Focused activities

LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jun 8 95 8:43 P.02/02 3j T-: n Little Rock School District News Release June 8, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann. 324-2020 The Littie Rock School District received a $233,992 grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission to fund early childhood education programs. The Arkansas Better Chance grant will help to fund programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three to five. Approximately 378 children will be served at 13 sites by programs funded through this grant. ### aiO-WP-^ Markham Street Uttle Rock. Arkansas 72201 ^(501)324^2000FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM Notice The Little Rock School District is pleased that we have been able to offer a Four-Year-Old program in our schools for the past seven years at no charge to parents. Due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in as many of our schools for the 1995-1996 school year. The final decision will be made by the LRSD Board of Directors in the near future. We will continue to accept applications for the Four-Year- Old program in hopes that we can offer the program at all current locations. However, please be reminded, your application does not guarantee a seat in the program. Final assignment letters are scheduled to be mailed the week of April 3,1995.BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS May 25, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I i In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. {? r i At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan, recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. This move Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $183,900 to area schools and result in a $261,100 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school year. Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided e opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to 525,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding. The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to 510,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were 510,000 and elementary grants were funded at 55,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM definition Current implementation has or a reduction in not resulted in either expected improved achievement , -t uupiuvcu ttWUCA me oispanty m achievement among students of different racial, uffiaaS -feV an?
financial nrnhipmc buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the have TausS ,hT n- ! =ff,iveness of existing program feTth Te:rabr: Sis' ~ not Deen able to identify any sustained academic improvement are far, the District has relative to APIG. cope with many of the rfouTXams if"nn=etivity the District has ^Tck E Kf". pemussion to implement Focused Activities and meaningful way. APIG in a more focused and intplentented Focused Activities prior to the activities or DlaS fo?T ? adnnnts,ration had not defined focused 1994 did theW, " iti Prins of not implemented 1994 did the District begin Activities. to study various approaches to implementing Focused On April 21, 1994, the LRSD convened responsibility of defim^ FoS Acti^^^T^ "" develop both a gran, proUSp^^Sal committee was comoosed nf cV ^ixteen-member steenng adnnrustrators, two magnet school cuniSmspeZlfaU Three T office Teachers Asso^atta parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants however. (LRCTA), and three were made available in June of 1994, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994 w, were provided .n the sprtag. Grant proposals werf not ubm d or vio^s Ponjons of the grants were approved in order to allow IT, . 7 . Workshops reasons. programs. to allow schools to start their The steering committee adopted the following goals for based on the goals in .............. Plan: the Focused Activities focused activities which are section of the LRSD Desegregation 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. 4. ^rpbine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities. Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation fCOE'), and the Desegregation Plan fSchool Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on Extended COE process based on quality education through the use of the Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget
thus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding grant The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of failing. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to elementary area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. Annually each elementary area school will be funded $20 per student as of the October 1 enrollment. Funds will be allocated at the beginning of the new school year and adjustments will be made after enrollments are verified later in the year. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7twenty-three (23) area elementary schools will be supplemented with an allocation of $20 per student This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $183,900 while yielding a saving of $261,100. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding, This recommendation wUl allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. 8ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCRVTTVE GRANTS, FOCUSED AC^i^rDKEG'k'EcXlIGN PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS), AND EXTENDED COE lac'anve Gnats, Focused Activities, Desejiesation Pisa (School Opentioas), sad Extended COE ire comparable u well u ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A,. The focused activities of each area school wfll be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and dav-to-dav acavides. ' 3 The academic performance of area school students will indicatei tchievemeat gained partiaUy as a result of enrichment experiences provided V the core ororam an<4 by the core projraa' and carichmeat activities. psredpate ia OBjoiag, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core canicular activities. D. Ail area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equiable and excellent educaaonai prngrawn FOCUSED ACTrvrriES The purpose of the Focused Activities' shall be threefold: 1. To promote the school as a 'community of learning* among parents, staff and students
