John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Admitted to Practice in Georgia & the District of Columbia only. March 13, 1,990 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW & FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Arma Hart Assistant Metropolitan Supervisor Pulaski County School Systems Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Hart: Enclosed is a copy of the letter which was sent to Beth Deere explaining the incentive school idea and proposed budget. I am still working on the draft which you and I discussed yesterday regarding refinement to the incentive school program. I appreciate our meetingj^ I feel that it was highly productive and that your insight was most helpful. Sincerely, Ji . Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. Admitted to Practice in Georgia A the District of Columbia only. May 2, 1989 \.KLKV. M. PALNICK LAW & FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Beth Deere United States District Court U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Deere: Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon has indicated that he intends to recommend the funding of the incentive schools as proposed by the parties and to recommend the appointment of a consultant or other person to develop the programs and incentives for those schools. The purpose of this letter is to: (1) request the Court to allow Little Rock and Joshua to have input into that process
and (2) to suggest certain considerations that have been shared with our clients about what they may expect from those schools over the next five to seven years. The proposals that were submitted for the incentive schools were not completed as Mr. McCutcheon observed. Our expert witnesses advise us that many of the ideas that Mr. James Jennings and Ms. Beverly White shared verbally about the workings of the incentive programs appeared to be useful in achieving the objective of remediating achievement disparities. The district staff did not address the specifics of the incentive school program fully, in part, because of the extensive amount of lawyer time spent in negotiating and otherwise securing the parties' approval of the settlement with the State of Arkansas. I was, during that time, somewhat unaccessible to the district staff so that they did not secure my specific input into their planning. The incentive school program, while presented by me, was developed in consultation with black community leaders who were concerned about the disparate transportation burdens imposed upon black youngsters, the relative shortage of classroom space east of University Avenue, and the fact that black young people simply were not learning in the schools. The incentive school programPage Two Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 was designed to provide regular education from 8:00 until 3:00. During that time, there would be only limited attention given to the segregating programs such as gifted and special education classes. The 8:00 until 3:00 classes would be as rigorous as any in the school district. The special needs of the pupils in the incentive schools would be identified in the form of individual education plans similar to those developed for special students and would be addressed in the after school programs. The second part of the incentive school program would begin at 3:00 and extend at least until 5:30 each day, and would also continue on Saturdays as well. This part of the program would be devoted to the remediation and enhancement needs of each child and would be conducted in such a way as to promote each child's interest in being comfortable with a school setting most of the time. The third key part of the incentive school program would be the special role of the staff. Staff members would be expected to work approximately twenty percent more time than regular staff members. These staff members would have a specific commitment to the goals and objectives herein and would be capable of empathetic relationships with the students of these schools, their parents and the surrounding community. The fourth key part of the incentive school program would be the employment and utilization of aides and others who would supplement the teaching and professional certified staff. The aides would be recruited from parents and students in the higher grades and would work with the teachers, parents and professional staff to achieve the objectives of the plan. The aides would be selected in part because of their interest in education and in furthering their own education. The idea would be to develop, with district sponsorship, over a period of five to seven years, a number of aides as teachers or professionals who would be available for employment with in the district. The fifth part of the incentive school program provides scholarship assistance to the youngsters who are assigned or who choose to remain in those schools. The amount and terms of the scholarships have not been established, but it was contemplated by us that approximately twenty percent of the double funding would be placed into a trust fund for these youngsters. The total number of students assigned to the incentive schools or who remain there after having had a choice option for the next and succeeding years. The scholarship amounts contemplated would be set to ensure that between one and four years college tuition and costs would be made available to these students based upon the average cost of public higher education in Arkansas at this time.Page Three Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 The enhancement programs would be numerous and would require specially trained persons to develop and implement them. We have many ideas that we would share with the district or with such other person(s) that the Master may designate. These schools should logically begin by July 15 with summer enrichment programs which would continue through September 1 or thereabout. Regular School Programs would begin about September 5 and end as scheduled except that educational continuation programs would be extended as need until July 1 of the next school term. Moreover, assuming an approximately one to fifteen teacher pupil ratio for approximately 2,500 pupils, the minimum incentive staff would be: Regular Year Programs Total Assistant Superintendent and Staff Teachers Counselors Principals Teacher Aides Student Assistants (Part-time High School Students) Drama Specialists Music Specialists Drama & Music Aides Art Specialists Art Aides Grammar Specialists Field Trip Coordinator Field Trip Staff (Aides and Teachers) 4 166 8 8 166 83 3 6 12 6 12 12 18 1 The budget would be set and generally as follows: Total available revenue for the schools, not transportation and other special funding sources including 2,500 pupils X $6,000 per pupil = $15,000,000 Expenses Certified Staff 220 X average $24,000 = $5,280,000 Benefits $ 530,000Page Four Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Aides (Full-time) 211 X $10,000 including benefits $2,111,000 $ Administrative Staff 100,000 Part-time Student Assistants 83 X $4,000 Continuation - 332,000 Summer School (extra staff?) 250,000 Programs Field Trips $100 per child 250,000 Activities in school $200 per child 500,000 Equipment, Instruments, Mise. $200 per child 500,000 Aide College Tuition 166 X $1,300 216,000 Parent Programs 1,000 - 1,500 parents at $100 per parent 125,000 Scholarships $600 X 2,500 (escrowed) $1,500,000 Materials and Supplies $50 per pupil 125,000 Testing and Evaluation $100 per pupil 250,000 Meals $250 per pupil 513,000 = $ $ $ $ $ = $ $ $ $ $Page Five Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Miscellaneous $ 418,000 Total $15,000,000 Staffing Monitoring and general oversight would be at the top administrative level. These costs would be absorbed by the district's budget for administrative and evaluation. Staff criteria and the section process should be developed cooperatively with the parties, especially the teacher groups. This should be put into place at once if the incentive programs have a chance to effectively work this year, as it must in face of the recent MPT results.JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 RECEIVED OCT 2 6 1993 OHica of Desegregation Monitoring October 25, 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 ttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am advised that your office recently completed an analysis of the Incentive School budgets for the past several years, writing to request a copy of the same. I am Thank you for your attention to this request. Sjmcerely
