52 $181,256.55 $195,928.86 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $565,530.39 14 $994,887.88 22 $48,226.13 1 $162,269.05 3 $592,290.09 13 $928,161.33 19 $2,600.00 2 $0.00 0 $722,980. 79 18 $251,165.13 6 $216,729.09 4 $438,888.00 13 $359,004.99 11 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $272,927.30 23 $29,135.65 0 $116,508.30 5 $320,000.00 0 $914,257.86 13 $1,327,240.17 33 $0.00 0 $25,115.41 1 $23,774.09 2 $103,381.36 4 $3,015,075.14 74 $9,159.78 0 $39,459.11 0 $733,994.05 28 $155,925.07 4 Function Description 2211 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2212 INSTRUCTION AND CURR DEV 2213 INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAIN 2215 INST STAFF TRAINING - TES 2216 INST STAFF TRAINING - PET 2217 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 2219 OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF INST 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2223 AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES 2229 OTHER EDUCATIONAL MEDIAS 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 2314 ELECTION SERVICES 2315 LEGAL SERVICES 2317 AUDIT SERVICES 2319 OTHER BOARD OF EDUCATION 2321 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND 2326 DESEGREGATION 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2490 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES 2510 DIRECTION OF BUSINESS SUP 2521 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2525 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SERV 2529 OTHER FISCAL ACCOUNTING S 2539 OTHER FACILmES ACQ & CO 2541 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2543 UPKEEP OF GROUNDS 2544 UPKEEP OF EQUIPMENT 2545 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 2546 SECURITY SERVICES 2548 ASBESTOS PROGRAM 2551 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION LITTl..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $808,955.03 $830,928.73 $2,579,824.46 $2,044,017.31 $0.00 $10,713.11 $0.00 $16,070.13 $0.00 $32,139.33 $756.00 $10,713.11 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $2,615,589.49 $2,348,444. 72 $34,043.16 $31,927.05 $76,000.00 $86,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.25 $20,000.00 $467,398.72 $350,000.00 $38,242.50 $35,000.00 $279,740.50 $305,851.08 $232,171.98 $200,221.49 $429,738.70 $433,102.41 $6,093,823.40 $6,176,083.63 $21,541.79 $9,120.69 $63,697.30 $87,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $3,360.50 $0.00 $208,269.23 $239,986.48 $275,n6.67 $222,728.53 $8,176,780.17 $9,328,862.83 $11,749.67 $12,831.91 $16,043.09 $17,500.00 $56,031 .80 $57,206.94 $2,957.29 $0.00 $79,391.19 $68,903.30 $7,031.70 $19,790.05 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $510,398.58 10 $2,418,740.38 52 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $162,670.14 7 $2,388,611 .23 70 $34,408.42 2 $76,000.00 0 $445,000.00 0 $30,000.00 0 $1,560,000.00 0 $42,000.00 0 $48,000.00 0 $507,292.06 8 $506,601.32 14 $6,261,359.45 176 $9,121 .00 0 $32,000.00 0 $68,805.16 1 $352,300.26 11 $0.00 0 $285,928.18 6 $239,969.89 9 $9,109,227.13 246 $14,500.00 0 $14,000.00 0 $80,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $70,335.08 2 $17,600.00 0 ...... 0 Function 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2585 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3100 3500 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Description VEHICLE OPERATION MONITORING VEHICLE SERVICING PURCHASING SERVICES WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTIN PRINTING, PUB, & DUPLICAT SAFETY-DRUG TESTING SAFETY & SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU DIR OF CENTRAL SUPPORT SE EVALUATION SERVICES INTERNAL INFORMATION SERV RECRUITMENT & PLACEMENTS OTHER STAFF SERVICES OPERATIONS DIRECTION OF COMMUNITY SE CUSTODY & CARE OF CHILD INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION NF OTHER NON-PROGRAMMED CHAR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTJNGENCI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $3,443,249.84 $3,445,367.55 $327,629.42 $319,159.16 $2,731,640.87 $1,920,281.72 $897,242.75 $1,041,357.74 $47,038.80 $54,936.16 $106,264.92 $125,403.74 $11,897.80 $14,937.36 $804,094.93 $854,143.84 $1,063,284.28 $450,000.00 $89,803.91 $169,500.00 $149,406.41 $174,848.03 $437,888.51 $562,905.71 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $305,827.59 $418,997.31 $88,999.58 $0.00 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419.74 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $0.00 $87,TTO.OO $229,653.19 $249,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,046.80 $0.00 $0.00 $530,400.00 $3,586,103.53 $3,915,500.00 $9,554,534.76 $8,870,123.40 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $3,804,404.87 335 $318,433.25 11 $1,944,818.80 11 $1,541,798.43 15 $15,750.00 1 $102,000.00 0 $14,937.36 0 $819,658.99 40 $450,000.00 0 $144,338.91 0 $285,295.58 3 $426,918.80 12 $170,286.74 4 $341,547.93 13 $104,148.49 2 $1,600,699.76 14 $170,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $331,178.89 10 $100.00 0 $29,512.50 2 $0.00 0 $3,954,000.00 0 $8,533,631.00 0 $1,000,000.00 0 $115,555,592.70 2891 Oper Unit 0001 0002 0004 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0040 0041 0042 0044 0045 0046 0047 0048 0049 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 ,,. $5,150,156.38 $5,482,019.57 $5,433,920.98 $3,463,516.16 $3,531,245.81 $3,434,332.26 $1,634,746.23 $1,841,626.46 $1,730,808.54 $2,233,736.11 $2,506,231.99 $2,488,729.18 $2,953,828.81 $3,160,324.07 $3,194,255.44 $2,365,925.57 $2,635,027.70 $2,605,803.15 $2,484,029.31 $2,606,779.41 $2,572,801.15 $2,299,448.03 $2,359,534.68 $2,204,249.19 $3,631,285.93 $3,617,138.43 $3,743,294.18 $2,836,387.32 $3,284,532.48 $3,177,483.20 $390,402.10 $519,004.74 $443,791.53 $2,162,862.55 $2,292,761.64 $2,539,284.60 $2,047,442.02 $2,340,123.21 $2,198,472.77 $1,040,097.06 $1,158,843.33 $1,115,402.97 $1,009,510.96 $1,090,136.40 $1,164,490.16 $724,769.38 $737,551.85 $732,700.14 $1,291,407.88 $1,314,256.17 $1,461,656.99 $915,687.59 $1,031,401.85 $999,076.00 $873,357.37 $918,162.06 $981,150.48 $1,009,041.26 $1,034,064.02 $1,157,417.51 $1,733,066.85 $1,636,195.14 $1,330,611.42 $1,384,930.53 $1,444,866.58 $1,003,930.66 $1,532,460.98 $1,617,845.51 $1,665,534.01 $870,983.22 $894,632.77 $952,499.14 $1,340,589.71 $1,360,887.52 $1,458,323.39 $919,636.35 $1,091,282.29 $1,066,273.44 $872,462.96 $880,215.87 $847,156.07 $1,051,067.36 $1,044,336.95 $1,074,349.95 $1,319,496.71 $1,370,625.10 $1,042,967.71 $25,501.31 $1,658,864.16 $1,606,689.05 $1,758,362.40 $1,877,365.19 $1,449,830.28 $755,680.79 $784,275.30 $872,981.16 $969,181.35 $1,049,040.22 $1,134,832.00 $1,238,081.45 $1,278,754.99 $967,725.51 $1,147,564.73 $1,329,911.36 $1,346,683.32 $1,255,977.41 $1,318,562.68 $0.00 $2,242,772.97 $2,369,300.33 $2,333,124.94 $1,196,557.69 $1,200,696.51 $1,307,222.75 $669,017.57 $687,642.24 $813,613.54 $1,127,149.24 $1,149,041.07 $1,347,617.81 $1,175,147.95 $1,201,978.91 $1,419,632.27 $1,317,057.53 $1,392,965.59 $1,584,299.53 $1,021,284.19 $80,007.50 $351,715.90 11 Oper Unit 0050 0051 0052 0053 0054 0055 0056 0058 0059 0060 0061 0062 0063 0064 0065 0066 0067 0069 0070 0071 0072 0073 0074 0075 0076 0078 0079 0080 0081 0082 0083 0084 0085 0087 0088 0089 0090 0091 0092 0094 0095 0096 0097 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $879,354.11 $911,092.87 $916,996.n $1,041,513.36 $1,101,790.19 $1,187,895.46 $1,136,159.29 $1,195,073.02 $1,326,128.80 $58,815.19 $90,288.93 $72,553.10 $96,712.67 $112,485.23 $111,143.88 $450,398.58 $268,168.28 $245,354.02 $24,749.60 $19,800.57 $21,090.97 $24,292.35 $2,100.00 $31,700.00 $386,996.18 $465,627.29 $287,254.n $61,057.61 $60,126.80 $64,013.82 $39,106.96 $45,285.50 $34,198.55 $TT,712.18 $43,402.20 $51,761.73 $171,149.13 $193,402.83 $181,190.85 $440,306.38 $442,237.54 $517,294.39 $145,891.45 $398,107.64 $158,556.63 $52,TT0.68 $110,906.89 $35,718.80 $199,493.39 $160,686.51 $238,764.29 $110,425.86 $120,678.75 $131,403.96 $232,171.98 $200,221.49 $246,815.56 $437,872.51 $572,731 .14 $431,985.76 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $170,286.74 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $162,670.14 $76,000.00 $94,000.00 $84,000.00 $4,550,919.06 $4,820,851.08 $6,315,551.89 $242,142.38 $272,986.10 $321,714.66 $372.15 $0.00 $0.00 $45,135.26 ($980,358.15) ($150,000.00) $9,TT1 ,389.93 $10,717,707.25 $10,326,926.58 $1,652,592.95 $1,853,532.51 $1,994,247.93 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419.74 $1,600,699.76 $6,551,836.63 $5,762,498.47 $6,133,556.92 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $421 , 105.42 $1 ,1 71,153.38 $2,374,035.90 $2,833,130.71 $360,339.74 $427,466.03 $343,194.82 $3,152,041.47 $3,305,433.88 $3,449,257.04 $605,504.30 $550,263.48 $3,900.00 $304,720.63 $301,979.43 $306,727.67 $104,170.93 $198,980.46 $432,824.50 $196,060.05 $173,880.33 $246,441.66 $88,999.58 $0.00 $104,148.49 $184,068.50 $225,823.96 $219,797.75 $9.70 $0.00 $0.00 $2,230,622.89 $2,193,870.90 $2,342,456.51 12 Oper Unit 0098 0099 0101 0119 0120 0121 0122 0125 0127 0128 0129 0130 0131 0132 0134 0135 0136 0203 0714 RIF ERET TOTALS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL UNIT SUMMARY Actual Budget Budget 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $530,400.00 $530,400.00 $430,400.00 $1,456,369.14 $805,948.04 $884,976.01 $6,383.98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,300.00 $0.00 $118,446.65 $93,249.42 $157,060.95 $93,439.06 $94,381.61 $98,395.25 $8,228.49 $8,400.00 $10,200.00 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $170,000.00 $1,066,644.78 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 $18,395.41 $30,241.82 $27,929.71 $213,982.06 $228,105.78 $264,499.66 $69,413.47 $73,172.82 $182,851.96 $65,396.84 $76,900.72 $85,146.96 $7,452.36 $169,540.09 $106,270.98 $13,146.