PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA 319 North Pine Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 12, 1990 HAND DELIVERED FEB 1 3 1990 Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman 41 North Sherrill Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Ms. Barbara Patty 324 Midland Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Re: Parent Desegregation Planning Committee For Regular Or Area Schools Dear Ms. Alman and Ms. Patty: On behalf of the Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA, I write to identify perceived disparities between area schools. including Pulaski Heights, and magnet schools. Our concerns and comments are based on our experience regarding elementary schools. Given a bit more time, we will be glad to identify more specific needs of the area schools under the categories identified below. We have two main concerns: 1. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the area schools may not continue to offer the same quality of education as the magnet schools offer. 2. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the magnet schools actually may impede desegregation, rather than facilitating it, by giving parents the impression that the only viable options for their children are magnet schools and private schools. Because of our concerns, we believe that the area schools should receive a greater portion of the educational resources available to the Little Rock School District than they have received recently.Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 2 For the last few years, the magnet schools have received a greater concentration of the District's resources in the following areas: 1. Administrators 2. Teachers 3. Physical facilities 4. Laboratories 5. Extra programs 6. Money The District has concentrated its best administrators and teachers and its greatest resources in the magnet schools in order to ensure that they attract the required diversity of students to desegregate the schools in hard-to-desegregate areas and that they provide exemplary education. The experience of the last few years proves that the concentration of resources in the magnet schools has been more than sufficient to accomplish those goals, as indicated by the oversubscription of those schools and the long waiting lists for places in those schools. Despite the more-than-sufficient attractiveness of the magnet schools, the current desegregation and student assignment plan contains a new component to further enhance their attractivenessthat is, sibling preference. This change exacerbates the disparity between magnet schools and area schools in terms of attractiveness to potential patrons and parental involvement in, and support for, the schools. While the magnets have flourished, the area schools have struggled. Pulaski Heights Elementary, which had become a minor enhancement school, is gradually being desegregated by parents from the area around the school who are committed to sending their children to Pulaski Heights, spending time and money on the school, and ensuring that Pulaski Heights is an excellentMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 3 academic institution. This commitment has resulted in a racial balance closer to court-approved guidelines and in improvements to educational programs and resources at the school. The success of that continuing effort depends upon greater support from the District than the area schools have received in the last few years. The area schools have had to find funding from the PTA and other outside sources for basics which the District should provide and which it does provide to the magnet schools. For example, at Pulaski Heights, the PTA has had to provide funds for basic musical instruments, a program with the Arkansas Arts Center to serve as part of the curriculum, and basic maintenance of, and improvements to, the school grounds. The District satisfies these kinds of needs and many more for the magnets and leaves the area schools to fend for themselves. Area schools can be desegregated and can provide excellent education without the concentration of resources needed in the magnet schools. Nevertheless, they cannot do so if the existing disparity between magnet schools and area schools is not reduced. We encounter a number of parents who state that they will send their children to private schools, unless they get into a magnet school. We are concerned that this attitude may be increasing. The increased emphasis on magnet schools can only aggravate that situation. With those facts in mind, it would be counterproductive to build new magnet schools at this time. New magnets would cost millions of dollars and would draw students out of existing schools. While it may be necessary to convert incentive schools into magnet schools in order to desegregate them, additional resources should be used to strengthen existing area schools. rather than to construct new unneeded buildings. Furthermore, the District and the Metropolitan Supervisor should publicly support and champion the area schools as fervently as they do the magnet schools. In order to continue to provide quality desegregated education, the area schools need more consistently excellent and supported principals, administrators, and teachers, improvedMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 4 physical facilities, additional laboratory facilities, more specialty programs, and greater funding. Additionally, a great attaction of the area schools is the fact that children from the same family can attend the same area school. Adding sibling preference for the magnet schools will make it that much harder to desegregate the area schools. Almost 80% of the District's students attend area schools. Given that fact, area school patrons are the key to a successful millage election. In order to motivate and galvanize that constituency, the District needs to make a specific commitment to the area schools of additional resources from existing funding and from any millage increase. In summary, the magnet schools have received more than enough resources to accomplish their goals, but the area schools have not. Unless the tide is turned, the educational opportunities in the area schools may be inferior to those in the magnet schools, we may create desegregated magnet schools and inferior segregated area schools, and we may be unable to pass school millages necessary to provide an adequate education for our children. For these reasons, we ask that your committee encourage those responsible for the allocation of resources to provide a more balanced distribution of resources between the magnet schools and the area schools. Sincerely, Goorrddoonn TW^iillssoonn,, Prreessiiddeenntt Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA Steve Shults, Board Member Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA cc: Mr. Skip Rutherford Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Eugene Reville Q.K 'Jr' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District February 22, 1990 fEB 2 4 'W g??'^735'. Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Community Support Grants >1 (Sa^ /4 &t6c- iw B The Little Rock School District met with Area Schools Committee on February 12 to discuss deletions and/or additions to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. Both parties agreed that the community support grants should be deleted from the plan. Ihe community support grants were intended to be used by area schools to support recruitment efforts. However, both parties agreed that the attendance zones will serve as a natural recruitment tool. Please note that this request only applies to the community support grants. The academic progress incentive grants should not be deleted. cc: Chip Jones Estelle Matthis Martha Alman, Conmittee Chairperson Arma Hart 810 West Narkhatn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, Cynthia Howell, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue rn working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. A copy of the report devised by the committee was 2. submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however. the survey should be done through the district and by district personnel. The results should then be shared with the committee to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. Other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. The perception of a disparity felt by parents of the district. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it? A'""6 . 7. Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars that can be secured for the community grant. If it is 8. 9. not used where will the money go? Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the committee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with the approval of Supervisor. the office of the Metropolitan The meeting was knowledge. taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 2, 1990 TO: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor RE: Area School Committee Meeting I cim sending you information regarding the meeting held on February 27, 1990, with the Area School Committee and this office, call if you have any additional questions. Please AH:par enclosure A ' / / / AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. Cynthia Howell, a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue in working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. 2. A copy of the report devised by the committee was submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however, the survey should be done through the district and by district The results should then be shared with the committee personnel. to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. The perception of district. a disparity felt by parents of the 2. 3. 4 . 5. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it?6. 7 , Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars 8. that can be secured for the community grant, not used where will the money go? If it is 9. Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the conunittee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with Supervisor. the approval of the office of the Metropolitan The meeting knowledge. was taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.March 19, 1990 TO: Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools FROM: The Parents Committee on Area Schools Martha Alman, Chairman The Parents Committee on Area Schools shares the same goals administration and most of the teachers and parents in the educational system of unsurpassed us ^We^hAv desegregation resolved and behind us. We have worked long and diligently, and for education in Little Rock district: excellence, with /.b' i/' work to do instructed our part in attaining that goal. will continue to - - -------- We have been in the area school section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan to work with the District It is our desire to do ways. can . in several specific just that, helping by what means we We are aware that there is , . , . a very real budget crisis in which has been building for many years, and we ------ plans we have made for area if Hp other plans are very much in jeopardy very "* "t  1. a the District, are also very aware that the schools as not pass. p,  . feel that the greatest obstacles the Littl District must ---- overcome in e Rock School passing a millage are lack of open perceot^nn credibility due to the community's perception of chronic mismanagement and insensitivity, believe that if, as you have begun to do, with all the facts about the budget, the increase will be s W e voters are presented ------, where the money is, and spent, they will begin to see that the system fthe goal of an excellent educational system tor our children now and in the future. District Open communication is so essential on all levels suggest that ... how We in addition to disseminating as much information as terms simple enough for everyone to understand, the set up a telephone hotline to receive input from teachers. We have heard some interesting and workable to know^that thev The teachers need being hea^d communication, that they are oeing heard. a restructuring of the lines of communication in the administration so allowed to freely communicate with the metropolitan supervisor and the board' restructuring in the chain of command, save money, but could lead to more efficiency. possible, District in anonymously given those in the front lines". an avenue of communication. We also suggest that the principals be superintendent, the There might also be some which would perhaps not We as teachers, principals and parents, information for the District. a committee would like to continue to talk with administrators are gathering and dispensing We do not understand why the averse to open communication, particularlywhen Mr. Reville defined these discussions as part of our responsibilities. We have discussed areas where budget cuts might be made. We do not have the information or the historical perspective to make suggestions. It is the job of the administrators to make those decisions, but they owe it to the public to explain those decisions. received, fully explored. We do feel, from the information that we have that there are perhaps some areas which have not been services--custodial supervisors. Are there more cuts which can be made in support for example? Could outside firms be hired to provide bus service and custodial services at a lower cost? (Some schools are not adequately cleaned now.) Attention to detail in ways that might only be suggested by teachers and parents could save money and garner public support. The public has read that administrators' salaries in Little Rock are among the highest in the nation, while teachers' salaries are among the lowest. From public perception. an acceptable good faith gesture on the part of the adminstration would be to take a significant across the board salary cut. a 10% cut. this would only save approximately $50,000, but it With would show the teachers, patrons and especially the voters that the administration is serious about recovery budgeting and about the education of the children as the first priority. also begin a give and take process with teachers, groups and parents. It could special inters! cc: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor/l.'> ! rV-t.t / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 122Q1. 2- Date: April 19, 1990 /vA Building Principals To: From: Through: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintenden Educational Programs and Staff Developmen' Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Re: Reques for Proposal - Academic Incentive Grants ava The Little Rock School District is pleased to announce the .ability of funds to identify and establish initiatives to reduce the number of low achievers.- provide guidelines for funding of proposal Incentive Grants. The purpose of this memorandum is to for A.cademic Progress The primary purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grants Program shall be to (i) improve the education of all students, and (2) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial. socioeconomic, and gender groups. Availability of Funds The grant awards shall be non-competitive for cne year with an option to continue for two additional years.. , Grants shall not exceed $25,000. awards. Incentive and magnet schools.-are not eligible for grant Application Content The application must contain the following information: 1. 2. 3 . 4 . c: Need for'Project Program Description Plan of Operation Evaluation Plan Budget InformationMemorandum - April 19, 1990 Request for Proposal Academic Incentive Grants Page 2 Allowable Activities Area schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disproportion in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Grant proposals The Teachers, building administrators, and patrons shall participate in the development_of the local school proposal. Grant proposals should avoid additional personnel costs, to the extent possible. District will not assume responsibility for continuing costs that occur after the expiration of the funding period. Selection Criteria A panel will review all applications according to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A detailed and well-planned proposal Appropriate goals and objectives Well-documented need Innovativeness Potential for replicability Realistic budget Quality of evaluation Ability to continue after grant period ends Documentation of teacher, administrator, and patron involvement during proposal development Use of volunteers and/or collaborative efforts with businesses, outside organizations, etc. Only one proposal per area school will be accepted. Application Deadline 1990. Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. on June 5, Send to Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. A grant writing inservice is scheduled for May 1, 1990, at 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. "  " a.m. for elementary schools and 1:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. for secondary schools, in the Board Room.  '   representative at the inservice. Each area school should have a bjgAPPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT I. Proposal Narrative (Limit proposal to no more than ten double-spaced, typed Additional pages will not be considered.) pages. A. Need for Project Describe the identified needs and how they will be met through the project. - - - Include any statistical data. B. Program Description Give a description of the program to be implemented, program goals, organizational management, curriculum, personnel and staff training, if needed. Include C. Plan of Operation Include project management time line. Task/Person Responsible/Completion Date A suggested format: D. Evaluation Plan Describe the methods you will use to evaluate activities outlined in this program. E. Budget Information List items to be funded through the grant. The maximum to be funded through the grant will be $25,000 per area school. Identify separately related items that will not be funded through the grant. II. Document Organization A. Organize the proposal in the following order, additional blank sheets of paper. Do not use B. 1. 2. 3. Cover sheet Narrative Budget Submit the original plus four copies of the proposal to: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT APPLICATION 1990-91 Name of School Principal Date Submitted Signature of Principal PROPOSAL COMMITTEERECEIVED MAR I 2 1993 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright tor Horoh 19, 1993 HeagfeV '"3 March 9, 1993 I. Area School parents and patrons of the Little Rock School District request that this letter and the accompanying petitions be made a part of the court record. We wish to address the Court on Budget discussions directly related to Desegregation Plan. We educate 64% of all students in the Little Rock School District, that is approximately 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 9,000 white student's, certainly the majority. Wg are concerned about the following issues: 1) The Little Rock School District has promised, under the Desegregation plan, to make available to the Area Schools $25,000 per Area School per year for a three-year period or more (if the evaluation proves that the grant had positive results) for Academic Progress Incentive Grants to decrease academic disparity. Unfortunately, Area school patrons have had to repeatedly request these funds from the Little Rock School District. Currently, the Little Rock School District has slashed the available money from $25,000 to $10,000 per Area School (a cut of almost 1/2 million dollars). To date for this year, our district has only given Area Schools a total of $50,000 of the allotted $320,000. 2) The Little Rock School District is also obligated to make available to the Area Schools funding for Focused Areas of Activities, but has not responded to pleas and public requests for defining and implementing this funding. 3) Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of cuts budget shown by reductions in funding for Gifted/Talented staff, music, counselors, physical plant assets, and general per capita funding compared to Magnet and Incentive Schools. This scenario has significantly diminished the educational opportunities of Area School students. 4) Area School parents and patrons perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts and their negative impact on the Little Rock School District efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the Little Rock School District. 15) There have been no monitoring or evaluation efforts by the Little Rock School District for the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan. 6) Area School Parents and Patrons have worked hard for our District. We simply do not understand why the Little Rock School District is failing to meet the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. we respectfully request Little Rock School District fulfill its promised obligation to the Area Schools. District II. Impact of the 1992-93 Budget Cuts on Area Schools. 1) Cuts in funding, and lack of funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants, have limited the Area Schools abilities to provide the very programming (such as afterschool tutoring) which has proven to be an effective tool in funding. for decreasing academic disparity. When Area Schools are put "on hold" and don't receive approval or funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants until February of 92 for the 91-92 school year, and then are cut to $10,000 for the 92-93 year, the potential effectiveness of the program has diminished, greatly. But who knows the outcome? The District has been unwilling to provide information such as: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Which schools applied for grant dollars? Who is on the grant review committee? What is the criteria for the grant awards? The oversight and monitoring process? Who and why denied, who and why accepted? Evaluation techniques? Results of Evaluations? Why aren't there Area School parent representatives on the grant review committee? It is also unfair that the Little Rock School District used evaluation criteria to approve or disapprove grants initially, and then failed to evaluate. 2) The Little Rock School District's unwillingness to respond to or define "Focused Areas of Activities'', order for the Area Schools to apply for and receive fair portion of total funding, has again adversely affected the Area Schools abilities to decrease Academic in a disparity. 3) When budget cuts (such as Gifted/Talented.Q^ music, counselors) are made at the Area Schools (but^Magnets, Incentives) Public perception is that quality of *   , Private school education is lower in Area Schools. 24) 5) parents who perceive that quality of education is lower in Area Schools and who are unable to obtain a Magnet School seat are discouraged from sending their children to public schools. This defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to fully desegregate the District. Perhaps it is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to fully desegregate the Little Rock School District. When budget cuts are made at the Area Schools, public perception is that quality of education is lower at Area Schools. Therefore, children whose parents are knowledgeable about the 'special offerings" at the Magnet Schools seek to transfer to Magnets from Area Schools, if seats are available. Because of these transfers, Area Schools have lost many G/T and high achieving minority (as well as majority) students, thus diminishing the number of minority role models, high achievers, G/T students in the Area Schools. We feel that this has also skewed the academic scores: according to figures reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on 8/14/92, overall scores at Magnet Schools were higher than at Area Schools. (However, academic disparity was GREATER at Magnets than Area Schools.) This again defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to decrease academic disparity. It is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to decrease academic disparity. Domino Effect. Since there is no longer a music program, planning time for the classroom teacher has been reduced due to lack of travel time and because the classroom teacher has the added responsibility of teaching music one hour per week. The librarian now has to deal with whole classes for thirty minutes rather than one half class for thirty minute each, so that the teacher has prep time. This has drastically diminished the effectiveness of REACH lessons in the library, which are supposed to reinforce curriculum objectives. Little Rock School District The libraries at Area Schools, are now available less frequently for classes working with their teachers. Therefore the children's instruction in research and other areas have been decreased significantly. Free flow for independent study and reading is necessarily more limited. Children who really desire to use the library are often turned away because of this tight schedule and because of limited library personnel. 