prin* er / JCS/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District ot 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 October 27, 1993 Ms. Joy C. Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Joy: I received your letter yesterday in which you stated that you had been advised that ODM recently completed an analysis of the incentive school budgets for the past several years. You also asked for a copy of such an analysis. Although we are certainly femiliar with the incentive school budgets, ODM has not done a written analysis of those budgets independent of the information we published in our 1992 monitoring report on the incentive schools. We are presently completing our 1993 report on the incentive schools which will include the same type of budgetary monitoring information that was in our last report. When we file that report with the Court, we will certainly forward a copy to your office. If you should need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely yours. in S. Brownirm ''G f J ' vjTJ FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Moriitoii'tg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures:TO: October 12, 1993 Incentive School Principals FROM?^ Robert L. Brown, Jr. & Ann Mangan SUB J: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3.:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM "Incentive School Double Funding" document Is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish Monday's meeting will be held at regular meeting sites and dates. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October Rockefeller. 18, 1993. fOctober 19, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremlllion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% Inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What Is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the "Incentive School Double Funding" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. Date: November 3, 1993 Subject: Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, current and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 OlTice of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 '2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 13,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program E.xtended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incentlve/R ecognition Starring StafT Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 7,725 3,150 888,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 " 238,703 58,350 3,220,464 3,317,082 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,590 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 410|Hm wrk/Tutorlal 1120-00XX 326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX____________ 1171 Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313[Pupll Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Stall Development Inservice $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000^00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $0.00 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $36,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104,054.14 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 Sr I 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent $88,000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707,37 fn 0 C>M other Expenses PJ 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,190.44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 Grand Total I $253,900.00 Pago 1 $27,230.00 $187,500.00 $148,317.36I Sheet 1 Operating Budget (02) Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies_______ Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 2410-0026 410 90-91 $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 91-92 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446^00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 92-93 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 TOTAL Library Supplies Office of Principal 93-94 $360.00 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $100.00 $100.00 $223.00 $223.00 $6,636.00 $9,773.00 $10,927.32 $8,821.57 Page 1INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to "double fund" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities." (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and "...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified io the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools." (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plarf, Ajiril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district s area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the "base year" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. I Page 44The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an incentive school in 1991-92, plus the increased enrollment at the other six Incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the children's needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) $1,887.46 $2:24924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Inflationary Adjustment X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area School Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSDs Minimum Incentive School Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346233.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 $2379.70 $2,596.02 4- $1,887.46 $4267.16 X 1259 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8223,093.15 -- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2235 $10,020377.80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that Is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars
enrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or a long aj the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the Incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed in the desegregation law suit. (FuUy 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to is close the gap in academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the district's ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that "the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities." Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the Incentive schools priority in the district's sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 47rrxa January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Munibiitg Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures: October 12, 1993 TO: Incentive School Principals FROMRobert L. Brown, Jr. & Ann Mangan SUBJ: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM "Incentive School Double Funding" document is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish regular meeting sites and dates. Monday's meeting will be held at Rockefeller. 18, 1993. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October fTO