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $49,085.52 $1,700.00 $0.00 $45,670.00 $70,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,811.65 $799,544.24 $753,499.46 $797,892.99 ($1,622,363.00) ($908,TT6.00) $111 .455,203.65 $11 6,980,371.53 $115,555,592.70 13 1. 2. 3. 4. Exhibit 2 BUDGET REVISIONS SINCE MAY 18, 1994 SUBMISSION Early Retirement Incentive Programs The May 18, 1994, Court submission included a savings of $750,000 based on seventy-seven (77) employees identified at that time. As of June 17, 1994, at 4:30 p.m., one-hundred forty-four (144) employees are participating, resulting in a net savings of $908,776.00. The Draft 3 Budget has been adjusted to reflect the additional $158,776.00 savings. Use of Substitutes The Board of Directors has directed the administration to address the issue of increased substitute usage and employee absenteeism. The Draft 3 Budget has been reduced $300,000 to apply toward this effort. Incentive School Double Funding Recent re-examination of projected enrollments at the incentive schools indicates that a downward revision is necessary in the double funding component Accordingly, the Draft 3 Budget has been reduced $2,000,000. Outsourcing of TranS,Portation The District is continuing its efforts regarding this budget balancing measure. The Board of Directors has indicated that a decision will be made at the June 23, 1994, Board meeting. This strategy is still hoped to produce a savings, but no reduction is included in the Draft 3 Budget 14 Exhibit 3 STATUS OF BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES l. Workers' Compensation Insurance Promm 2. 3. Language included in the March, 1989, Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement raises some issues concerning the State's obligation in this matter. LRSD intends to litigate the issue if necessary. Successful litigation will result in reductions of projected expenditures for future years. Settlement Loan Proceeds Based on recent suggestions by the Board of Directors and a re-examination of projected enrollment, this non-recurring revenue line item has been reduced by $2,000,000 in the Draft 3 Budget Salaty Freeze See Exhibit 4 - Negotiations. 4. Early Retirement Incentive Programs The early retirement incentive programs produced a combined 144 participants from the following groups: teachers, administrators, clerical, nurses, aides, custodians, food service, and maintenance. The cost savings which have been projected come entirely from the teachers , administrators, clericaL and nurses groups. The other groups were offered the incentive primarily for reasons of equity and not for any projected cost savings. It is expected that those groups would produce no real savings or losses because of the salary structure for those positions and the relatively low wages paid to employees in those groups. There were 87 teachers who elected to participate at a projected first year savings of $812,885. There were also 18 administrators at a projected first year savings of $72,394. Nurses represent $19,676 and clerical employees represent $3,821. The total first year projected savings for the early retirement incentive programs is $908,776. 15 Status of Budget-Balancing Measures Page 2 The racial breakdown of the participants by group is shown below: Teachers: Black 20 White 66 Other 1 Administrators: Black 3 White 15 Clerical: Black 4 White 13 Nurses: White 3 Food service: Black 1 Maintenance: Black 1 White 2 Custodians: Black s White 2 Aides: Black 4 White 4 16 Exhibit 4 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE NEGOTIATIONS: The negotiations teams for the District and the LRCTA began meeting twice a week since the first week of April to reach agreement on a successor teacher contract for the 1994-95 school year. While the parties have reached tentative agreements on several clean up proposals, no agreements have been reached on any substantive issues. Most of the proposals which remain on the table are economic proposals or are proposals on which the parties are reluctant to move until some decisions can be made on economic issues. Some of the economic issues which remain are salaries (including possible salary freeze), fringe benefits, length of extended contracts, and teaching hours and load. On May 18, 1994, the teams agreed to seek the assistance of a mediator/fact finder in an effort to expedite the negotiations process and allow the teams to reach mutual agreement The process was defined in a memorandum of understanding which combined two of the steps in the current contract (mediation and fact-finding). On May 19, 1994, the parties jointly requested a panel of arbitrators who could serve the function of a mediator/fact finder from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The District received the list Friday, June 10, 1994, and on Monday, June 13, 1994, the LRCTA had not received their list and obtained a copy from the District On Tuesday, June 14, the District and the LRCTA selected a mediator/fact finder. The District and the LRCTA have notified the Federal Mediation and Conciliation of their choice and are currently trying to schedule a time for the mediator/fact finder to assist in negotiations. REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF): The District mailed RIF letters to 80 teachers notifying them that their contracts would not be renewed for next year because of a reduction in the size of the teaching force. Although it is unlikely that the District can reduce its teaching staff by 80 positions, this level of notice should help ensure that the District is not overstaffed at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It is more realistic to think that as many as 60 to 65 teacher positions possibly can be reduced at the start of school next year. However, the additional 15 to 20 positions give the District a more prudent approach if the District's enrollment is smaller than anticipated next fall. Many of the teachers who have received RIF notices will be recalled because the early retirement incentive produced voluntary separations which match-up with certification areas of many RIF'ed teachers. Since the RIF notices had to be sent prior to the application deadline for the early retirement incentive, the District could not run the risk of rehiring 17 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE Page 2 the RIF' ed teachers while uncertain of the fate of the early retirement incentive. Although the success of early retirement incentive will allow the recall of many of the teachers, it cannot be guaranteed that all of the RIF'ed teachers will be recalled. The administration is currently meeting individually with each of the District's principals and confirming student enrollment by grade level and course to determine exactly how many teachers will be needed. It is the District's intent to recall only those teachers who are actually needed to meet the staffing requirements. At the time that this is being prepared (June 17,1994), it would appear that at least 40 of the RIF'ed teachers will be recalled however, it is important to remember that the teachers who are recalled will be replacements for early retirement participants. Therefore, the replacement costs have already been figured into the savings on the early retirement incentive program and do not represent the cost normally associated with recalling a RIF'ed teacher or hiring a new teacher. 18 Exh i bit 5 NEW BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES 1. "Pooling Agreement" LRSD's appeal regarding the pooling with PCSSD of Majority-TerMinority transfer payments could result in a reduction of expenditures of $160,000 for 1994-95 and a refund for 1993-94 of $167,113. 