36) Eliminating music teachers in Area Schools has adversely affected the classroom teacher, as well as, our children. Teachers vary greatly in their music skills and comfort level in teaching music concepts, increased pressure associated with implementing the new curriculum, teachers simply cannot spend adequate time planning and carrying out music instruction. This situation has adversely affected teacher morale. Children suffer because they are no longer integrated in grade level and school wide music programs. Skills such as listening and group cooperation and multi-cultural understanding and appreciation are a vital part of music education at the elementary level, which is no longer With the This available. 7) Gifted/Talented programs have been cut in half by the reduction of teachers. The impact on children in Area Schools is especially great because Area Schools lack the extra personnel and programs available in Magnet and Many parents who choose public Incentive Schools. schools over private schools in large measure because of a fine Gifted/Talented program developed and supported by both the State and Little Rock School District, are especially demoralized by these cuts. Once again, Area Schools are inequitably dealt the greater loss because their program offerings are not as enriched as those found in Magnet and Incentive Schools. Children, i" kindergarten and first grades (and sometimes second) are no longer afforded the opportunity to participate -- Gifted/Talented programs at all in Area Schools. Since these are the formative years when children are being introduced to problem solving and higher order thinking skills which are tested on the Stanford 8, the lack of Gifted/Talented instruction must certainly adversely affects the academic progress of Area Schools children. And those children whose talents are not evident in the traditionally expected ways may be missed during the selection process for Gifted/Talented participation in the upper grades because of the reduced scope of the program. The Gifted/Talented program cannot adequately meet the needs of the children it targets by once again t-hfi rosnonsibllitv for instruction with the Children in in 8) program. placing the responsibility classroom teacher. The direct services to children provided by our counselors are a vital part of ensuring their success in school. Any reduction in counselor time in Area Schools necessarily impacts on academic progress, citizenship, and school environment. Counselors work with children who have specific behavior problems which disrupt the learning environment in already crowded classrooms, and which interfere with academic progress. Counselors are 49) vital in addressing social problems which affect our - children and disrupt the learning process, such as drug and gangs. children They provide social work functions for whose and situations background family necessitate extra support in order for them to succeed in school. Counselors are instrumental in setting up programs to encourage children who have no incentives from home to achieve in school. One Counselor per 450 students is not enough. school nurses who were already spread thinly among Area Schools are now even less of a visible presence. The pressure of giving medication and attending to illness and injury on a daily basis falls to the school secretary and principal on days when the nurse is not assigned to the school.- For example, an area elementary school might dispense an average of 50 medications daily, including critical medications for illnesses such as asthma and diabetes. school personnel. Medical testing is also handled by These responsibilities are obviously time consuming, requiring up to 3/4 of the day for the secretary (or principal, in the secretary's absence) on The nurse also days when the nurse is not there. provides screening services such as vision, hearing, and scoliosis testing to diagnose problems which would otherwise go undetected in children whose only medical Volunteers often care is provided by the school nurse, hesitatingly perform, but with little expertise, these services when the nurse has no time. Health education is another important service the school nurse handles. Information about physical development, diseases and personal hygiene contributes to keeping children healthy and thus positively affects academic achievement. Hc" can we not see the importance of development screening How and health education for children who do not get basic Information, care and protection elsewhere? Area Schools cannot take any further cuts in nursing staff. 10) At the public meetings held in 1992 with our new superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, many, many more examples of negative impacts of the budget cuts on Area Schools were presented by Area School Parents and Patrons. However, there have been no responses. III. Conclusion. Area Schools play a major role in the Desegregation Plan. We represent 64% of students in the Little Rock School District. That is 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 59,000 White students of the 26,000 students in the district. We struggle for a fair share of resources and repeatedly cry out to the administration to have our children's educational needs net. After the current year budget cuts, we perceived more than ever that we have no recognized role in achieving the goals of the Desegregation Plan. We are the first to be cut and the last to be given our portion of programming and funding which is a part of the district-written and court-approved Desegregation Plan. We obviously care a great deal about and take pride in our children and our schools. We have spent nuch time and effort in presenting these specific negative impacts of the 1992-93 budget cuts. following: We hope they will indicate to the court the * * Budget cuts to Area Schools must be reinstated with no further cuts to Area Schools. Little Rock School District must live up to the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. Area Schools must have an avenue to be heard in any future desegregation matters at the Little Rock School District level and by the court. we sincerely thank you for your consideration. These petitions are still being circulated and will be forwarded to the court. Name Address Date ------t ^2. 0^  ' ' 31/ gii 0. 'i. 3J./ z M CU^ -------- / I RteXrl .-97OT Kt 7 fj '1^1 7t'\ 1V\zM.er 6 L-K-kl Patrons   CHRONOLOGY OF MEETTWdS/REQUESTS -----RY AREA SCHOOL PATRONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION of the Little Rock School District have repeatedly ____clarification of 4-participation nts^Sd and release of funds for Academic Progress Incentive Grants and requested Focused Areas of Activity. 7-25-1990 Area School Patrons met with - Dr. concerning zcademlo ProgrB Incentive Grants. At Area that time, there was time line for Area discussion of. the irrational Schools regarding the grant first letter discussing the Academic sent to the schools proposals. The  Progress Incentive Grants was------ -t.- on April 26th, which discussed a grant writing session on May Sth, with proposals due June 5th. Dr SSlOn oil WAV** 4-Vs4wV . Steele was told that it was outrageous to think and parents have the time t-hat Principals, teachers,  ----- to creatively think about and come up with progr^s the last month of school. told that the Area School Patrons Dr. Steele was me area ouuuui  were met with such statements as  Don't worry, we re working with the schools" -   about the Academic Progress However, when the administration when patrons questioned the administration Incentive Grants. However, when me was asked "will the schools receive the Academic progress Incentive Grants dollars by fall 90.   administrations response was "I can t answer that . The following questions were asked of Dr. Steele: 1) IS there a schools? grant writer helper for the Area 2) Did any Magnet or Incentive Schools request 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) grants? the Magnets and Incentives sent a memo Why were _ regarding these grants. , . ,, 4-bir4-u- Was there enough money budget for all thirty four Area Schools? available for these grants. Is there money --------- --- - Where is it coming from and how much is it. Who's on the Grant Review Committee? What are the review procedures? _ If the grant or portions of the grant are ____ _ ___9 hnnnanq to that monev? 