1 To provide earichmcat opportunities ic the building levcb md 3. To ensure cquiuble opportuniaes for partidpaaoa ia the eletaeaurv schools. vea Each non-magnet and aon-incentive elementary school will provide focnsed actmties (or the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socio-economic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning ia which all^ students, suff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. The focused activiries of each non-magnet and non-incenove elementary school will be integrated into the core curricalum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day aeovities. A* All elementary area school students will parddpate In ongoing, meaningful enrichment actMtlcs that complement and extend the core cunicubr acevides. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C. To provide climate in each jchool which is based on the beUef and crpectaaon that ail children can learn and to provide resources support that belief. necessary to C ?M1 elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and ezeedest educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EV.M.UATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D i o monitor student class ratios and iastrucnonai epportunides for all students. practices to ensure equal B An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disoarides. C. to provide and ensure oppormnities and encouragemeat to aU students to participate in extracurricular and ccxurricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minoritv and disadvanmged srudeais. to assess the raciusioa of muldculturai matenals and aondiscrimiaatory instnrcdooal materials. B 3. To revic'w and assess testing practices, formats, sad results in order to better address the needs of sU students while providing special intervention for disadvaaiajed students. Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to faciliute the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-culturai ccunseling, and minority achievement strategies. D. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and Eoval Access advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all smdenis. to Indicators included in this area are: 3 To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement: to address dispariries, individual needs, and student success
and to provide staff ID * Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement development on an ongoing basis. Indicators included in this area are: ii To provide infonnation to parents ia regard to topics relevant to increasing < A . AM . __t___ ___ 1 r student access to educational and extyacurricalar opportunities. B* A continuous increase ia overall student achieveaenL *Same leiiering (AS) denota chat spedpc goaia other are comparable, complement, anhior support each others B A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher. E An increase in diverse parental participanon in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of is recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups fnrmpH rvn ___ , , . . o o r Successful -------p - VillV XzlXAWAXk U tormed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. sJvZvoofui implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learmng among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of o o o o students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of "C or better in the core areas for each student. Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument Should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement tor all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender ^oups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of ? J . "lu uc uciivcu irom tne estaonsnment ot a co^umty of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. TTie implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within Its existing annual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among ditterent racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as communities of learning," through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the Distnct has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and v/q are dnven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and dese^egation funds, a total saving of $261,100 will enable the District within existing revenues. to operate FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations Elementary Area Schools (23) APIG/Focused Activities $20 per student TOTAL $183,900 $183,900 111. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration schools and patrons who want to existing revenues. I, area see the District implement effective programs within TTie primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is implemented. If plans are approved, the following timeline will be QOt approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 122. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney begin the process for plan modification to March 31, 1995 3. 4. 5. Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. April 3, 1995 TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development 137. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. 9. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. Action plans reviewed. June, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) 13. Implement action plan June/July, September, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 August, 1995 August, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area school teams Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams 1414. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 16. 17. Use results of evaluation to modi^/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams June, 1996 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 15 d 3 '-i fcy r SiUSL'A^y 31995 Office of Desegregsiion Mcriuonrig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTSSCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APP 0 3 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By.- PIAII^JLRF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached "Business Case - Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants" and the "Little Rock School District Incentive School Plan - Staffing Business Case". These documents have been revised since they were originally filed on March 14, 1995. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ByT Chr i s topher He 1 Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of April 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 1st cipher Hell 2 BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS April 3, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to proxdde activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan. This recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to move obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $155,000 to area schools and result in a $290,000 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, em-iched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided the opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to $25,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding, The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to $10,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were $10,000 and elementary grants were funded at $5,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Thus far, the District has not been able to identify any sustained academic improvement relative to APIG. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, Extended Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to implement Focused Activities and APIG in a more focused and meaningful way. LRSD elementary area schools have not Implemented Focused Activities prior to the 1994-95 school year. The District administration had not defined focused activities or planned for its implementation in the schools. Not until the spring of 1994 did the District begin to study various approaches to implementing Focused Activities. On April 21,1994, the LRSD convened a steering committee and charged it with the responsibility of defining Focused Activities. Committee members were also to develop both a grant proposal and promotional plan. The sixteen-member steering committee was composed of six building administrators, two central office administrators, two magnet school curriculum specialists, three classroom teachers appointed by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), and three parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants were made available in June of 1994, however, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994. Workshops were provided in the spring. Grant proposals were not submitted for various reasons. Portions of the grants were approved in order to allow schools to start their programs. The steering committee adopted the following goals for focused activities which are based on the goals in the Focused Activities section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. Combine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes_Evaluation (COE), and the Desegregation Plan (School Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on quality education through the use of the Extended COE process based on Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget
thus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. 4. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of falling. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7thirty-one (31) area schools will be supplemented with an additional ($5,000). This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $155,000 while yielding a saving of $290,000. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding. This recommendation will allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. * 8E. ReconuneadatioD GOALS AND PURPOSE ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES, DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS). AND EXTENDED COE The goals and purpose of Academic Progress Incentive Grants, Focused Activities, Desegregation Plan (School Operations), and Extended COE are comparable as well complementary of each other.* as ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. B The academic performance of area school students will indicate - achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. C Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. D All area schoolswill be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educadonal programs. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES The purpose of the "Focused Activities shall be threefold: 1. 2. 3. To promote the school as a "community of learning" among parents, staff, and students
To provide enrichment opportunities at the building level
and To ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socioeconomic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which alf students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that behef. Ae All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. C* All elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D* To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. C* To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. B To review and assess testing practices, formats, and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intcr^ention for disadvantaged students. De To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. B To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement
to address disparities, individual needs, and student success
and to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. B An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disparities. A&C The inclusion of multicultural materials and oondiscriminatory inslrucrional materials. B Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to facilitate the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-cultural counseling, and minority achievement strategies. Equal Access Indicators included in this area are: Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement Indicators included in this area are: To provide information to parents in regard to topics relevant to increasing student access to educational and extracurricular opportunities. *Same leicering (^-) denotes that specific goals either are comparable, complement^ and/or support each other. B* A continuous increase in overall student achievement B* A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher. An increase in diverse parental participation in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals, of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. Successful implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. o o Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of "C" or better in the core areas for each student. o Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). o Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement for all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. The implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within its existing aimual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as "communities of learning," through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the District has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and we are driven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and desegregation funds, a total saving of $290,000 will enable the District to operate within existing revenues. FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations APIG/Focused Activities $5,000 Elementary Area Schools (23) Junior High Area Schools (5) Senior High Schools ____CT Total Schools (31) TOTAL $115,000 $115,000 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $155,000 $155,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration, area schools and patrons who want to see the District implement effective programs within existing revenues. 