19 Exhibit 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 67,617,874 68,789,556 69,985,451 71.204,878 72,461,164 REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 112,826,722 110,749,025 111,018,678 111,122,1n 113,290,984 20 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 134,955,604 133,450,758 134,308,653 135,016,207 137,803,814 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 117,962,920 121,079,737 122,869,244 125,589,624 128,135,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 140,091,801 143,781,470 146,159,219 149,483,654 152,648,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (5,136,197) {10,330,711) {11 ,850,566) (14,467,447) (14,844,430) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79 044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 (4,695,670) (15,026,382) (26,876,948) (41,344,395) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 (4,695,670) (15,026,382) (26,876,948) (41,344,395) (56,188,825) TOTAL 525,527 (4,610,670) (14,941,382) (26,791,948) (41,259,395) (56,103,825) 21 UTTI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6n 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 67,617,874 68,789,556 69,985,451 71,204,878 72,461,164 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91 ,419 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STA TE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,nS,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 112,826,722 110,749,025 111,018,678 111,122,1n 113,290,984 22 LfTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT2) 06-20-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS ST A TE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 134,955,604 133,450,758 134,308,653 135,016,207 137,803,814 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 POSITION/PROGRAM CUTS (4,700,000) (10,400,000) (11,800,000) (14,500,000) (14,800,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 113,262,920 110,679,737 111,069,244 111,089,624 113,335,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 135,391,801 133,381,470 134,359,219 134,983,654 137,848,244 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (436,197) 69,288 (50,566) 32,553 (44,430) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 4,330 73,618 23,052 55,605 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 4,330 73,618 23,052 55,605 11,175 TOTAL 525,527 89,330 158,618 108,052 140,605 96,175 23 LITTLE ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,TT9 25,1 95,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TT0 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 70,417,874 74,983,076 76,027,884 n,091,292 78,173,658 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551 ,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 115,626,722 116,942,545 117,061,112 117,008,591 119,003,479 24 llTT1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 137,755,604 139,644,278 140,351,086 140,902,621 143,516,308 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 117,962,920 121,079,737 122,869,244 125,589,624 128,135,414 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 140,091,801 143,781,470 146,159,219 149,483,654 152,648,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (2,336,197} (4,137,192) (5,808,132) (8,581,033) (9,131,935) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 (1,895,670) (6,032,862) (11,840,995) (20,422,028) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 (1,895,670) (6,032,862) (11,840,995) (20,422,028) (29,553,963) TOTAL 525,527 (1,810,670) (5,947,862) (11,755,995) (20,337,028) (29,468,962) 25 LITTlE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,779 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 345,892 352,810 359,866 367,063 374,405 381,893 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,770 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,199,097 70,417,874 74,983,076 76,027,884 77,091,292 78,173,GSa REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STA TE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 792,081 800,002 808,002 816,082 824,243 832,485 TOTAL 44,775,464 44,257,429 41,086,800 40,237,996 39,098,127 39,985,261 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 500,000 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 938,000 860,000 781,250 703,813 727,753 753,141 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 112,003,980 115,626,722 116,942,545 117,061,112 117,008,591 119,003,479 26 LfTTlE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 2) 06-20-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS ST A TE/LOCAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL REVENUE 133,509,608 137,755,604 139,644,278 140,351 086 140,902,621 143,516,308 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,396,806 75,451,917 78,314,570 ' 80,507,378 82,761,585 85,078,909 BENEFITS 10,475,737 10,528,116 10,580,756 10,633,660 10,686,828 10,740,262 SERVICES,SUPP,EOUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,011,384 23,396,611 23,789,543 24,190,334 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,390,480 8,173,027 7,331,595 7,351,668 7,125,908 POSITION/PROGRAM CUTS (2,000,000) (4,100,000) (5,800,000) (8,600,000) (9,100,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 115,555,592 115,962,920 116,979,737 117,069,244 116,989,624 119,035,413 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,952,534 15,386,157 15,832,356 16,291,494 16,763,948 17,250,102 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,055,264 138,091,801 139,681 470 140,359,219 140,883,654 143,548,243 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,545,656) (336,197) (37,192) (8,132) 18,967 (31,935) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,992,139 440,527 104,330 67,138 59,005 77,972 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 440,527 104,330 67,138 59,005 77,972 46,038 TOTAL 525,527 189,330 152,138 144,005 162,972 131,038 27 Exhibit 7 BUSINESS CASES The following business cases are being withdrawn from consideration at this time: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Description Teaching Assistants/Substitutes Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Garland Incentive School Multi-Media Technology and Educational Research Theme Garland Incentive School Multi-Media Technology Theme - Phase II New business cases are being submitted and attached as follows: 1. Staff Attorney 2. Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation 28 Original Court Submission Date May 18, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 April 15, 1994 BUSINESS CASE STAFF ATIORNEY FOR THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Throughout the stages of the District's desegregation litigation, the Little Rock School District has contracted out its legal services with local law firms. The Friday Firm currently represents the LRSD, and in July of 1993, the firm agreed to house one if its partners at the district However, the representative remains a member of the firm and must devote some of his time to his clients and their needs for timely legal counsel. Furthermore, the desegregation case has become increasingly complex and the district's continued financial problems have caused us to carefully scrutinize our budget In addition to the desegregation litigation, the Little Rock School District has experienced a surge in the number of lawsuits directed at the District for a variety of claims. Typically, these claims and lawsuits that are brought against the District are handled through the same firm that discharges matters related to the desegregation suit at additional cost to the District A staff attorney working directly with The Board and Superintendent would have the responsibility of sorting cases and putting in place a process that would allow the staff attorney to respond to legal issues at the district level where feasible, and have other more complex cases reviewed and reacted to by the firm that represents the district under normal circumstances in those matters. Therefore, it appears to be in the District's best interest to hire an attorney on staff to ensure that the district is working toward good faith compliance of its desegregation obligations and to effectively deal with legal issues that relate to the following: Collective Negotiations - Contracts review Student discipline and suspensions Facilities studies Special Education litigation - and review of Legislation Legal implications related to federal and state funding Advise the Board and Superintendent regarding pending legislation that impacts the district fiscally Develop a mechanism to keep track of all the District's desegregation obligations in conjunction with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 29 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 2 Discharge litigation issues related to suits brought against the District Prepare District officials for court