1 rejected, what happens money? reabsorbed into something else or wha?Fall 1991 Feb. 1992 Aug. 1992 . --S) 10) 11) What is the procedure if a school's grant (or portion of) are rejected? Are there any Area School patrons on the Grant- Review/Evaluation Committee? if not, could we please have representation? - Will the grants be in place by September '90? Area School Patrons met with Dr. Steele concerning the Academic Progress Incentive Grants money being put on hold. The administrations explanation was -that because of the budget crisis and the double - funding at Incentive Schools, that the money for Academic Progress Incentive Grants were not available and that the court had to rule on this.  Area School patrons waited until February 1992 and then demanded the money (a copy of the demand may ......... be obtained). It was perceived that because these demands were placed on the administration, the grant monies were made available. Several Area Schools patrons talked with several board members concerning Academic Progress incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity and why the Little Rock School District had not gone forward with its plan. Dec. 19, 1992 Area School patrons presented to the Little Rock School District board requesting the board to have the administration define Focused Areas of Activity and describe the difference between Focused Areas of Activity and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Each board member was handed a copy of the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan, as was taken from the May 1, 1992 revision. Board members were urged to make these areas clear, and to provide the money. other suggestions concerning these grants were made available. There was NO RESPONSE to these requests. Fall 1992 Area School patrons met with Dr. Mac Bernd concerning Area Schools such as budget cuts and disinterest by the District in Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity. 2 Bernd was asked the same question that were asked Dr. of Dr. Steele 7-25-90. There has been no response to these questions and concerns.I t 800 Marell Street, LittJe Rock. Arkansas 72202-3591, (501) 320-1100 or TDD (501) 320-1184 ( SECTION OF COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS AND PUBUC POUCY I I I' Charles R. FeOd, M.D. Seclimi Chief (501)320-1431 Faa (501) 320-2340 Seoalary 320-2651 I  i February 25, 1992 Paul Brown. Ed D, RK Cram t>ai tlii,oian< A Comnranliy ttwhli (501)636-9605 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 1810 W. Markham : Little Rock, AR. 72201 r > ri II . I Frank Farmer. Ph.D. CoMalUM la Ratal Sociology (501)320-3333 I Dear Dr. Bernd: J F- Great Gay. Ph.D. Health Policy CoasuhatH (501)569-3293 I the needs of pupils and staff in the a^ea concerned about tuppoj
L  *0 RawR S. Kirbjr, Phjj. Epidemioloiy <501)320-3333 I  -I at home^^r^^^ I me at 320-3605, or 661-0393 Sim L Shulu, M.D. (MI)32O-3M7 -hoet M Udouj. M.D. (.501)320-3606 ii I -'i , I  1 i I 1 f 7, Cymhb Montgomery, R.N.P. I Joycf Moore. R.N.P, <501 > 320-3*08 1 Torn Noil. MS.W. 1 Director. Edocalioa Sernas (501)320-3628
AHtMsat Accot Rebeca Pocock Projecl Direclof (SOI)32(M)8 I I ' i Ji I j  Best wishes, Charles R. Feild, M.D. Associate Professor of Pediatrics CRF/mda i < > f I1 - 1 t:  -e-:!- 'V-T w'-ir ? I I Timoihy Lee Project Rcprcscnlalite (501)320-7526 J I Arkmn School HoHh Imuranct Preyed Cd Smart Prof ran -I Oiarira Nickenon, MPA Aflmtnhlralor (501)320-3635 Tina Cohm Coordinator. l) 320-3605 >(500 320-3948 ii i I J-".'' * r ! .1 Depirtment of Perfiairia Uniwnilj tl faitnu hi Molicii Sdowj Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From
Parents and Patrons of Area School Children jn the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date z aa^^o^- - -I------ '\\aixLA 3/5?/^3 lda\ ___^^a.gn------- MjLiO ^If.'''^ A </Gl >i7 7^1.0-7 12 Io <f-C:<T!Jjar.a___ 72^00- 3- k-^r 3-&"9-<3 5j. ^?e> ^aio-Hipr '7^^7 f,^^7 '22.'z-o y To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the I BSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. '^xz) Qi/Yv 7 (c/gi date Ct' I/Qljc.zst / A/rvw 7g^7  Q|Oto yA. n1 3. >o - 'i^ A M . fl / - / g - 7 3. 3-1 It -7^7 3-IU^ ....... . 13r' I. Aa R _______S//i)/?3 3-1 To: Thft Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children igthe LRqD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and niake available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. n address 3 Aid neo date 1^01 nar^e^reT - lot^ )\7, Pirv Lp dlLLj^ H 7t^ Q^'mi to I ' Cg)^T&(^ To
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LBSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. b} ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. / n^e date .address l/0( AJo.THXjZA. s eft. na-aei<r ~ 7) ^itKQ3 n-3 *7^^/2 ^2^ _____(tio   ___ Itt-b <rTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright f^rom: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.the LRSH Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearin.gs I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address sn -So t I dale pr iVitJKLKrViA/> y/^ f\G. J iJLi/ A>f {iO^ dl'\ J-f VS-13 -2^i=l-^^  r 11 IIG S,.,. txJ4>oJ^i^ 5o. C/aIh^^-^ C ' J P7/</  Ko ^ 4------------ 3 > 1 Lhil 5. -fl-ir Pa^t Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequi..t.a....b....l.e.... ..b....u...d.. get. c_ uts (gifted anmdi itoailoe niotneidil fva/n do rmhnynsiic faculty, school nurses, ccoouunnsseelloorrss,,. aa_ _nn ad_ zgg<eeznn\neeArrraaolli rppvee/irir ncboadnppiiittiaaa ffluuiinnnrdutiimnnngy^)
epamnnrdut ttuhhicfethiirr nn.eftg0a3ttiiv\/e6 iimmDprS aCctt (on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation>matters. 47^^ address , datte 7/2 - 7 ------------------ -i- 'Si 20902 3^ (^ooi 7/00 7 J 9^'7 5 ' 7 2,2 o 7 ZWai Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School, patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I I desegregation matters. name , address / 5 blt-J ..lx  J JI- ! .A.aA cL^.n/c iQ/j/s'. It . '/'jL/icy / -7^5 '// 'I'n/n./i, //r. i.fl LU Qr~ 'C' /2 WU?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation_matters. na address date >u\. A.' iJ^ C . V\\\Sdk:u>\^ UAo< AAAiQi s? <1 Ju S- >0-^3 L. k>^ r-y^ Cob^ 3 -/c '?3 3 th?3 ______________Lil --------------------  SMAtr. , L.'^. laaoA S\\iT? ^1. f -------- 1 l^ .l l^n<\Z^ ^/(i/-i3 u ylc^.'^ ?-//-73-r To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address S- yV&r^naC, date 3-^-73 3-1-13 . 6 ,1 nQ Ca A vZ, i> ino^ <vJI -Yaj.'A.or it 9 a ^nno q-ix. Qv, JS2^ k'-tc ,fy,i"ir ---------------Cl 3-9^^"? /Cb bib Is iVl -J I  I i-?- ntffia. p4  ' f ~ 3lUi. a '- iV^r' N. uC- j^Th*^ Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. < 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. lame address date , )OV>I 1^ a^xi^y- Qf/nn WK 32^ -------------- - 7)7, ?.aa.-z)23 ------^.7?/23 lJ- PTg o- '^3 O.3^ ^r -f-j ll 't Z^f (\<Zj otitis XU4. 7-3/g fyi(urxc^To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl Prom: parents and Patrons ot Area School Childrejiin the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Ci^ Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented andI music
acufty, ^ch^ nurses, and general ,Sr capita landing) and their negative intact on the Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due tunding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. name Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date u2 -T 'h. J-/O'7^ Or (2k. 3-^ ^(19 A'2 f- /. 1 IL 1, 22 23 M T,. 2^  H1) ^enyDtChflnA- Dr Cha nAi To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children.in.the URSQ Rft- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. address date 5-11-^3 3LtgtW<^kuK>o<I J-41^ 0 n 7 3-//-U 3'//-7T- 2 ___ _ r. To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Re: h<arnh 19 Ifln3 Rudnet Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music facu ty. sch<30 nurses, SoTand general capita .ending) and 'heir negative impac. on .he Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due^ ndfngllor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make due funds lor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date I stern tJills----- Ml, Z-.S LnV.>(ialtiI----------------- h QLWui3(n.-d L. zof.: 7.