111. 2. 3. The primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented. If plans are not approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney to begin the process for plan modification Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 March 31, 1995 April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney 124. 5. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 7. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. June, 1995 Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 139. Action plans reviewed. June/July, September, 1995 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. September, 1995 - June 1996 Local area school teams 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) August, 1995 August, 1995 13. Implement action plan September, 1995 - June 1996 14. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1416. 17. Use results of evaluation to modify/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 June, 1996 Local area school teams Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1516Bale School Brady Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (1st) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,700 (partial) $8,886 (partial) $10,000 $7,070 (partial) $2,852 S 10,000 S10,000 $10,000 $7,900 (partial) $10,000_________ $5,102.20 (partial) $2,686 (partial) $10,000 TOTAL
$135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEiNTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulaski Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 Janutuy 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL
$20,600Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 19, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and APIG Report Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the Focused Activities and APIG Monitoring Report. Please review the report and take note of any inaccuracies. Submit any corrections or other relevant observations in writing along with the draft report to our office by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 20, 1994. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 13, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Activities As you know, we have been monitoring the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the development of Focused Activities. It is our desire to conclude our ongoing inquiry and submit a report to the Court, In order to finalize that report, we wiU need the following information by September 19, 1994. A description of the current status of Academic Progress Incentive Grants Definition of Focused Activities Copies of all correspondence received by building principals regarding Focused Activities/APIGs for the 1994-95 school year. Documentation of any inservice held to explain application procedures for. the 1994-95 school year. Copy of the timeline used by the district for submission of proposals, approval of proposals, and actual funding for the 1994-95 school year. List of all schools which have had proposals approved and are currently being funded. Include the dates when funding was actually provided. Copies of all Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grant proposals for the 1994-95 school year. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 9, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Revised Documentation List for Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Thank you for meeting with me regarding Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants on December 6. I found the meeting with you and Mr. Ingram to be enlightening and productive. The enclosed documentation list reflects the changes we discussed during the meeting. The submission date for these materials remains January 14, 1994. As always, if you have questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93 Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities. Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91,1991-92,1992-93 Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 Copies of the summative districtwide report on Focused Activities 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94Academic Progress Incentive Grants Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year Documentation for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) indicating the amount spent each year per school and the schools outstanding balance. Copies of individual school grant proposals for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as they become available) Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to the schools Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant ProgramOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date
December 6, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superiutendeat, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Monitoring As you are aware, ODM is currently monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Our monitoring will encompass funding and programmatic elements of both areas from the 1990-91 school year through the current school year. The monitoring process will consist of data analysis as well as site visits to observe activities currently being funded. Enclosed you will find a list of needed documentation. We are requesting that these materials be submitted to our office by January 14, 1994. If you have questions or concerns regarding the documentation request or monitoring process, please dont hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93 Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities. Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes Academic Progress Incentive Grants Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year g Documentation for 1991-92,1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) listinj the schools which carried over funds from the previous year and the amount of carryover Copies of individual school grants for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as ey become available) Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to e schools Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91,1991-92, 1992-93 Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92 1992-93 Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91,1991-92, and 1992-93 Copies of the summative districtwide report on Academic Progress Incentive Grants 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (unless this information is included in the individual grant applications) Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program.RECEIVED MAR 1 2 1993 TO