appearances and proceedings and assist in the development of documents for court submission Assist the District in assessing evaluation criteria to measure its progress towards implementing the desegregation plan as well as identifying plan provisions that need modification Assess the District's compliance with employee obligations and litigation Advise the District and prepare court documents to modify LRSD's desegregation obligations to further the goals of the plan Assist in the development of long-term strategies and procedures for the District to achieve unitary status from the court and Provide the District with monthly desegregation status reports. By hiring a staff attorney to deal with the District's desegregation obligations and other legal issues, the District would receive the direction and support it needs to work toward achieving unitary status. Although the budget will be increased by hiring an attorney on staff, providing him or her with clerical assistance, and purchasing needed equipment these costs will be offset by savings the District will realize within the first year from the reduction in outside legal services. A. BACKGROUND Throughout the stages of the District's desegregation litigation, the LRSD has contracted its legal services with local law firms. The Friday Law Firm currently represents the District and in July of 1993, the Friday Firm committed to house one of its legal partners with the LRSD. Given the need to fulfill obligations to longtime clients of the firm, the partner is unable to spend all of his time at the District As the District reevaluates means to reduce its burgeoning budget deficit, the costs of litigating the District's desegregation plan and other legal issues becomes one of the primary targets. The District must find ways to provide quality, accessible education for all of its patrons in addition to finding non-intrusive ways to trim the District's budget 30 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 3 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The District does not have the services of a full-time attorney dedicated to the District's desegregation and other school-related litigations that are inherent in an urban school district The LRSD needs to hire an attorney to ensure that the District is working toward good faith compliance with its desegregation obligations as well other local, state, and federal statues. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue to contract all legal services with the Friday Firm. 2. Hire an attorney to represent the District's desegregation interests and other legal issues. Some of the legal services would include the following: Develop a mechanism to keep track of all the District's desegregation obligations. Ensure that the District identifies and understands all legal directives. Assist the District in developing evaluation criteria to measure its progress towards implementing its desegregation commitments as well as identifying plan provisions that need modification. Assess the District's compliance with its desegregation obligations. Advise the District and prepare all court documents to modify the District's desegregation obligations to further the central goals of the plans. Assist in the development of long-term strategies and procedures for the District to achieve unitary status from the court. Provide the District with monthly desegregation status reports. 31 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 4 D. RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative two is recommended to hire a staff attorney to deal with the District's desegregation and other legal obligations. Timeline: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Present business case to the LRSD Board Advertise position Interview for position Board approval Staff attorney begins employment E. RESOURCE ANALYSES Personnel 5-26-94 5-30-94 - 6-10-94 6-15-94 - 6-17-94 6-27-94 TBA The District would add an attorney to its staff. The District would also provide the attorney with support staff which could be accomplished by hiring additional staff or through reorganization. Financial &penditures Estimated recurring costs of salary at $60,000 and benefits at $6,680. If additional staff support is needed, his or her salary is estimated at $20,000 with benefits at $2,575. Additionally, a one time expense for a computer, printer, and software at approximately $5,000 is needed. Total cost - $94,255. Revenue Source Funding for this position, staff support, and equipment would come from the money saved by reducing the number of hours the District contracts its legal services with the Firm providing legal services. 32 Business Case Staff Attorney Page 5 F. IMP ACT ANALYSIS Negative The budget will be impacted by a recurring staff position however, this budget increase will be completely offset by the savings the district will realize by reducing the number of hours it contracts outside legal services. Positives 1. The District will save money by reducing the number of hours it contracts its legal services. It is estimated that the District will reduce its legal fees regarding the desegregation case by fifty percent within the first year. 2. The District will have a full-time employee, who will be devoted to assisting the District _to move toward full compliance with its desegregation and other legal obligations associated with an urban school district. 1. The number and complexities of legal issues, (desegregation and non-desegregation) are likely to increase and without full time legal council, we will be unable to respond in a timely and efficient manner. The District must move quickly toward seeking unitary status from the court through compliance with our court approved plan. 2. The risk of implementing this recommendation is criticism for adding another staff position however, as stated before, the District will actually reduce its legal fees. 33 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation A Business Case Addition .ll_ Modification Deletion June, 1994 34 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case I Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Toe kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Even if transportation is out-sourced, some of the routes and personnel will be retained by the district and require supervision. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day superoision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The recommended solution is to modify the position of Desegregation Facilitator by changing the title to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation and increasing the responsibilities to include student assignments. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Implementing this alternative will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment 3. 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 4. Quicker response to parent inquires and, 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though 35 I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 2 registration and assignments are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes oveiwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in positions or costs. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Funding for this position will come from the currently used line item of the bud.gel. The foil owing are milestones for implementing this position modification. Milestone Date Person I. Present Business Case to the Superintendent for aooroval 6/14/94 Mayo 2. Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for aooroval 6/14/94 Williams 3. Discuss this modification with all parties 6/16/94 Williams 4. Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification 6/17/94 Mayo 5. Submit olan modification to the Court for aooroval 6/20/94 Attorneys 5 Court aooroval . . - .. -- ~ - - 6/29/94 Williams 7. Advertise the oosition 7/1/94 Hurley 8. Interview 7/16/94 Mayo 9. Reoort for work 8/15/94 Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation June, 1994 6113194 DIRSAO.OOC 36 Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 3 ! Background I The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. The kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. I Problem Deflnltion The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents while not increasing personnel costs. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions of when to release certain waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district Careful monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with unhappy parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. This sample of student assignment related responsibilities requires day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the responsibility of the student assignment supervisor and other responsibilities including supervision of Transportation, Communications, VIPS, desegregation. Though housed at the SAO, more often than not he is in meetings elsewhere. Approximately 60% of his time is spent in meetings relating to matters other than student assignment. The day-to-day attention to student assignment is not possible. 