Haney Before you start on that brief I understandings in respect to the ^4^ io f 9.^ would like incentive schools. my My understanding is that you have chose that there will be doublefunding for the incentive schools. Under the settlement agreement, is that four schools, six schools, or eight schools? That's my first question, mean by double funding? My second question is, what do we How much per pupil would that have been had that been in effect for the school year 1989? Heller The double funding provision applies to eight schools and the amount would be determined instruction... by the amounts spent for Haney ...There are two different statements in the briefs that reflect the average cost ...in the LRSD... thirty one hundred dollars and one was thirty six hundred dollars. assume that it IS three thousand dollars Let's just for easy multiplication and with eight schools there will be thirty eight hundred students under this figure you committed to. Heller There could be Haney Yes Heller At a maximum Haney Yes So that would mean that if that were the case in 1990 that these eight schools would receive an additional an additional sum of money. that double Now, what did you mean by double funding? the average cost of administrative Is and transportation costs or is it double the cost of other ... Heller Right. We are still Intervenors. discussing that with the Joshua At a minimum it is the instructional cost doubled without duplicating the administrative and transportation cost. Haney ...doubling instructional funds, using for that amount? What figures have you been Heller We have been using figures of approximately $2,000 per student. Haney $2,000 per student times 3,800 is 7 million 6 hundred thousand dollars a year. But yet in your budget that Little Rock School tentative budget they have two million dollars a year for the incentive schools. Now with 7 million its going to take approximately every dime that is available from the state. Inot objecting in the least about ... they get $2,000 per pupil additional if it really gives them an opportunity to really do something very significate ... but is the Little Rock Board of Education prepared to put $2,000 per pupil extra into those schools or are they going to be coming back and saying money. we would love to do but there just isn't the Heller During the settlement negotiations. Judge Haney, we recognized that we would be incurring an obligation of LRSD significantly in excess of the amount for which we were willing to settle with the state and we knew and we told the district court and all the parties from the beginning that it would require an increase in obligation. every millage rate in order to meet that And we have since increased the millage rate sufficiently to carry out the promise of the plans. Haney Who do you represent? Heller The Little Rock School District Haney And you're saying that you have enough money in your budget to reach that $2,000 per pupil extra for the eight incentive schools. Heller That's correct. Arnold If the budget only comes two million, how can that be enough? Heller Judge Arnold, I can't believe that a budget projection which included double funding which for our plan would do that. The budget projections before double funding for major enhancement schools could show something like that. Arnold Maybe that's the answer to that Haney That may be the answer Arnold ...the paper we have shows 2 million dollars. You're saying that you recognize that it can fulfill the legal obligations. Heller Yes sirArnold Two thousand dollar extra per pupil in the incentive schools Heller Yes sir. The only budget that I am aware on the record is a budget that was submitted by the LRSD to the Metropolitan Supervisor in furtherance of our requirement to cooperate with that planning process. And that was for the Tri-district plan. Haney And that shows that (inaudible)... Heller Right. That's the budget that was submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor for the Tri-district Plan. It showed that we could not afford the Tri-district Plan primarily because of the expenses associated with the construction of seven new magnet schools further down the line, to the desegregation of the incentive schools. With respect there is specific plan to market those attributes that are going to be in place as result of the increased funding and that marketing plan includes the use brochures. announcements, pursuant to i , billboards, this plan. public service two parent recruiters were hired There were celebrity announcements. going to be tours, a Speakers Bureau, and a general concentrated effort which is set out in our plan and timelines to market the incentive schools and the Washington School now. One of the reasons we didn't seek a stay for planning that was being done by the Metropolitan Supervisor's office is because a continuing planning process was contemplated by our plans. We were going to get the concerned patrons together with community leaders and the parents and develop themes for those schools. example. That process has continued at Washington School, for and as of June 18th the recruitment effort was resulted in the addition of 250 new white students to that school, so that... a a Haney I understand that even though you haven't completed that process by September of this year that these incentive schools if this court approves the settlement agreement would each receive $2,000... Heller That whatever the instructional amount is and my recollection is that... Haney ...yes, I understand that. Heller That's correct (32.16) There is also a plan to systematically assure that there is going to be space in those schools for any white students whomay choose to attend them. seats initially for each incoming class. By that plan reserves 50% of the And in each of these schools there is going to be an early childhood component. So for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class, seats will be reserved for white students. And as that class moves forward, a certain number of seats will continue to be reserved so that if no white students. for example in a worse case situation. have attended a school four years from now, there will be at least the district average of white students as a percentage of seats reserved in that school. So if a group can be convinced to choose an incentive school at that point there will be seats available. Of course, at the end of the six year period there should be seats available for white students by at least the average representation of white students in the elementary grades in each of the incentive schools. Results of the plan for recruiting Little Rock black students to interdistrict schools in Pulaski County and the plan particularly targets Little Rock black students who reside in incentive school zones or satellite zones for which they would otherwise be bused to schools in western Little Rock. And immediately available at the institution of the settlement plans there would be 200 seats at Harris Elementary which is in PCSSD and the Little Rock incentive school zone students would be targeted. Pulaski County is committed to provide an enhanced compensatory education at Harris. program and The theme as with all the incentive schools was left to be determined by the parties. Now the difference between our approach to interdistrict schools and the approach to magnet schools is we make an effort in the plans to specifically target the group who we want to move, whose moving encourages and ask them what programs would make them want to move to a school in the other district. And as Mr. Chachkin pointed out there is no reason to believe that the plans wouldn't be successful significant interdistrict movement to magnets. because we already have These schools would be special but in a way selected by the targeted people and Pulaski County has already posting 321 Little Rock black students on an M-to-M transfer basis without any specialized programs. can be successful. So there is no reason to believe that