FROM: RE
DATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Area School Patrons . ... 1992-93 Budget Cuts for March 19, 1993 Hea?&g '"9 I. March 9, 1993 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. We are concerned about the following issues: 1) 2) 3) 4) 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. 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. Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of budget cuts 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. 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. 1 r- r f I fi /fr-Zn', i I I I 1 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'll conti there is a clear guideline in tha THE OURT: I, again, ca I knov/ you have been dealing with than one judge. In fact, if you you have been dealing with three < thi case. And we don't all thin! Another thing I wanted to ask with thi Z<f7/iz?ez'C ^02 A5ti about. and we struggled , ray staff and 1 struggled with thi to area schools, and that is. focused activ s, with respect ies in area schools. The May 1 order, and May of this says, and I quote, "The year, of '92, ourV recognizes that the Incentive Grant Prograra is a corapliraentary addition to. but not a replaceraent of the original focused activities features of the Plan. Focused activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will according to the original plan which provide and parental involvement and operate for community an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for this Settlement Plan budget". MR. CHIP JOKES
incentive grants, slash. focused activities in Now, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. Thi was a suggestion made by the Office of De segregation Monitoring that I didn't that I failed to make. So that should read on Program 13, "Incentive grants. slash. focused activities". EUGSNIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER r- ( i -----'a. / I f a'aa) r. 33 1 I 1 9 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'xx continue to work v/ith then so there is a clear guideline in that area. TOE OURT: I, again, can't be too critical, I know you have been dealing with more than one judge. In fact, if you coun because than one plan and more the Special Master, you nave been dealing with three district court judge thi case. And we don't all think alike. Another thing I wanted to ask about. in and we struggled with tnis, my staff and 1 struggled with this. to area scnools, and that schools. is, focused activ with respect ies in area ihe May 1 order, and May of this year, of says, and I quote. n The '92, ourt recognizes that the Incentive Grant Program is a complimentary addition to. but not a replacement of the original focused activities features the Plan. of rocusad activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will operate according to the original plan which provide for community and parental involvement and an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for focused activities in this Settlement Plan budget". MR. CHIP JONES: incentive grants, slash. Nov/, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. This was a suggestion made by the Office of De that I didn't that I failed on Program 13, egregation Monitoring to make. So that should read "Incentive grants. slash. focused activities". EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER 4-.r I i i i 1 ! i 1 2 3 J 4 ! 34 THS COURT
All right. I was concerned that the District didn't really understand that 1 was saying the incentive grants are still there and focused activities still there. And I reiaeaber fron Ms. Mathis' testimony, that 5 t t I thought the District was trying to inerge these two. 6 and I really didn't want them merged. I 7 8 9 And I realise that it is very important, I mean. in my opinion. to continue these program for area schools, not only just for quality of education generally, bu also for their desegregation efforts 10 in reducing disparity. Because even thougii we concentrati so 11 much in thi courtroom on the incentive schools, Mr. Walker, 12 we concentrate very much on them, and monitor them and 13 14 monitor the Four-Tear Old, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the bulk of the black children in this district are 15 in area schools, and we don't want to forget about them. and 16 they're not getting as many of the goodies as those children 17 in the incentive schools and the magnet schools are getting. 18 MR. WALKER
Or supposed to be getting. Our 19 20 contention is that they are still not being received in the incentive schools, even though they say they are. 21 22 that. THE COURT
Well, again. this i not a hearing on But if we cut out focused activities from the budget. 23 they certainly are less likely to get it in the area schools, 24 as well. 25 MR. WALKER