i 7Z.2O4- --- Ay IJXA____ 5 93 1 c I ~'\3 3 jL 72^^ 7S.SJy 3-/c-^3 3To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. a< c -A '<.  T7 T' '  ^77^ date it f i~l>i'   :i v'K^sbC / f i-'-' ^^)a-9 3 f U( c Z  Zip  rv-r... / jz / "J f ' - Z S\\'\ $t !-' -v^  I i I 'J i :j:f ' t >'. I \ I 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. I 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. Dj address le d A P Q I r>Q  _ 2ZZZZWZSS3Z^^ a._ 'J- h LTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From
Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.th^ LRSD. Rp- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita tunding) and their negative impact on the Districts ettorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and detine and make available its due tunds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 1 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. me ZL address ,---------- h3le5 fl^ i-l- I Ctstl'Mc CjPLL. LIL. Ci <g- >Jtll S'! l-lC___ iz.-z.c-) 'V <7330*1 date 3-^13 g - /C - 9 5 3- /r. 3-10-^^ 3/ 1^*13 ^0 ^1.  10 friii-'/ 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl From: Parenis and Palrons ol Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parenl or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol Ihe LRSD, respecllully
1) ask Ihe Court Io include Ihis pelilion and signalure as a part ol Ihe Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court Io listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gilted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask Ihe Court Io demand Ihal Ihe LRSD live up Io Ihe commillmenis II made Io Ihe Area Schools in ils Desegregalion Plan. 5) ask Ihe Court Io order the LRSD Io make readily available Io Ihe Area Schools its due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and deline and make available its due lunds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by Ihe Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask Ihe Court Io include Area School palrons and parenis in luture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask Ihe court Io appoini an Area School commillee Io oversee Ihe LRSD in desegregalion mailers, name address dale /C/r ^-9- <r3 ^1 a A <- ifsnvo F 1^X4 7-^3 ^/o Or <.r rf'^7tftffz. f To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cyl Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns * .................. _ z-txA__ I____ I mi ir^izx f o/M ittv/ o/*hr4nl about the ineiiquitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsseeHCHff^s,, aanndd ggeenneerraall ppeerr ccaappiittaa ffuunndoiinngg)) aannad itnheeiirr nneeggaattiivvee iimmppaacut ounu tmhee Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. sp 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the commitments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. - IS U
- dpt IK address date J /c  JZ ZO ') ''>! I i /'i 1 "7- '7^9'6 2 J ( To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From
Parents and Patrons of Area. School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respectfully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns in this petition. of the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school and general per caplla landing) and their negativei impact on DisUicl's ellorts to implement the Desegregation Pian have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its SI ask the Court to order the LRSD to make reaaiiy avaiiauie tu ..v due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define make available its due funds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court available programs ordered plan ! include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the Court to and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date VTn- The Honorahle Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRS Re: March 19.1993 Budgel Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns ' ............................................rtlrtnlAH onH mi lOIA faci litu Qnhnnl about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the nurses, counsellors, ano gerieidi pei uapiia lUHuina
r- . .. District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address . / - date .................................. ^rin>s ,  3- 7-72,, 3- 7515 gOT k) ___ CSII .^Zg-. LP^UAj>, 6 MUbuxi, Of.__To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Parenis and Patrons ol Area School Children in.the.LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signalure as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 33)) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors and general per capita lunding) and their negative impact on the Dnuisrstreicst,'s efforts to implement the Desegregalion Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools ils due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregalion matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address dale X>t7 3 ( 'jj To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings * and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. hLl^ address kJ. OoJz:-. L Q. 13^05 date 510 . Gr^ Il 'r
L5-C5 ],Oi4n^ I __ '7^0^ -------J-Tn Q (:>Qi<. UL L!<L 72 i-<> 'y 3/u^ To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music laculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name C < address date jryiaj. IaJ. \Z.tv\c1 r/lA<e^> fcxAtdM________ r^sQS./ .^is 'i^ , a^inqUf^)^ ^J2-'t27oi___-5|?|93 tfal--o.s^^ 7p^ A/- 'J -^3^06^ 3 // L0 /4iye. "7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name , -tt .. address 3 J U vU ______ dale e-4- /.:3oo A 2350 Y' 3 jj____To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address late L .SB / 1iO I ty I  7gy o-//- ?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wriqhl From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in Ihe.LRSD Re. March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty. schcwl counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the nurses. LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the _ Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the.LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6)ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address Slate. 3. E 7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable bu'rget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative Impact on the District's efforts to Implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Ils Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address -/.Zg-g. J 4/1 , date 3/n/pTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the kESD Re: March 19. 1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. narpi address dateTn: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in s. de^gregation m^ R^e/^ // address (, \iA>: '^ja^ A -'f- _js^ TjTj2. / ' 4 I c: > t A-, \To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in deseg ri name/ ition matters. address date zTo
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom
Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children.in.the.LRSD Ro- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully
1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ol the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. nam' address dateTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I desegregation matters, name address date04 (Tl '93- 10 501 3203948 ACH COMM PEDS @002 his ToAid U.S. School tiv-, 'ats tic-j adej 'susj ''fea?.a.S3sst"s'- W A CH fon Warch 27 . '^pveloped a new of Commerce has way of '  . :.! n a study ree^7/, h . ,>.:  'tnal the E<JPiior dan Prep. a some of that moi ^^P^pendingModeli dl i
fewer >0*relies .'The other sd
^7 S^ruB an ^.ergy'efficient repairs.'. jr...!',I IS and par- Countv "ere AAilaamr edai pair services could fS' bbuurrgg CCoubntyu sno^-^,^ Spariani districts have exiiSZ^L?!*'' s.^boo! . I ihe the Us- * I  Ifnn NNTaacs-hktv.mnte- ,t.h. e '4
cuuW soul was to  Z. lixjia ur, j education I the Shitlv' Oke I the study's m^n University and
- 'the monfy UnlessU die tAiid, the tL<^r 1,. ^nssnom, h/ the resf.  s not reaching L
 in th i:i t 'ded from St re- Perceni of the budg, r-liersg h ^npaetiorn asla aidvTehraTet e of -------.-- '^I i oc- SO percent of ^^SLI!,.P'^=ent to I ri re^ the dast^^' .should Ir
"y " hat I the cost of main Zne iyd tral ornces percent to 63 as against the i fr w ^nding, frvai W I
ag-1 tnf' ..aLion text nd I can unders', I Por th< Ks. and present the I d v^ay that the public I ft I US to loolf ^'bws I tn laymen's terms "7idT.''^5.5f*"t y>la policy analyst ' Commission o/lhe sLt'?/ ^Oation 't and advocacy Broun ? fesearch y. Ms. Fulton on the^ Denver, he f mission for Se^X^^ FinancedbvtS i?i5^!^.?.*htiy. I spent tt Si si m 'I a st he the study's sSeni^^" "dianapolis
h. W school e^end1turi^f,'P t^tthtles tl. htlegories, central nfi?'tain cat-1 Hi * te Sites, wiiicTare the?X.-d"3'^ ' 1 subcategoriel five version of one used to tra^v ^ refined IM \ j New York City nublie  I "J'^Z^real^Xe in in 1990