type of movingk /01Z92 16:33 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002-006 Process A nnTTnr.p FUNDING FOR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS: I. Commitment to double fund Explanation of terms A. Double fund - a process by which incentive schools are funded in an amount that shall be two times the instructional costs per student in the area schools of the Little Rock School District for the previous school year. B. Instructional costs ~ these expenses are identified as instructional costs and are listed as follows: Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Non-Certificated Social Security Tax Public Employees Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Long Term Disability Dental Hospital Indemnity Short Term Disability Instructional Program Improvement Repairs-Equipment Pupil Transportation Travel Postage Printing & Binding-Internal Copier Lease Food Services Supplies Textbooks Library Equipment-Personal Property Dues and Fees>-01/92 16:53 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003-006 Double Funding Page 2 C. Enrollment Data - It is imperative that one consistent date be used from year to year so that a valid comparison can be made. The reason that October 1 of the previous year has been chosen is that this is the actual date used by the State Department of Education for certifying enrollment of all Arkansas school districts for accreditation purposes. D. Base Year 1989-90 shall be the base year for computation of cost per student in the area schools. E. Consumer Price Index - measure of change in consumer price, determined by monthly survey of U- S- Bureau of Labor Statistics, many pension and employment contracts are tied to changes in consumer prices. Application to double funding is to see that prior school year costs are increased in an amount equal to inflation- F. Spread Amount - the spread is a specific dollar amount that was established in 1989-90. This amount is the dollar figure that was required to achieve doubling of the amount per child in the area schools for that year. The amount will be a constant for all computation of double funding. The dollar amount is $1,887.46. II. Double Funding Process - 1990-91 School Year The criteria applied for determining that double funding is occurring in the incentive schools of the Little Rock School District shall be as follows
(1) The comparison will be made to the area schools, of Little Rock School District that were operating in the 1989-90 school year on a per student expenditure basis (instructional expenditure). (2) For the 1990-91 school year, the amount of expenditure per child that is to be doubled is computed by taking the October 1, 1989 (10,752) enrollment of each area school of LRSD. The next step is to compute the actual expenditure for the 1989-90 school year in each area school. After computation of expenses (instruc- tional related) for each area school, these schools will have expenditures totaled and divided by total enrollment. expenditure. The process will yield a per pupil
/01.'92 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121004/006 Double Funding Page 3 The next step is to compute the inflationary adjustment to the prior year instructional related costs per child in the area schools by application of the Consumer Price Index. After this computation, the inflationary adjustment (dollar amount) will be added to the prior year area school expenditure. The total will then be added to the spread amount that was computed in the 1989-90 Base Year computation. The total will be the required expenditure per child that doubled. is to be The next step is to take this dollar amount and double it, then the doubled amount is multiplied by the October 1 child count of the preceding school year. (3) Example of process for 1990-91: October 1, 1989 enrollment - area schools - 10,752 Total expenditure 1989-90 school year area schools $20,293,917.95. $20,293,917.95 10,752 = $1,887.46 $1,887.46 X 6% = $113.25 Inflationary Adjustment Consumer Price Index - July 1, 1989 July 1, 1990 124.4 130.4 6% increase through this time period. $1,887.46 amount per child in area school - 1989-90 +$113.25 Inflationary Adjustment $2,000.71 Total amount required to be doubled. $2,000.71 X 2 = $4,001.42 The $4001.42 amount is then multiplied by the October 1, 1989 child count in the incentive school. October 1, 1989 - 1,461 studentsJ/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 003 '006 Double Funding Page 4 4 I $4,001.42 X 1,461 = $5,846,074.62 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding for 1990-91 school year. The actual expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year was $6,833,005.68 - please see attached pacXet for year ended June 30, 1991. 4. Example of process for 1991-92 October 1, 1990 enrollment - incentive schools 1,366 1989-90 Base Year Spread = $1,887.46 1990-91 expenditure per/pupil in the area schools - $2,249.24 Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 equal 5.8% July 1, 1990 - 130.4 July 1, 1991 i 5.8% increase 136.2 The computation is as follows: $2,249.24 exp. per Child 90-91 in the area schools x5.8% C.P.I. adjustment factor $ 130.46 inflationary adjustment dollar amount $2,249.24 +S130.46 $2,379.70 Total $2,379.70 luA8.1--4.6. spread amount from 1989-90 Base Year $4,267.16 amount per pupil $4,267.16 ---Xl,366 (Oct. 1, 1990 child count) $5,328,940.56 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding. The actual budgeted expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year *$8,223,093.15. school is * Note this amount must be corrected to revision of budget or to actual year end expenditure 6-30-92 in the incentive schools.4 J/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006/006 Double Funding Page 5 5. Example of process for 1992-93 October 1, 1991 enrollment - Incentive Schools 2,235 1989-90 Base Year spread = $1,887.46 1991-92 expenditure per pupil in the schools = $2,449.08 area Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992 equals 6% (this is estimate since July 1992 Consumer Price Index figures are not yet available). July 1, 1991 136.2 July 1, 1992 The computation is as follows: $2,449.08 exp. per child 1991-92 in the area schools $ x6% CPI adjusted factor 146.84 inflationary adjusted dollar amount $2,449.08 4-146.94 $2,596.02 Total $2,596.02 $1,887.46 spread amount from 1989-90 base year $4,483.48 Amount per pupil $4,483.48 1/ jc---2,235 (Oct. 1, 1991 child count) $10,020,577.80 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding-^.-01/92 16:32 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001. -006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324 - 2032 DAl E b-l'^iS-TO FROM 9 SENDERS 'IONE # SUBJECT Trsrjtr.i-cd 5y (tneJtiLde cc\r. rOR DATA RROCDSSJSG CFRJCE USE ONLY .Dc:e S^iiiwr, i xsL ^/g//=o'x>zi'z>=><s -f INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support was made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans. The explanation of incentive school double finding below is taken from the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report with current year findings added. REQUIREMENTS Funding 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 and activities. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically define double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the districts 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 attorney 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 districts 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 basic 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 calculation 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 district multiplies the actual previous years per-pupil expenditure 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 children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This section of the monitoring report was finalized after the LRSD finalized its 1993-1994 budget, so we used the actual budgeted area school per-pupil expenditure instead of a projected expenditure in determining the districts 1993-94 double funding obligation. FINDINGS LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in calculating double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment, the actual total 1992-93 expenditures for all the incentive schools increased from 1991-92 expenditures by $176,517.94. This increase can be attributed to several factors: maintaining essentially the same number of classes in each school despite lower enrollment, a student-teacher ratio that was lower than that which is required, additional staff placed in support of the desegregation plan, and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The most significant factor affecting incentive school costs during 1992-93 was the loss of students that left the schools underenrolled, with many classes falling far below the maximum allowable class size. This underenrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead, but at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75% of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100% of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each incentive school up to the maximum permissable class size, there basically would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Yet the LRSD has consistently failed to aggressively recruit to the incentive schools those children who are eligible for M-to-M or intradistrict transfers. Moreover, the district has also failed to made the hard decisions about whether to release or otherwise handle seats reserved for white children that remain empty after school is well underway each fall. As a result, hundreds of children are missing the special advantages that await them at the incentive schools at essentially no additional cost to the district.__Ajkansas Democrat ^C^azettc LRSD poured $2 million Schoois extra into incentive schools P,^CEMBER 22, 1994 e monitors noted that in Continued from Page 1A BY CYNTHIA HOWELL emocrat-Gazatta Education Wntar during which enrollment i regular schools. attendance-zone ' In 1993-94. the district spent proved at the schools by 320 S5,918.55 per incentive-school The office of Desegregati child, 29 percent more than the The Little Rock School Dis- Office trict. in a time of budget prob- Monitoring submitted its th double-funding obligation. The annual report and recommi schools total cost was S8.6 mil- dations on the incentive scho fion. lems. spent S2 million more in 1993-94 than it was obligated to to U.S. District Judge Suj on its six double-funded incen- U,,,\nn Brown, the federal de- tive schools at least partly be- 'Webber Wright, who is pres segregation monitor, said cause enrollment fell at each ing in the districts 12-year- Wednesday that while the six inschool, desegregation lawsuit, centive schools offer many good The incentive schools : programs, the report focuses on monitor, "reui jary the district published its first districtwide recruitment plan, which should enable the district to better determi.ne recruitment strategies. The incentive schools are Rockefeller, Garland, Mitchell. Rightsell, Stephens and Franklin elementaries, all in east or central Little Rock. Enrollment at the incentive schools has fluctuated over the past five years. Only Rockefeller and Garland reported increases in white enrollment. In a 104-page report released The incentive schools : repon Wednesday, the federal Office of considered a key componeni problem areas. Desegregation Monitoring the districts desegregat When we visited the schools blamed the enrollment decline plan. The schools, five with f ^e saw bright buildings, happy, on the districts failure to re- dominantly black enrollmei well-adjusted children and car- cruit children, offer special pro^ams to Enrollment at the six schools ing staffs, Brown said. Garlands white enrollment fell by 483 pupils, from 1,937 to 1,454, between October 1992 and October 1993, Part of the drop stemmed from closing Ish School, which had 187 pupils. The report does not deal with Lsie 1994-95 school year. prove student achievement attract white pupils to the ha there also is work to be done, to-desegregate buildings. The desegregation plan There are successes, but The district is not living up to all of its obligations, ligates the district to spe ___________________ _ twice as much per Jncenl centive schools results from school student as for childrei fixed costs that remain the The excess funding at the fn- . See SCHOOLS, Page same regardless of the enrollment size. The report criticizes the district for failing to evalu- inability grew by 41 percent over five years. Rockefellers grew by 186 percent between 1989-90 and 1993-94. Overall enrollment at all si.x schools dropped by 20 percent. At ail the schools but Rockefeller, black enrollment ranges from 87 percent to 97 percent of the student populations. At Rockefeller, its 71 percent. Fluctuating enrollment has created other problems for incentive schools, including the ate educational programs so those that don't help pupils can be eliminated. The district did not fill the to track student schools to capacity, neglected to demonstrated achievement over several years. Results on the Stanford Achievement Test showed that 1992 first-graders on average improved evaluate programs and adjust achievement levels as third- them accordingly, and failed to graders last year in all the incentive schools but Mitchell exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs, the report said. and Stevens. In all six schools, the 1992 Consequently, during a time fourth-graders showed higher of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest The district had to cut S7 million in overall expenses, in- achievement levels as sixthgraders in 1993-94. The report included 65 recommendations for improvement. Other points in the monitor- eluding up to S2 million for the ing report included: incentive schools, this year and . All six schools used theme is anticipating similar cutbacks specialists this year to imple- for the next school year, ment special academic emes, When the LRSD overspends such as computer science or ca- in the incentive schools, less money is available for other schools which serve the majorreer awareness. Five of the six school buildings are more than 40 ity of LRSD black students, the years old and need mainte- class for whom the desegrega- nance programs. Spanish instruction at the tion settlements were to specifically benefit, the report said. Desegregation monitors said incentive schools did not comply with the districts desegre- district officials did more re- gation plan. At no time did monitors at cruiting for 1993-94 than in pre- ____ ___ vious years. But the recruiting the schools observe unruly or was inadequate. disruptive student behavior.* school to be constructed by a date approved by the Court at a site mutually agreed to by aU of the parties. Any school constructed in Chenal Valley will also be an Interdistrict School. The Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and by white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. PCSSD and LRSD wiU engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in all Interdistrict Schools. ni. Incentive Schools There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years. sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, RightseU, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school
any recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. Funding 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. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and csuccessfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. IV. Magnet Schools The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the interdistrict magnet schools established in 1987-88. Those schools shall be raciaUy balanced to a point of between 50 percent and 55 percent black. They shall continue to be open to students of the three districts. PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD will engage in recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in magnet schools up to the levels set forth in the Courts February 27, 1987 Order. Page 4 Field Trips - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaaaOoTein cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemented with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: '4 Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (Washington, D.C.) Martin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Shores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/ interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the Board and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/ interest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan. A projected budget must accompany each plan. * * Page 158 level but may also study at the fifth grade level in summer reading programs, regardless of his/ her actual designated grade level. 1. Community Access/Field Trips - A plan wiU be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provides for field trips and community access for students together with students from other LRSD schools. Field trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with: i events and displays cultural events and exhibits scientific/ mathematical events and exhibits to include both child-oriented activities such as the Arkansas Arts Center Children s Theater and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such as Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances. Exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students will have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufactunng process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual work sites and some shadowing experiences in the intermediate grades, i.e., fifth and sixth. Among opportunities in the community which exist are
several major manufacturing corporations a symphony a repertory theater an arts center a ballet company a museum of nature science and history three previous state/ territorial capitols a planetarium at UALR a zoo a lock and dam (part of the McCleUan-Kerr river project) an inland sea port a major research/ teaching medical center Among other opportunities for students including, but are stock/bond houses, hospitals and a law school. I not limited to, banks, tn K. Community Involvement - Opportunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and I Girl Scouting will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building.^ Special Skills Programs - During the 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. time period (or whatever the I designated time for extended day activities), scheduling should be provided not only for the Homework Center and Peer Tutoring activities but also for student to receive special skills training. Students finishing activities early shall report either to the Homework Center, to CARE or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. Page 173INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING The following explanation of incentive school double funding is taken from the 1992 incentive school report with current year comments added. 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: "Funding 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 ... [ijmproving 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 Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 1.) II Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the districts 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 attorney 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 districts 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 If om 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 Ml '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 children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend This years report was prepared after the submission of the 1993-1994 budget so the Page cxxxiii budgeted area school per pupil expenditure is used instead of a projected expenditure in determining the obligation for 1993-94. The LR5D 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 LR5D in the calculation of double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment the actual expenditure for 1992-93 increased by $176,517.94. This can be attributed to the inability to reduce the number of classes based upon enrollment, the already low student teacher ratios, additional staff added in support of the desegregation plan and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94. 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area 5chool Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) *$2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area 5chool Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $2,379.70 + $1,887.46 $2,758.82 4- $1,887.46 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 Incentive 5chool Projected Per Pupil Expenditure $3,888.17 $4,267.16 $4,646.28 $4,566.06 Incentive 5chool Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment X 1,375 X 1,259 X 2,235 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.7 5 $5,372,354.4 4 $10,384,435.8 0 $7,990,605.00 1,259 2,235 1,937 $4,895,206.0 3 $9,537,102.6 0 $8,999,844.36 Page cxxxiv Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.6 8 $9,242,255.9 6 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.6 5 ($294,846.64 $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per pupil expenditure (area school) * 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 The interdistrict plan states "There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent (Interdistrict Plan page 4)". The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and "surplus" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75
thus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children Page cxxxv for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler & Associates ,lnc February 1992 page 11-18 3. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the "north-of-river" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 II.C. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the "baby boom" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of Page cxxxvi1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. 2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east- to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non- white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in "racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also Page cxxxvii in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for "meaningful" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is "committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources" in incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. The excess capacity in the system is reflected in the low incentive school enrollment. If there were seats taken out of the system the remaining schools would operate more cost effectively by reducing program and administrative staff, increasing individual class sizes and spreading program costs. The enrollment is not directly proportional to costs because of the plan staffing and program requirements that impose a tremendous overhead burden. If, for example, an incentive school operates at 50% of capacity the cost is the same as operating at 100% capacity. If children are added to the school there is no additional cost to the system. There is a potential savings if the seats the additional children gave up are taken out of the system. Page cxxxviiiRecommendations 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled. Page cxxxix1 The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. 199041 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) $2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area School Per-Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 $2,379.70 $2,758.82 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 $1,887.46 Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment $3,888.17 X 1,375 $4,267.16 X 1,259 $4,646.28 X 2,235 $4,566.06 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.75 1,259 $4,895,206.03 $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $7,990,605.00 Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.68 $9,242,255.96 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.65 ($294,846.64) $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations
the district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.The interdistrict plan states "There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent" (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4). The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and "surplus" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75
thus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler & Associates Jnc February 1992 page 11-183. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the "north-of-river" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the "baby boom" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35- 59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population, Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This maybe seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions.2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in "racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for "meaningful" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is "committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources" in ( incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled.fl J ?- US FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Mofiiieiitg 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
04-04-1994 11:16AM FROM TO I - 3 / - fy 3710100 P.02 I i i I i I BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS t (Required - Double Funding) I i 1 I I i ! ! ! i I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SCHOOL Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Stephens ITEM AMOUNT Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher ' $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 I I io y IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES IV ^Pf^ 05 ]39i ^KANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 'CJ clerk /ToeF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children clerk [doc.#1929]
(2) motion by Joshua requesting the Court to address certain issues regarding the budget process of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") [doc.#1949]
(3) motion by Joshua to require the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]
and (4) motion by the LRSD for approval of Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. I. Joshua moves for a ruling on their school construction at request that incentive school benefits. including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children [doc.#1929]. Joshua also requests the Court to address the following issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD [doc.#1949]: (1) whether the LRSD is required to double fund the incentive schools
(2) whether, pursuant to the double funding, the LRSD is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan
(3) whether the LRSD is required to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the LRSD to black parents and others who are placed as aides
(4) whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra compensation for that extra work
and (5) whether the Ish children are entitled to receive all of their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. The Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children. Joshua's motion was filed on August 2, 1993. Ten days after filing the motion, at the August 12, 1993 hearing on the LRSD budget. counsel for Joshua requested that instead of a hearing on this matter, the parties should first be "directed to sit and try to work this out. It Transcript, at 10. Joshua went on to state that it is important for Joshua to sit with the school district and in good faith try to resolve these issues without judicial intervention. Id. at 11. The Court agrees and will defer addressing the matters raised in Joshua's motion until such time as -2-the record reflects that the parties have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. The Court likewise denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD. The Court is currently addressing the budget process of the LRSD in an ongoing manner and will continue to do so on its own terms or that of the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, Joshua's motion consists of mere one and a quarter pages (four complete a sentences) and simply does not set forth sufficient grounds for granting the requested relief. II. Joshua moves for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]. Joshua states that the LRSD "did not give the parents of the students recommended for expulsion either notice by certified U.S. mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the district give these parents the date, hour and place that the school board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the school district conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students
nor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least forty-eight days before the ten day hearing period." Joshua contends that the LRSD has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that -3-fact, the students are entitled to readmission immediately. As authority for this motion, Joshua cites this Court's previous orders and the desegregation plan. The LRSD has responded to this motion by asserting that the matter is now moot. Specifically, the LRSD states that on December 16, 1993, representatives of the LRSD and counsel for Joshua reached a negotiated settlement and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreement among and between the parties. In this regard, the LRSD states that "the students were not expelled from the LRSD
any alleged rule violations were either waived or cured
it was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester. H The LRSD states that the motion now before the Court apparently was filed prior to the settlement agreement. In light of the settlement agreement apparently reached between the parties, the Court finds that Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules should be and hereby is denied as moot. Joshua may refile the motion if the matter is not moot, or if new and relevant circumstances have arisen that would give rise to any relief. III. The LRSD has filed motion for approval of school a construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. By order dated -4-April 29, 1993, the Court denied the request for approval of construction at Jefferson, stating that the LRSD may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict school are finn and court-approved. In addition, the Court requested the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson
any changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction
and the precise number of portable buildings that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. The LRSD has provided the requested information in the motion now before the Court, Having carefully reviewed the information. the Court finds that LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted. However, any new space generated by the construction must be dedicated to the use described in LRSD's motion. Any alternative use would have to be approved by the Court. IV. In sum, the Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD, and grants the -5-LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April 1994. UTTITED states DISTBttCT JUDGE PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V/ITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -6- 4Rirs''S -A JUL 2 5 1994 Oifico of Dcssgregaiiori IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 isaa 'J . illUlli By:( Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & 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 Christopher Heller LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in the District and the state. time, as well as today, At that Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents, academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and excellence in ensure schools that have desegregate. The Incentive School Program been difficult is to not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. classes. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, "double-funding" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools Since that according to this established criteria. "Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). obligations A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. on The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition programming has C. Current not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to limited. resulted Instructional time triple fund Incentive School programs, while reducing the funding for Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools There in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase District is now asking the following questions: in enrollment. The Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved? Are there obligations that are questionable educational or some other standpoint? are from an Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3 Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money? Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are: Keep doing what we are doing. Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed. Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. * ' Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, these schools remain an important and relevant component of Court approved desegregation plan. as our Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists
however, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. that The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waitino lists for oarents who wish to pnmi i their waiting parents enroll Financial excellence. students where resources educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure double funding is providing for the needs of the children attending these schools. ISIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 E. The^ District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we need. may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). Objectives a X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria I The incentive evidenced by: school will be successfully operating as Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, teacher-made tests. and Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile. Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Incentive Grade distribution reports (by semester) ] SL 1 increase in letter grades of "C" or better in the core reflecting an for each student. areas Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits students. The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive The District school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. an The This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching learning will be enhanced. Successful and implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to "doing more with less." Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis ..J _ ,___Testimonies have suggested that the "double funding" intent has created a financial illusion of a "cure all" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of "double funding" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis, monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not Such suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program
one that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula. Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived "pot of money." Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars. The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. for the its' Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends. Stipends will be attached to meaningful activities rather than providing staff/utilities/transportation/services students. extended day too for much phantom Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended. Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases. More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities. Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week # Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is
Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 17,500.00 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 11,887.04 TOTAL 4,000.00 $110,149.59 Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 58,464.45 8,211.00 Music Art .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Writing to Read Science Labs $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 Computer Labs 6,000.00 Computer Loan Program TOTAL 2,500.00 $ 26,500.00 Business Case Spanish Program $ 149,000.00 H. Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency TOTAL I $ 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 $ 1/087,529.82 * See July 18, 1994 Court submission for business case. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be - - ------------ --- Area School staffs, students, parents, community. Board of Directors, central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. staffs. and parents. office staff. BoardIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT
Department Function Obj ect 25, 26, I 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION c- '-^1 Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 I Byd Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' RECEIVED JUL 25 1994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & 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 Roache11 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 Ar-kansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher HellerLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BDSINES8 CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all This students. commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comoarable to the best in the District and the state. At that time. comparable as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, "double-funding" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. tl Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. each change was to improve the quality of education. The purpose of However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. must be placed Greater emphasis on integrated education for our community. implementing and evaluating quality The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. delayed the financial crises that we now face. Short-term remedies have only B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in C. achievement or desegregated schools. either improved A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. limited. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to triple fund Incentive School programs, funding for Area Schools. while reducing the Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools in There the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment. District is now asking the following questions: The Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved? Are there obligations that are educational or some other standpoint? questionable from an Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3 Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money? Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are: Keep doing what we are doing. Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed. Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists
however, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time, their There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll Financial excellence. students where resources ensure double funding educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to children attending these schools. is providing for the needs of theIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). E. Objectives X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school evidenced by: will be successfully operating as Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests. Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile. Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of "C or better in the core areas for each student. Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction students. of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.I Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan an The This teaching and learning will be enhanced. as Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. months, The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to "doing more with less." Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis Testimonies have suggested that the "double funding" intent has created a financial illusion of a "cure all" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us Incentive to monitor the impact of School programs on "double funding" regular basis. on Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. a Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. 6. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program
one that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula. Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived "pot of money." Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars. The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its' equipment needs. Such a plan will also providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. include for the Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends. Stipends will activities be rather attached to meaningful than providing extended day staff/utilities/transportation/services students. too for much phantom Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended. Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases. More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities. Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is
) Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music Art 17,500.00 11,887.04 4,000.00 $110,149.59 58,464.45 8,211.00 .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Business Case Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Computer Loan Program TOTAL Spanish Program Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency $ $ $ $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 6,000.00 2,500.00 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 TOTAL $ 1/087/529.82 * See July 18/ 1994 court submission for business case. H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School Directors, staffs. students. and central office parents. staff. community. Board of The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. our1 Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT
Department Function 25, 26, Object 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING REVISED - AUGUST 4,1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in die District and the state. At that time, as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, "double-funding" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost-a factor which was to be considered at a later point Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. "Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools. The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed on implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. The District must operate an efficient school districtIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 2 within the boundaries of its annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is limited. Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its financial problems. Over the years, funding incentive schools has exceeded the Districts double funding obligation and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it continue this practice of funding Incentive School programs, or should funding be realigned to our commitment The current practive has impacted the Districts ability to fund Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. There are 50 schools in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. A large we percentage of students attending our Area Schools are students who may live in the Incentive School attendance zones and/or have similar educational needs. C. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment The District is now asking the following questions: Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools original goals are achieved? Are there obligations that are questionable from an educational or some other standpoint? Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with the Districts commitment to double fund these schools? Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money? Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 3 The alternatives at this time are
Keep doing what we are doing. Review programs and analyze current funding of Incentive Schools in order to realign funding as previously committed to by the District Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District Care must be taken to surgically realign funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations Number One The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists
however, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll their students where educational excellence prevails. Financial resources alone will not ensure educational excellence. There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure the District maintains its commitment to provide for the needs of the children attending these schools. The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers x average salary of $35,000 = $280,000).Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 4 Number Two The Great Expectations Teaching Model, which encompasses the very best of what is known about teaching today, should be implemented in selected Incentive Schools. Successful implementation can enhance student achievement, promote a positive school climate, and increase the probability of attaining the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Successful implementation during the 1994-95 school year will ensure replication of this teaching model in the remaining Incentive Schools as well as Area Schools with similar nee^. (Refer to Business Case for Great Expectations) E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the funding that has been generated through our commitment to double funding. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school will be successfully operating as evidenced by
Increased student achievement Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests. Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the t percentile. Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of "C" or better in the core areas for each student Increased student participation in extended day/week activities. Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs and effective teaching strategies will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 5 F. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching and learning will be enhanced. Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student leanung and parent involvement The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for aU of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the districts students attend Area Schools. Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis to "doing more with less. Testimonies have suggested that the "double funding" intent has created a financial illusion of a "cure all" panacea for these schools. Monthly monitoring and conference with principals will allow the District to track expenditures and ensure that the rate of spending is appropriate for programming needs. The Districts program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of "double funding" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis. Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we realign expenditures with the Districts commitment to fund the Incentive Schools. Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. Implementation of the Great Expectations Teaching Model should provide the means for establishing the proper focus and connectivity needed to optimize student performance in the Incentive Schools. Incentive School componentsIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 6 (i.e., Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expression Across the Curriculum, Program for Effective Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement, heterogeneous grouping, learning styles, social skills, and incentive/recognition programs) can be implemented in a systematic manner. The model will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers by providing excellent support for delivery of the current curriculum. Strengthening the capacity of the staffs to enhance learning through staff development activities is extremely cost effective. The educational returns can be long lasting. The probability of attaining the goals of the Incentive Schools will be increased. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program
one that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power. See attachments for analysis of current spending in the Incentive Schools. An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 budgets indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools. The number of white students decreased. The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula. Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived "pot of money." Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars. The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software for the Incentive Schools. Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends. Stipends will be attached to meaningful extended day activities rather than providing too much staffZutilities/transportation/services for phantom students.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 7 Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended. Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases. More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities. Staff would have additional time to reflect and assess current program offerings. Time would be available for staff to plan more effectively for extended day/week activities. Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. No additional funding will be necessary to implement Great Expectations. Existing materials will be used. Any additional materials or supplies can be secured with existing funds. This teaching model will be funded by a private foundation. The District expects to develop the ability to support and sustain the model through existing personnel. The staff development specialist assigned to the incentive schools attended the Great Expectations Summer Institute and provide technical assistance and support to the school staffs. Information provided in the following charts will reflect the actual savings derived from realigning our current spending.SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING FRANKLIN INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0025 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 36,794.05 $ 20,570.00 $ 16,224.05 1120-0117 Stipends $ 62,811.61 50,000.00 12,811.61 1120-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 146,368.56 137,205.56 9,163.00 1220-0110 Resource Room $ 61,485.75 28,104.00 33,381.75 1220-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 4,547.07 2,030.85 2,516.22 1220-0240 Insurance $ 2,234.80 1,105.00 1,129.80 $ 314,241.84 $ 239,015.41 $ 75,226.43SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 0026 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 39,833.31 $ 35,852.00 $ 3,981.31 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 421,511.31 1120-0117 Stipends $ 127,351.41 1120-0130 Subst. Short $ 18,696.56 1120-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 52,942.48 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. 339,508.60 50,000.00 .00 37,682.25 82,002.71 77,351.41 18,696.56 15,260.23 $ 5,856.86 5,000.00 856.86 1120-0333 Travel $ 1120-0380 3,775.42 Food Service $ 12,467.20 1120-0410 Supplies .00 8,000.00 3,775.42 4,467.20 $ 12,851.74 8,700.00 4,151.74 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 1120-0540 6,246.39 Equipment $ 83,179.56 .00 25,000.00 6,246.39 58,179.561993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1124-0110 Reg. Ceirtif. $ 27,276.67 1220-0110 Reg. Certif. 12,235.45 15,041.22 $ 3,738.42 .00 3,738.42 2113-0120 $ 14,447.74 10,438.50 4,009.24 2410-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 59,995.14 56,078.38 3,916.76 2410-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 5,700.26 2542-0120 Reg. NonCert. 5,188.32 511.94 $ 3500-0313 38,908.00 Pupil Srvs. 36,962.60 1,945.40 $ 17,763.51 15,000.00 2,763.51 $ 952,541.98 $ 645,646.10 $ 306,895.88SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0034 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 101,070.50 $ 62,049.00 $ 39,021.50 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 7,536.03 4,483.78 3,052.25 1110-0240 Insurance $ 1120-0110 3,338.14 Reg. Certif. 2,210.00 1,128.14 $ 350,906.95 308,624.74 42,282.21 1120-0117 Stipends $ 100,856.17 50,000.00 50,856.17 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert. $ 157,057.46 134,584.20 22,473.26 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. $ 5,515.32 $ 5,000.00 515.32 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 6,026.87 947.00 5,079.87 1120-0540 Equipment $ 8,185.22 .00 8,185.22 1124-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 23,286.00 15,653.00 7,633.00 1124-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 2,902.79 1,131.08 1,771.71 $ 766,681.45 584,682.80 181,998.65SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0039 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0117 Stipends $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59 $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0036 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 93,677.09 $ 83,185.00 $ 10,492.09 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certif. $ 186,166.39 173,610.22 12,556.17 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 86,437.25 71,384.00 15,053.25 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 6,472.67 5,158.38 1,314.32 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 550,304.75 528,909.66 21,395.09 1120-0117 Stipends $ 105,960.94 70,000.00 35,960.94 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert if . $ 165,813.92 161,102.88 4,711.04 1120-0311 Instruc. Svcs. $ 38,136.77 .00 38,136.77 1120-0380 Food Services $ 31,013.40 20,000.00 11,013.40 1120-0410 Supplies $ 29,708.54 20,000.00 9,708.54 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 8,689.39 .00 8,689.391993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0540 Equipment $ 44,595.14 .00 44,595.14 1120-0548 Equip. Supply Center $ 890.73 .00 890.73 $ 1,347,866.98 $ 1,133,350.14 $ 214,516.87Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 9 H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School staffs, students, parents, community, Board of Directors, and central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the current practice of funding Incentive Schools should be continued regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding current funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT: Department Function Object 25, 26, 34, 36, 39 1105, 1110, 1120, 1124, 2113, 2410, 2542, 3500 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 0410, 0540, 0120, 0210, 0240, 0130, 0333, 0416, 0313, 0311, 3548Arkansas Demcxxat 78?(gazette THUaSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1995 3B LR district exceeds spending on 5 schools to meet target
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.