37 611 J/9.4 DIRSAO.DOC I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 4 I Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less than adequate attention. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure I below. Many of the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator are covered already by current personnel and procedures. The Deputy Superintendent, Associate to Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart Associate Superintendent Director of Director of student Assignment Transportation and Desegregation Student SAO Assignment Information Coordinator Coordinator (5) Student Assignment Assistants Figure I 38 Director of (2) Recruiters Programmer Community Development Coordinator (VIPS) I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case s the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel do most of the functions of the Desegregation Facilitator. Additional safeguards such as the Program Budget Document and the PERT chart (Tool) were implemented to prevent omissions. Examples of responsibilities of the position are as follows: a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office b) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in perf onning responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties c) 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 d) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the district's desegregation plan e) Assists in ensuring that desegregation assessments, studies, surveys, and evaluation results are used to improve the operations of the schools 0 Identifies problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process g) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment h) Observes the progress of desegregation implementation by reading and writing performance reports relating to implementation i) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings j) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel k) Coordinates monitoring groups such as the Parent Council, Bi-Racial Committee, and others as assigned l) Focuses on all aspects of desegregation implementation inducting, but not limited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement and, m) Performs other duties as assigned. 6/l:JJ9 DIRSAO DOC 39 Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 6 j Recommendation I Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. Th.is neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. j Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents while not increasing personnel costs. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment 3. 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 4. Quicker response to parent inquires and, 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. ! Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the district's desegregation obligations will be compromised. 40 oil 3194 DIRS.t.O.OOC I I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case Positives 7 I. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. 2. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 3. bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment 4. provide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information 5. allow quicker response to parent inquires and, 6. permit the identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, continuous non-compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image in the area of student assignments. Tuning The sooner we can do this the better. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though registration and assignment are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes overwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. ! Resources Analysis Personnel This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of positions existing. 41 6113194 DIRS>.O.OOC I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 8 Financial No change will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the currently used line item of the budget. ! Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff, Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. Ultimately, this modification will help them meet their obligations under our plan. I General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. Milestone Date Person I. Present Business Case to the Suoerintendent for aooroval 6/14/94 Mayo 2. Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for aooroval 6/14/94 Williams 3. Discuss this modification with all oarties 6/16/94 Williams 4. Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification 6/17/94 Mayo 5. Submit plan modification to the Court for aooroval 6/20/94 Attorneys 6. Court approval -.. ~ _. -- . :~~~- -::: -~~~- ... -~- ----~ 6/29/94 Williams ... , ..... 7. Advertise the oosition 7/1/94 Hurley 8. Interview 7/ 16/94 Mayo 9. Report for work 8/15/94 Aooointee 42 I I .,, i3i'94 DIRSAO.OOC Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start 1 Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year. 100% Dec 1 '93 2 Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels. 100% Nov 30 '93 3 Develop budget preparation training material. 100% Nov 18 '93 4 Conduct budget preparation training sessions. 100% Dec 6 '93 5 Budget managers submit 94-95 budget requests. 100% Jan 14 '94 6 Begin budget development. 100% Jan 18 '94 7 Revise financial forecast for coming year 100% Mar 1 '94 8 Submit proposed budget to Board. 100% Mar 24 '94 Page 1 FY95 Scheduled Finish Feb 11 '94 Dec 3 '93 Nov 30 '93 Dec 17 '93 Feb 28 '94 Jan 18 '94 Apr 15 '94 Mar 24 '94 Resource Names Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen Milhollen 6/20/94 ,.,, >< :::r O~.' co Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Comolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names g Conduct Board work sessions on budget. 100% Mar28 '94 Apr 15 '94 Milhollen 10 Revise budgets, as needed. 75% Mar24 '94 Jul28'94 Milhollen 11 Secure seniority list. 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 14 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 12 Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1994-95 and 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 19 '94 Gadberry.Hurley determine teachers needed. 13 Review master schedules. Note possible cuts based on 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr14 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley low classes. 14 Make detenninalion by subject area (secondary) of 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr19'94 Gadberry.Hurley possible reductions and elementary enrollment. 15 Verification of need, based on manpower report and by 100% Apr 1 '94 Apr 19 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley program (program managers and principals). 16 Check results of ID#'s 12-15 against known retirement, 100% Apr20 '94 Apr26 '94 Gadberry.Hurley resignations, and intern positions. Page 2 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 17 Identify teachers for Reduction in Force (RIF), if needed. 100% Apr 20 '94 Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 18 Board approval of RIF, if needed. 100% Apr 28 '94 Apr 28 '94 Gadberry,Hurley 19 Notify certified personnel of possible staff reduction. 100% Apr29'94 Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 20 Prepare modified tentative budget. 100% Apr 25 '94 May 18 '94 Milhollen 21 Board of Directors work session on budget. 100% May 12 '94 May 12 '94 Milhollen,Board 22 Board approval of modified tentative budget. 100% May 2 '94 May 26 '94 Milhollen,Board,Willlams 23 Evaluate early retirement incentive numbers. 100% May 20 '94 May 22 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 24 Recall from RIF, if needed. 50% May 23 '94 Jul 1 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Page 3 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name o/oComolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 25 Review of Outsourcing 90% Feb 17 '94 Jun 23 '94 Williams,Milhollen ,Mayo 26 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction. 0% May 3 '94 Jun 24 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 27 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) cleanup. 10% Jun 15 '94 Jul 15'94 Milhollen 28 Receipt of state-generated revenure numbers (payroll 10% Jun 15'94 Jul 15'94 Milhollen liabilities, adjusted supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perkins, M to M, JTPA, Voe Ed, Sp Ed, Chapters 1 and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC). 