FROM: SUBJ: October 19, 1993 Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the "Incentive School Double Funding" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Date: Subject: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. .November 3, 1993 Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, cunent and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 Office of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 15,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incenlive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,725 5,150 7,957 5,305 8,195 5,464 8,441 5,628 888,890 915,557 943,023 38,625 39,784 40,977 971,314 42,207 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 21,218 21,855 22,510 61,285 231,750 56,650 583,171 275,834 600,666 284,109 618,686 292,632 22,809 970,535 23,494 999,651 24,198 1,029,641 63,124 238,703 65,017 66,968 58,350 245,864 60,100 253,239 61,903 3,220,464 3317,082 3,416,590 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS n Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 4101 Hm wrkZT utorial 1120-00XX ______326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX 117|Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313 Pupil Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Staff Development Inservice J- 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent Other Expenses 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds Grand Total $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $6.00 $0.00 $6.66 $88.000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I $253,900.00 Page 1 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,00000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,230.00 $30,000.66 _____$0.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104.054J4 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707.37 $8,190'44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 $148,317.36 tn 0 bM C-"'I- -PJSheetl I Operating Budget 02) 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 Library Supplies TOTAL 2410-0026 410 Office of Principal $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $100.00 $100.00 $6,636.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446.00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $223.00 $223.00 $9,773.00 Page 1 $360.00 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 $10,927.32 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $8,821.57INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to "double fund" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities." Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) (Interdistrict and "...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools." (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plar#, ApJril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the "base year" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. Page 44The LRSD double funds the Incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October I data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an Incentive school in 1991-92, plus the Increased enrollment at the other six incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the Incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district Is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the childrens needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there Is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment Projected Area School I Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $1,887.46 X 6% $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $274924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSD's Minimum Incentive School Obligation $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346733.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 X 5.8% $2379.70 + $1,887.46 $4767.16 X 1759 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8723,093.15 X 6% $2,596.02 -I- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2735 $10,020377,80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars
enrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to Instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further Incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep Its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or B long as the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed In the desegregation law suit. (Fully 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to Is close the gap In academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding Is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the districts ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that "the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities." Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the incentive schools priority in the districts sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 471 Incentive Schools Function 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody & Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $155,681.30 $84,758.85 $739,301.19 $30,434.21 $11,998.11 $35,479.57 $31,239.85 $0.00 $22,356.95 $23,490.61 $55,371.92 $27,795.75 $38,829.74 $131,589.47 $110,460.34 $1,000.00 $33,000.00 YTD TOTAL $165,106.19 $143,234.58 $588,438.05 $29,180.28 $114,394.57 $29,909.45 $42,861.14 $29,191.42 $37,641.16 $19,757.64 $74,882.01 $23,159.83 $36,767.92 $122,008.25 $91,332.91 $2,715.57 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,532,787.86 $1,550,580.97 $1,838,099.03 $1,838,099.03 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1230 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody & Care of Child 1995-96 Budget $57,293.21 $40,892.74 $638,535.22 $14,702.75 $37,907.57 $18,331.68 $0.00 $77,847.35 $0.00 $10,005.99 $11,745.30 $38,923.68 $30,378.83 $48,765.33 $79,196.54 $76,996.09 $2,000.00 $15,000.00 $29,666.62 $55,139.77 $647,434.04 $24,042.48 $26,995.30 $15,417.73 $7,744.09 $34,176.15 $4,652.46 $8,231.58 $19,757.64 $32,825.57 $24,882.64 $25,416.68 $95,276.18 $65,539.54 $759.47 $0.00 1105 Four Year Old Program $1,198,522.28 $1,117,957.94 $1,246,992.88 $1,246,992.88 $41,192.09 $17,356.882 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody & Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $69,030.78 $608,632.57 $17,336.16 $12,295.12 $16,878.76 $21,887.04 $30,313.41 $17,067.64 $16,564.23 $33,757.52 $31,239.85 $47,306.77 $72,301.56 $93,305.91 $3,000.00 $25,000.00 YTD TOTAL $77,541.37 $560,197.42 $22,613.79 $5,489.64 $14,219.43 $0.00 $25,520.77 $2,900.03 $13,560.44 $0.00 $26,090.21 $43,789.31 $70,920.21 $75,225.16 $2,463.71 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,157,109.41 $957,888.37 $1,242,718.82 $1,242,718.82 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody & Care of Child $295,636.85 $80,577.35 $909,370.19 $34,511.32 $22,060.42 $19,848.40 $21,887.04 $25,601.45 $26,870.38 $35,479.57 $32,358.22 $55,929.17 $126,518.33 $176,906.14 $3,000.00 $49,000.00 $1,915,554.83 $229,172.73 $70,145.53 $907,920.51 $26,143.08 $23,659.30 $16,901.39 $26,982.55 $12,452.46 $22,338.39 $30,786.14 $27,043.83 $51,325.48 $106,635.37 $124,068.94 $3,991.72 $0.00 $1,679,617.42 9999 1995-96 Budget $1,955,387.43 $1,955,387.43 1105 Four Year Old Program $45,360.01 $37,254.453 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody & Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $44,002.09 $593,342.61 $17,336.16 $66,208.50 $13,048.10 $19,612.50 $22,909.45 $17,771.95 $39,784.70 $46,600.48 $51,998.97 $80,710.54 $74,944.04 $2,500.00 $13,000.00 YTD TOTAL $55,142.42 $449,552.99 $30,752.92 $40,614.34 $10,806.25 $16,483.39 $13,751.20 $9,040.51 $33,516.85 $29,923.17 $42,022.29 $74,697.95 $57,832.46 $1,973.86 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,149,130.10 $903,365.05 $1,029,819.64 $1,029,819.64 $6,953,104.48 $6,209,409.75 $7,313,017.80 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSD 6/22/95
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.