.Absolutely. EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER1 2 THS COURT: And there's been at least 35 I've heard reports of sone wonderful ideas and thenes and progran. 3 that thes area school have come up with that have been very 4 successful and have a lot of community support, and I 5 certainly don't want to eliminate those. xAnd so now hat o 7 you're adding incentive grants/focused activities, do you still expect the budget to be $320,000.00 for the '92-93 a academic year? 9 ilR. CHI? JONES: At this point in time, again, the 10 budget is still in process, and one final plans on how to I 11 treat that or develop it, it's all subject to revision. 12 THE COURT: Now, as to the incentive schools, on May 13 1 the Court did not approve some of the things you wanted to 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do with respect to the incentive schools. the smaller classe you had more we And, for example, required we required more aid if than we had required an aid par classroom in some instances. budget. I won't go through the details of the But, anyway, it' you wanted it to cost you. the May 1 order? MR. CHIP JONES: Honor. THE COURT: going to cost you more money than Is this reflected in the budget. Yes, it's based on 20 to 1, Your What about the Latin program? MR. CHIP JONHS: It's not specifically set out, but if you look at program let's see. Program 75, "Other EUGENIE M. POVTER U.S. COURT REPORTERHOI 123 DR. BERND: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Tne exceptional children, do you know 10 11 12 13 14 what reduction explain that? are really reflected there? DR. 3ERMD: talking about are and t Could you Basically, Your Honor, what we're situations in which we have dona placement ting of children into special education programs through the use of outside contracted services. developed the capacity within the District to And we have accomplish these same functions and not spend that money in that manner, and we expect the savings to accrue from that change to be what has been given here. THE COURT: And you don't believe that thi will have a negative impact on black children who are r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 B disproportionately represented in that category? 16 No, we do not. It's more in the area of DR. BSR^^^: 17 testing and placement rather than a reduction of special 13 education services. And the procedure that we use to place 19 20 cnildren in special ed is very strictly legally prescribed, and we'll still have to follow that procedure and use the 21 appropriate tests and recommendations to place children. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT
progress grants. My next question relates to academic And you've taken $480,000.00 off them, yet the Settlement Plan promises that area school may have up to $25,000.00 thi year for those grants. How did you arrive at EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER124 10 11 12 13 14 15 that 43G,000-dollar figure? DR. 3ER:-ID
Basically what wg looked at, we looked at what the Plan required and our interpretation of the Plan, and the up to" was the fact that we could make that recommendation, that reduction and still follow the Plan. And I should add as kind of a parenthetical expression. Your Honor, we did look at the Plan with regard to all of these. and really try and make a conscientious determination that least the reductions did fit th THE COURT: at requi aments of the ?lan. Well, you said you looked at the "up to's". What did you figure per area DR. BERND: Jones, if I may. chool? Im going to throw that one to Mr. MR. CHIP JONES: Ten thousand. THE COURT: In other word you plan to slash these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o 9 16 grants from 25,000 to 10,000? 17 MR. CHIP JONES
And, again, this totally hadnt 13 been worked out, but look at where the plans had "up to 19 20 800,000", if an individual had some particular need or proposal, the "up to" would also work a that level, as well. 21 Last year the District spent we didnt spend wer were a 22 couple of hundred thousand dollars less than the full 23 $300,000.00 that was budgeted. So even last year the full 24 25 25,000 per chool was not spent. THE COURT
Have you had any negative reaction from EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER125 10 11 the comnunity on this? i-m. CHI? JONES: DR. BERND
it's out ther None that Im aware of. Actually we have not. That doesn't mean that it's not out there, but it hasn't reached our level. The other comment that I would make is V7a also want to look very carefully at how these monies are being spent and make student achievement. ure that they are directly affecting We're not totally convinced that that' been the case in the past. THE COURT
It might not have been. Again, I think I e::pres3ed this concern this morning. Th Rian doe call 1 2 3 4 6 7 3 9 12 for reduction in disparity, and I know that your model, the 13 effective schools program, would also strive for reduction in 14 disparity. This Settlement Plan, which I'm charged with 15 monitoring and you're responsible for implementing, place a 16 lor of emphasis on incentive schools and magnet schools and 17 inter-district schools. And this is about all that 13 shculdn' t ay it's about all. But thi is one of the few 19 perks that these area schools receive. And the bulk of the I 20 students, including the black students, are at these area 21 schools. And it concerns me that the Plan focuses so much on 22 a minority, and I'm not talking about a racial minority, but 23 I mean a minority of students in student population when the 24 bulk of the tudents are in area schools. And this i one of 25 the things that they are eligible to receive. And that's my EUGENIE M. PO14ER U.S. COURT REPORTER 41 only ramark at this time. 125 And I don'c know that you are 2 wrong in saying that perhaps these progress grants really 3 have not added much I think they have been useful morale 4 boosters, but I know it's something other than just a morale 5 booster. S I want to go on to transportation, cut those e^cpenses by 7 $200,000.00. now, this is, I assume. in addition to the 3 70,000-dollar out in Proposal No. 2. 9 DR. 3ERKD
That' correct, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT
How do you plan to cut the 200,000? 11 Where is that going to coma from? 12 DR. BERND: Mr. Jone could elaborate, but we're 13 looking at increased efficiency in routing, fuel savings, and 14 savings in transportation supplies, basically. Anything to 15 add to that? IS 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHIP JONES: The process these on an across the board basis. we used was looking at And in the nonpersonnei we used 20 percent as the figure, so this represents approximately 20 percent in reduction in their nonpersonnel budget. This is why this has to be a continuing process. The transportation budget is really tied to the price of gasoline. thi You know, if that goes up, you know, this may not may not be able to prove to be much savings. Right now this is something we just have to keep monitoring. And I 25 agree, there's not much control once we start transporting EUGENI M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTERi J 4 b b / B y XU / 1. X 1 ic X J peopiti wer'>j belny trained IbS On IL at. t ne Li me i c a me . Q well, boc to r, wli V is it that you would spend s u c h h i q h piopoi'lioii or your' budget kriuw ttiat you are that ro r such a computer' system wiren you don't have much money.