29 Prepare proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's 100% Mar29 '94 Apr 28 '94 Wiiliams,Council students. 30 Evaluate final proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's 100% Apr29 '94 May 18 '94 Willlams,Board students. 31 Submit to court (if approved by Board) proposal to 100% May6'94 May 20 '94 Willlams,Board temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 32 Court hearing on proposal to temporarily relocate Stephens 100% Jun 7 '94 Jun 7 '94 Williams Page4 FY95 6/20/94 .p. --..J ID 33 34 @ 36 37 36 39 40 Page 5 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update Name % Comolete Scheduled Start Prepare proposal for second school closing. 100% Apr 25 '94 Evaluate final proposal for second school closing. 99% Jun 1 '94 Submit to Court (if approved by Board) proposal for second 0% Jun 24 '94 school closing. Review philosophy and/or objectives for incentive schools' 100% Apr 25 '94 programs. Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the project. 100% Apr 26 '94 Establish framework for: instructional day curriculum 100% Apr 26 '94 offerings services and support programs materials/supplies/equipment staffing needs and staff develoment needs. Relate program recommendations to program offerings in 100% May 17 '94 designated area and magnet schools. Develop business case for incentive schools' program 40% Apr 26 '94 modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. FY95 Scheduled Finish Resource Names Jun 1 '94 Williams,Council Jun 23 '94 Williams.Board Jun 24 '94 Williams,Board Apr 26 '94 Matthis,Curriculum Supervisors Apr 26 '94 Matthis.Curriculum Supervisors May 17'94 Matthls,Curriculum Supervisors May 31 '94 Matthis,Currlculum Supervisors Jan 31 '95 Matthis,Currlculum Supervisors 6/20/94 Little Roel< School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name %Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 41 Observation of Great Expectations Schools 100% May31 '94 May 31 '94 Williams,lngram,Board Members.Principals/Teachers 42 Reviewed instructional delivery of Incentive Schools 100% Jun 1 '94 Jun 1 '94 Williams,Matthis,lngram Program 43 Submit to Board a proposal to pilot Great Expectations 100% Jun 14 '94 Jun 14 '94 Williams Schools (Mitchell and Rightsell) 44 Submit to Court (if approved by Board) incentive schools' 50% Jun 14 '94 Jul 5 '94 Williams.Board program modifications (i.e., Great Expectations pilot study, modification of foreign language and Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Technology withdrawn) 45 Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing malled. 100% May 6 '94 May 6 '94 Mayo,Mont9omery 46 Pre-proposal conference on Outsourcing. 100% May 16'94 May 16 '94 Mayo.Montgomery 47 Proposals due on Outsourcing. 100% May 31 '94 May 31 '94 Mayo,Montgomery 48 Board of Directors' decision on Outsourcing. 75% Jun 9 '94 Jun 23 '94 Williams.Board Page 6 FY95 6/20/94 Little Rocle School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update ID Name % Comolete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 49 Board of Directors' work session on budget 100% Jun 14 '94 Jun 14 '94 Milhollen 50 Court hearing on 1994-95 modified tentative budget. 0% Jun 28 '94 Jun 29 '94 Williams 51 Close-out of 1993-94 accounts: adjust physical inventory, 0% Jul1 '94 Jul20 '94 Milhollen (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, state grants, accruals 52 Compute ending fund balance. 0% Jul 21 '94 Jul 21 '94 Milhollen 53 Adminstrative review of budget. 0% Jul22'94 Jul28'94 Williams,Council 54 Submit to Board 1994-95 Budget. 0% Jul25'94 Jul 25 '94 Williams 55 Court hearing on 1994-95 proposed budgets of LRSD, 0% Jul27 '94 Jul29'94 Williams NLRSD, PCSSD. 56 Board review and adoption of 94-95 Budget. 0% Jul28'94 Jul28'94 Board Page 7 FY95 6/20/94 u, 0 ID 57 58 Page 8 Name Submit 94-95 Budget to Court/Parties. Submit 94-95 Budget to State. Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Timeline Update % Complete Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Resource Names 0% Aug 1 '94 Aug 22 '94 Williams 0% Aug 22 '94 Aug 28 '94 Board,Mllhollen FY95 6/20/94 Exhibit 9 SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS JUNE 1994 I. INTRODUCTION This Special Report amends the Special study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District Plant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District and, Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. The purpose of this Committee was to: 1) review the Special S~udy done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study 2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof and, 3) correlate the needs of the three (3) Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee discussed philosophy with regard to desegregation efforts, programmatic needs and M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two ( 2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. II. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three ( 3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1 51 Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. There is no specific reason why different percentages are used. It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent ( 100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure, i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent ( 80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There is, of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ because of the eighty-five percent (85%) desired capacity and the size of the schools. This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. The following analysis of various subject areas is provided. A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-District Transfers Upon Enrollment: Intra-district transfers within the Districts appear to be relatively stable. Students are assigned by attendance zone ( except Magnet Schools). Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones however, this need must be taken into consideration with projected Mto- M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2 52 delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in li~e with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are policy changes dealing with the assignment of students or a realignment of attendance zones. B) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of M-to-M Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District: The Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program is voluntary for all participating students. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will include students rolled over from the elementary schools . This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at any of the elementary, junior or senior high schools. Essentially, academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. There are no specific programs called for in the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students at the junior high level. A chart indicating M-to-M transfers is attached as an enclosure. A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level, between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little Rock School District to Pulaski County, North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, North Little Rock, to the Little Rock School District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under the interdistrict, or magnet school, concept. If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3 53 Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. C) . The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity: D) The state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, in all three (3) Districts, is quite similar. There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any district's capacity. Major instructional emphasis will be on improving the quality and delivery of instruction. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. These are not significantly important to justify major construction efforts, but rather the addition, or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' Obligation to Recruit White Private School Students: With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District junior highs and for a similar increase, although in smaller numbers in both Pulaski County and North Little Rock. The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. There are no projected quotas, nor goals established for recruiting junior high students. The ongoing effort will continue and the students will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4 54 E) Lack of Non-Magnet Junior High in East Little Rock: Between the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase in population of approximately 2.6%. This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County area. Little Rock appeared to have lost population primarily in the east, central, and southwest sections of the city. At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of I-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. Also in this area is Mann Magnet Junior High School. For at least the last two ( 2) school years, all junior high students desiring to attend Dunbar have been permitted to do so. With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does not seem justified. Schools follow populations. They rarely lead populations into an area. As the population shifts in the three ( 3) School Districts accommodating these -'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of course, is the construction of new junior highs secondly, the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis or three, the realignment of attendance zones to keep junior highs close to existing capacity without construction and, four, realigning grades between school levels. The Little Rock School District has made major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and is desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabelvale Junior High. These are needed because -of: ( 1) the shifting population (2) the age of the buildings and, (3) changes in the academic program over the years which have necessitated more specialized classrooms. Preliminary figures indicate that in the area of eastern Little Rock (east of I-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5 55 F) the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances purposes, and given that the present situation, district-wide, is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least the next seven ( 7) years. Consideration for a new junior high school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. Equitable Distribution of Bussing: The question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall racial composition at the junior high level. In School Year '93-' 94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the junior high schools. For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of the junior high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-fpur percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bus'ed outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-' 93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools for children being bussed within their attendance zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-' 93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. In the case of children being bussed out of the attendance zones, we have an eight percent ( 8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race, as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6 56 G) zone. This is due ( 1) to shifting populations within the School District and, . (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attending junior highs within Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the percentage was fifty-five percent ( 55%). This indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. However, this is only a snapshot in time. Periodically, growth trends must be examined, and population cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the population is moving toward or away from existing junior high schools. Within Pulaski County, this problem is far greater. Seven ( 7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input: The Committee generally felt that at this planning stage, community input was not necessarily required. However, input from the Joshua Intervenors was requested. As the Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result in changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of, new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Studv of the Capacities / Analyzation: The study of the capacities and the analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. The desegregation plan is a voluntary plan. The M-to-M Program, which is a principal component of this plan, allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantage of any excess in capacity. When one studie$ the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7 57 students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary ~o the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer students between districts and have, subsequently, included that trend in your capacities and projections. There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced trans fer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, the recommendations made in the attached annexes are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. B) Little Rock School District: The analysis and conclusions as identified in Annex "A" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. The localized problems at Mabelvale Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School, however, will persist. Adding classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High and to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. C) Pulaski County Special School District: The analysis on Page Four (4) of Annex "B" supports the need in Pulaski County for construction in the northwest quadrant of the county to support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. This, of course, will be tempered by the success of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive transportation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8 58 D) North Little Rock School District: The analysis and . conclusions on Page Four ( 4) of .Annex "C" indicate a relatively stable situation in North Little Rock. From an anticipated peak enrollment in School Year '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1. 2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacity were essentially identical. The support of the Desegregation Plan, the M-to-M Program, the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict schools are all fully understood and supported by the Districts. The general methodology of capacity calculations closely parallel each other and the need to look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition, it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes $uccessful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students, but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason, such as support of our desegregation efforts. DCE/rlh/specrep 9 59 M TOM TRANSFERS (W/O MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) TO FROM TO FROM YEAR PCSSD PCSSD NLR NLR 87/88 76 98 7 5 88/89 145 31 69 6 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 M TOM TRANSFERS (W/O MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD SY NLR NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/range 60 L_I TTL f ,: .. : I< :3\: H_Q_,:OL__[Vi TRE S:H ,:"X Yf :AR ~1L9Z u.L9..l ~ ilL.li .9Ufil CAPACITY 6145 6 3 13 6391 6391 6391 ENROLLMENT 6062 6166 6109 ~ 6135 5962 F'EF CENTAGE 98.6 9 7. 7 95.6 95.9 93.3 NORTH LIIILI: ROC~ S~HC-QL QiaR SCHQOL YEAF. 91/92 UL.ti. ~ illll _film CAPACITY 2419 2419 2419 2419 2419 ENF:OL LM ENT 2262 2225 2245 2155 2154 PERCEUTAGE 93. 5 91.9 92.8 89.0 89.0 PULA~I<:! CCLINTY SP~CIAL ~-CHOi:1. c Ii' ,C_J.) ~CHOoJL YEAf 9 l /92 lliil ~ ~ ~ CAPAC ITV 5044 5044 S0H S044 5044 ENROLLMENT. 5075 4942 5002 S220 5281 PEF:CEtHAGE 100.6 97.9 99.2 103. 5 104.7 I. SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES & PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION: JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH, 1994) This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain considerations in determining capacity. It assessed seating capacity as of school year '92 - '93 given criteria established today does not change, and further establishes that criteria and defines it. the the the it B) It records projected enrollments to the ye':~ 2000 and their impact on the District. II. CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, in reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used. Therefore, capacity in the junior high is defined as a "snapshot", at a given 1 62 B) in the junior high is defined as -a "snapshot", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at a given facility based on an ~stablished criteria. The criteria is explained below. Capacity Considerations: The following nine (9) areas must be considered when calculating capacity of a secondary facility. (1) Size of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as education is not conducted solely in the classroom. Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2 ) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements: Special class requirements are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30 even though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers: The number of teachers directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2 63 C. ( 7) Number of Periods: The number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. ( 8) Scheduling Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces -- one school may use a regular classroqm for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 persons to be /assigned. Calculation Methodology: The following is the methodology used to calculate capacity: Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two: Add the capacities of each room. The sum total is referred to as "Total Physical Capacity". Step Three: Adjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Capacity. Step Four: Multiply the difference by 17%, if Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as "Prep Time". a sixIdentify Step Five: Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that number from the Total Physical Capacity. This is referred to as the "Adjusted Physical Capacity". Step Six: Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3 64 D. E. Step Seven: Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 80%. This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated errors in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed to the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and the addition of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabelvale Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabelvale Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations are in fact replaced with permanent structures. III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4 65 B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of . 45% differential. This should be considered extremely accurate. Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure as my projections from '93-' 94 through '99-2000. Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three ( 3) -year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis: In 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years, and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. There is a projected slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline over the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary level. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-' 00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5 66 D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. Of utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. Adding classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adequate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, and the subsequent replacement of portable buildings, will add to capacity however, Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. Unless there are significant changes to core curriculums, added subjects, or increased enrollment through M-to-M transfers or private school student recruitment, capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should point out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 90's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of students, for whatever reason, and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition o~ portable buildings as a temporary measure. Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/capprol 6 67 LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 ( 1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 ( 1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,1,2 5881 NOTES: ( 1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. ( 2) Adiusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the: Enrollment coiurnn. ( Up da :ed 16 Mar 1994) 68 SPECIAL STUD! JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES & PROJECTIONS JULY. 1993 I INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in reply to court Orders issued on May l, 1992 and December 30, 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Pulaski County Special School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. rr CAPacrn: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schoois, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard pet grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained __ or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, in reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change the capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clearly defined. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools, therefore an entirely different definition must be used. Capacity B) in a the junior high is defined as a "snapshot," at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at a specific facility based on established criteria. The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations: must be considered when secondary facility. The following nine (9) calculating capacity areas of a (1) Size 'of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. Since instruction is not conducted sol~ly in the classroom, one must consider administrative, special 69 -2- use, and classroom space when determining capacity. Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number bf general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Horne Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or, up to 150 depending on the function. 1 ( 4) Special Class Requirements: With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than JO even though that -ds the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input .6uch as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. ( 5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are established not only by the state of Arkansas, but also by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and self-contained classrooms with maximum capacity of B. ( 6) Number of Teachers: The number of teachers directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. ( 7) Number of Periods: The number of periods ( 7) corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. 70 -3- (a) Scheduling Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces -- one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, another may use a renovated workroom or one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 persons to be assigned. C. Calculation Methodology: The following is the methodology used,to calculate capacity: D. Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. (Refer to PCSSD Capacity Worksheet.) Step Two: Add the capacities of each room~ The sum total is referred to as "Total Physical Capacity." Step Three: Adjust for pullout students, other individualized programs. special rooms classes, programs, used for highly- Step Four: Subtract this total from the Total Physical Capacity. Step Five: Calculate for Multi ply the Total Physical constitutes your Scheduling desired level of efficiency. Desired Capacity.) scheduling efficiency. Capacity by 85%. This Efficiency Capacity, or (Referred to by PCSSD as Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures used in determining the nine ( 9 ) criteria.. Each time any criterion changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. It should be noted that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all tirn7s. 71 -4- III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the Pulaski County Special School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92 - '93 school year. B. Calculations Methodology: Each subsequent three ( 3 )-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level who will be junior high students in a given school year, constitute a projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92 - '93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. c. Analysis: In '90 - '91 through '92 - 1 93 school years, the Pulaski County Special School Distri~t (PCSSD) experienced a decline at the junior high level. This decline parallels the number of students participating in the magnet and M to M programs in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). However, in 192 - '93, the Junior High -population began to increase because of a steady growth which is projected to continue through the '98 - '99 school year. Since all schools are operating near or at Desired Capacity, PCS SD will have to consider Junior High capacity in the near future. As an example, calculations from the North West quadrant of PCSSD (which is the Oak Grove High School attendance area covering more geographic area than either Little Rock or North Little Rock school districts) will reflect that the enrollment of Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School in the '92 - '93 school year was close to desired Capacity possible for the complex (9 This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. Little Rock School District