it I Y s Systems In the ft  eral districts Spent an arge percentage--u--n--a--cceptably th- ) b feiexda m$1p lem, itlhlioen a ''tict idenii- U1 fem's' '"dcS^SFM' Commerce, saidict . I Hi Arkansas Childrens Hospital Pqgnfap<<Jfetfflahlta Chhmby ofArionss forMedka:! SdcnoiS OiariesR. Feild, M.D.,FAAP
A5y?ct** Professor of Pediatrics I
, Chief, Community Pediatrics & . :
.. PubficFtaticy
. 501/320-1438 Fax (501) 320-2840 Emergencies (501) 320-1185 800 MaishaH Street  Uttk Rode, Aitensas 72202-3591 ! / School BADGETT____________________ BALE_________________________ BASELINE____________________ BRADY_______________________ CENTRAL CHICOI______________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH DODD_______________________ DUNBAR______________________ FAIR_______________________ fair PARK___________________ FOREST HEIGHTS^, FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL_________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT_________________ MEADOWCLIFF_______________ OTTER CREEK_________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF Area School Per Student Costs ^ea School Per Student Costs Benefits $331.53 $330.82 ____ $311.49 $302.14 ____ $307,58 Capital Outlay $386.99___ $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 $331.18 $0.90 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 11.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 $16.15 $7.55 Materials .Suppliei Other Objects $42.52 143.97 $68.05 151.85 $37.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 152.90 $35.39 $32.73 $0.00 $0.58 io.oo $0.89 I $0.00 $0.07 Purchased Servici __ $150.00 $118.47 Salaries $2,668.63 $2.663.12 $192.37 $2,464.07 $112.82 $140.96 _______ $317,94 $268.34 $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 $362.48 $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 $298.00 $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 _$270.77 _$292.22 $309.04 $328.51 _______ $3.38 $3.92 ________$3.03 ________$3.85 ________$5.19 _______$56.31 ________$0.99 ________$1.51 ______ $5.94 _____ 128,29 ________$2.07 ________$1.24 ________$2.32 ________$0.71 ________$6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.53 $32.68 $4/40 J51.68 $45.66 $34,58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 $70.14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $2.7 L $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0-22 $0.00 $0.26 $0.00 $0,14 $0.00 $0.00 _____ 182.95_ $89.65 $173.53 _____ $135.74 _____ $162.79 $177.24 $190.79 $2,464.58 $2,672.65 $3,062.99 $2,051.08 $2,580.18 $2.699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 $2,767.88 $157.21 $2,697.98 $102.19 $119.55 $T31.O9 _$190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _$141.98 $131.98 $2.187.63 $2,552.53 $2,174.63 $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 _________$215,26________ $3,079.21 $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 School Salaries Area School Students Per Staff Member frtiK As /c 1/8/96 [BADGETT
BALE BASELINE BRADY CENTRAL GHICOT iCLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 'CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 'DODD IDUNBAR lUUl 'CAIC FAIR FAIR PARK____________________ FOREST HEIGHTS______________ FOREST PARK_________________ FULBRIGHT____________________ GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL__________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ .MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALEJRHIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT iMEADOWCLIFF ,OnER CREEK___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 'SOUTHWEST_____________ ^ERRY__________________ iwAKEFIELD_____________ WATSON________________ WESTERN HILLS__________ WILSON________________ WOODRUFF 9.21 8.17 8.92 9.68 11.84 7.54 11.95 9.35 8.61 11.27 9.16 10.65 10.39 10.56 9.88 11.14 10.11 9.69 11.58 9.20 6.82 8.80 11.00 9.93 10.38 10.29 9.86 10.12 11.19 11.06 10.39 11.43 10.82 9.25 Z Page 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached committee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory t is recommended the Board approve the establishment of this committee. that  I/'I I I I I PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the qua ity of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. Parents of these We care deeply about the We are concerned about inequities , j among area schools and between .schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools.  We are aware of the higher funding evels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. aiiu wuxue, me Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity. the ma^or goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucial role in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children.  f There is no group that is an advocate for children in our area We propose to be that group. schools. we As an advisory committee to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. we would We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. Interdistrict Plan of April 29 The 1992 provides for 'community-wide ---------
----------7 . 7 f [Jiuviueb tor CQrainuniuy multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for incut into planning and decision-making", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on i I i We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I I I Ii 1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership would reflect the diversity of Schools ["single, married, divorced- Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.
Religious
working/non- working
income status, etc.] the Area I I 2) 3) 4) 5) At least one manber will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g., Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities
Magnet Review Committee
Interdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples
A new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools
changes in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding
reduction of grant money
changes in M/M transfers, etc.) PCSSD, NLRSD, any ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (snch as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools, propose tt^t an--ailotted time period be given to ASAC to'^ make suggestions for ArM~Schoo^ts'at each'monthly Little Rock School District Board Meeting.  evaluate, offer and We a) b) Within 2.1 <jays from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (12) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and implesenting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I6) 7) 8) c) It would be helpful for the Little 3^1__1 to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first two meetings to information. As liaison to ASAC, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District on. the flow of The ASAC will a) b) c) PJ^oposals (including changes in 2?,./J^3?tives) for Area Schools made by the Little Rock School District Initiate ideas and or ODM/court. Tpon/nnv/ Proposals and submit them to LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. Provide written feedback to Little concerning the impact of proposed changes o Schools before the changes are implemented. Rock School District on the Area findings to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, L .... requested together with recommendation operation and administration of and to the ODM and Court, to the efficient the Area Schools. as ASAC will work for =  V, consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer consultants and assist in the ASAC process. experts toLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached
committee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory is recommended establishment of this committee. that the Board approve the a' PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Parents of these Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the quality of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. We are concerned about inequities among area schools and between area schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools. We are aware of the higher funding levels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity, the major goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucialrole in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children. area There is no group that is an advocate for children in our schools. We propose to be that group. As an advisory committee the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. The Interdistrict Plan of April 29, 1992 provides for "community-wide multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for input into planning and decision-making", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. I Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership Would reflect the diversity of the Area Schools ('single, married, divorced- 2) Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.