-' so much go and then be cal led a desegregation expense p roce s s r' 0 r you Wfiy 'wou I d ror data a data processing system that nobody understands and is out or proportion even to teaching expense A Mr . waIker, X will L a k e r e s po n s i b i I | t y tor many things on this stand, but happened betoiB b A I I right. the purchase or that computer my wa tell. Now , you have 1 ti you have system I s one that listed here incentive grants. 'What I s an Incentive grant: Ihdt s Linder No. X J . 1 i I X4 Xb Xb X / XB xy 20 2X 22 24 2b A Uk ay . Let me get to id. to gi've money to area schools An inoen Live g rant i s a program So they can use that discretionary money tor school Improvement planning, Intended to enhance desegregation. Q Well, i r It's activities that are so important, why would you reduce obB,OL)U to SJtiO.OGo a year? A we reduced It because we looked at the Plan and that the Plan did not so we reduced It, i t r rom and saw require a minimum or bbB.OOU to be spent, and we reduced 1t as one or our balancing budget-baIanc1 ng measures. Inals why we did it. boe s doe s the Pl an require SJ2U,OuO to be spent 1 or incentive g ran t s ?i o o I i I i I j 4 i u j A I tie Plan, W a 1 K e I' . A d I d 1 don t De I Ie. e, requires a s pec i r i c ainuun I . r -i ( . A t I I-1 yh t . J. d 11 a w e I ee I I live ti live app I to yu back and re-read the I diiguaye , Du c - - but we like we wanted tu letatii y 1 a 11 L s . Liid t a u r a 3 iiiuc h o 5 pO S sI D 1 e u r t. Hose particular school i budget tna:/ be eiuianced by some u the r p rueedu re to the extent ol a p ru pu r t I u n a t e auiuunt o Ir this money/ I i 1 1.U i 1 A that What s correct. the ma*1 mum amount that an incentive grant can be / i i I I ic 1 J 14 lb I 10 A y A y A 1 believe id you 1 d I'd have to look It up. All right. 1 or i I i 1! lb bl b J Id,Odd . b4 bb I Ht dUUH1 I 1 HL W1I Ntbbl 1 Ht CUUKI ! 1Ht W1 INtbb i UK. tAlUNi 1 Ht WllNtbb! bV MH. WALKtH-. y Id,ddd. Its It not much this year. It went down. Veah, 10,0ud. Its Now, why IS it went down. yeah, I was going to say i 11 -schoo 1 SU s pen s i on a de 3eg regat i onL tt , 1 J 4 to I d to 11 1^ 1J i4 lb 10 expense rather than a district s expense? I ha t Is No. i 1 1 / Id 19 2 I 22 2 J 24 2b lot or a lot or the th toys here and i m t in niakinii th I s we re I n re I a t I on to -the I II - sc hoo I suspension there. I o t Carryiiiy those things as expense because they are sped t ie i II as a s a de sey regat i on in the Plan. Why is it view oI t he treated r a 1 re r in trie r u lure ' that this amount should not expectation or the Plan that and more 1 mean. planned continuation or A was non nio re are you pre sen t i understand your point. I liank you . it s Now a point that concerns talked about tills mo in 1 riy . students won t come. is not dec 1 i niny students will be and less discriminatory not building in. p rac t i ces ? me , i r and its the we don ' t iiave on the other hand, you may build space that the students won t use. ch i ckeri-and-the-egg argument. Its a 111 e r r e c t. same po 1 n t the space. ne re L h .11 t he not want to 1 don't think 1 can give you a definite answer to it. understand your point. but 1 I would like nothing better than to be able to spend those runds on something else. Uli the other iiand, i r we need need them, 1 want to have them there. a re a I I A And that's going to be a desegnegation expense? why not not there are not these programs necessary programs tile chi Idren in tiie district Id tiie r 1 I o r than ror black children
understand the point you're making to me. Une9 '^A/' I 1 J 4 b b the Court It they were ir these cuts were approved by the Court, i don't know that they were, but 1 1 think they were. IHt CUUH I ) MR. WALKtKt BY MR. WALKER: well, some were and some weren t. All right. Q Uoctor. It Iook 5 as it to me i n looking at this document I that virtually all or these cuts were from. basical Iy, the B UesegregatI on budget. incen Live SGhoo1s look at begin at y the bottom down there, ^,4UB,OUU. incentive school, parent I I I iO rec ru1 Li ng , library, coiiimurilLy school. transportat ion. a c a d e III 1 c i t program grants. I ha t s Liie big one over here on on No . i J 1 J under i ncen t i ve IhaL s the grants, same a s academic program grants. i 5 n t it: 14 A Yes. lb y All right. And i t seems like it's -- you cut more than lb 480,000 you cut $460,000, which meant then that it was a i / Iarge r amount than $688,000 to begin with. in other words. IB 480,000 plus J^O-, to me. is 800,000, but you represented to the I ! 1 I I i I I I I 19 ^O 2i 22 2-1 24 2b Court that the previous year was only $688,000. A y is there a question in thereY Well, i m asking you two things. One , you're making the cuts in the desegregation budget, but then you're giving the cou r t inaccurate 1 ntormaIion. Urn year before was $688,000 and you said you made a cut o I $480,OOO. 480,000 from 688,OOO would leave $168,000. And "n 1 i I I 1 I i I i I i I I i 2 J 4 b b I a y to li 12 12 14 lb lb 1 i lb IS 20 2 1 22 23 24 2b 191 and the -- and the represantation being made to the Court Is -120,000 , and causes us to You see I A t tie A Yes . i they're also to us. So, Im saying that this question the integrity or the figures. t i I a t, Mill I Doctor-f say that i m rigures on the page that A I I r i gn t. now . 1 was I n 'J o I V e d ! those numbers, and. them in detail, but y All right. seated. I e I I again. i reel well. let me wha t i t 1 i in only going to comment you re showing me in the on I I I in the development or m not going to remember eaci) one or like those numbers are accurate. rae ask you this, Doctor, then 111 be is that the board or the directors does with $ay,obb that you cut out? money that went to the MH. WALkLH) your Honor? IHt CUUKI: bV MH. WALKtHi y 1 mean, does is that some board or Do you di rectors? understand what Im saying here. Yes, sir. You re cutting that amount from departmental budget. was tlie amount or the board or place? A Q A What directors budget in the first I'm not going to give you that orr the top of my head, but Who can? Who can? Mr. Milhollen may be able to I I i i j i I I I ISi r7 To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings MAR 3 1993 Office ci Dsssorsgaticn Monitoring 1, 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 address date
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.