Religious
working/non- working
income status, etc.] At least one member will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g.. Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities
Magnet Review Committee
Interdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) 3) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples: A new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools
changes in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding
reduction of grant money
changes in M/M transfers, etc.) NLRSD, any 4) ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (such as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, and ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools. We propose that an--a-llotted time period be given to ASAC to^^ make suggestions for Area"SchooLs at each monthly Little Rock School District'Board Meeting. 5) a) b) I i I Within 21 days from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (iQ.) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and impl^enting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I 1C) It would be helpful for the Little __1 Liou.xi^ to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first discuss background information, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District two meetings to As liaison to ASAC, the flow of 6) The ASAC will a) consider any plans PJ^oposals (including changes in goals/ob]ectives) for Area Schools made by Rock School District or ODM/court. the Little b) Initiate ideas and proposals and submit LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. them to c) Provide written feedback to Little Rock __1 concerning the impact of proposed changes on the Area Schools before the changes are implemented. School District 7) findings to the Little Rock School istrict Board of Directors, and to the ODM and Court, requested together with recommendation operation and administration of the to the efficient as 8) Area Schools. ASAC will work for consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer assist in the ASAC process. consultants and experts to<?C: CCCTBBg^ u Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 a' FEB 2 1 1595 MEMORANDUM CigC3 05 DoSi :ga:
en TO: Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee FROM: Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener SUBJECT: AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 W. Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1Cc - Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
SUBJECT
FEB 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcnilodiig Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1 from Our Representative to the ASAC is
NAME
Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor ADDRESS
201 E. Markham, Suite 510, Heritage West Building, Little Rock, AR 72201 PHONE
(home) 663-8177 (work) 376-6200 STAFF ODM PARENT I would like a copy of the ASAC proposal-VS- 5 Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEB 2 1 1595 CuiCS 0! Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m.. Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1KKBBgg Little Rock School District Media Advisory March 2,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The newly formed Little Rock School District Area Schools Advisory^ Committee (ASAC) will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, March 8 at 6:00 p. '.m. in the board room of the administration budding at 810 W. Markham. Community members are invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to serve as representatives on the committee, ASAC was proposed by LRSD Zone 3 representative Judy Magness and was approved by the School Board in January. ### O ATr*tr'k* C4-M. 30/30'd 62:9T G6. 3 JieW 303-t732-I0S-Txej $331^^35 iSIOdcinS OSdlSee. /f-. Clryyp/c/e r? n .'7 PSRk i : ' b- :
- :'l TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 Office ot Desegfogation Monixn
J March 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHH .DREN o 7 /RECS1VS3? MAR 5 1995 TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY PARE!NM 0sesresaBo.n Mcn.ic
ng March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly written and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled with inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the ARFA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out iff this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. Haw dare the ^strict suggest that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. 7 O'. .V MINUTES 'A-5 AREA SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) 2 7 ^995 APRIL 10, 1995 LRSD Administration Building OfiiCS -  O' M j Steve Arnold served as facilitator for the second meeting of the ASAC. He called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. Fourteen persons attended the meeting, ten of whom were voting members. The meeting began with Mr. Arnold thanking all those who helped form the ASAC as well as those committee members who attended a recent meeting called by the LRSD administration. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, called several members of the ASAC and asked them to come to the district offices and discuss a LRSD business case which proposed changes to both the Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG) and the grants for focused activities. According to representatives who attended the meeting with LRSD, during 1995-96 the district seeks to combine the two grants and offer $5000 in combined funds to each school as an allocation. While the schools will no longer be required to file a grant proposal, the projects upon which the funds are spent will be evaluated. Each school should use the APIG/focused activity fund for activities that promote academic achievement or a thematic emphasis for the school. The committee briefly discussed the need for better participation among the area school representatives, and decided to develop bylaws which would address attendance guidelines and other basic organizational issues. Steve Arnold volunteered to enlist the aid of an outside expert to prepare a draft for discussion. The committee agreed to take the task up at our next meeting. Mr. Arnold said, that in order to give committee members time to review the document, he would try to have a draft ready to mail out with the May meeting notice. Dannette Haley gave a report on the LRSD budget hearing held earlier that day in District Court. The report focused primarily on the courtroom discussion of APIGs and focused activities. Ms. Haley also explained that a number of schools had not yet received their funding, and she urged ASAC members to go back and encourage principals to go after the funding before the year ran out. Any APIG/focused activity funds left over at the end of the 1994-95 budget year will revert to the general fund. Melissa Guldin, an associate monitor at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) explained that the LRSD does not "roll over" funds into a specific account
all unspent money is reallocated through the regular budget process. Judy Magness, a member of the LRSD Board of Directors, asked the committee members to comment on the budget proposals related to APIGs and focused activities. Magness also commented that, to date, the district has spent $1,600,000 on the APIG grants to area schools. The group spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of changing the grant funding to a per pupil basis, rather than a standard allocation per school.Page 2 ASAC Minutes for 4/10/95 Edwina McClerkan made a motion , which Dannette Haley seconded, that said : "For the 1995-96 school year, focused activities and APIG will be combined and funded at a level of $20 per student per year. This funding will be in the form of a budget allotment [rather than through a grant application process]." The motion was passed unanimously by the voting members present. Several committee members raised concerns about maintenance and repairs at the districts area schools. Representatives reported waiting for long periods for responses to work order requests. Due to the considerable number of concerns related to plant services, the committee decided to invite Doug Eaton, the LRSD Director of Plant Services, to attend the May ASAC meeting. The committee decided to place Mr. Eatons presentation first on the agenda and then take up the issue of ASAC by-laws. Steve Arnold placed the proposed agenda items as a formal motion, which Edwina McClurkan seconded. The motion passed without dissent. Cindy Farris, reporting for the Media Perception sub-committee, said that she has begun to keep a file of all newspaper articles and photos related to the public schools.
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 Resoources.
   

   

  


   

  

 


   

   

 


   

  

 

<dcterms_creator>Area School Advisory Committee</dcterms_creator>