"Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87-1991-92''

Dr. Ed Kelly, superintendent
Proposed Planning Report 1986-87 - 1991-92 Dr. Ed Kelly, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas1 Mission Statement Sequence of Events Priorities Organizational Chart Enrollment Projections TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 2 5 7 8 I ) I I !l I' I Comparative School Profile (Staffing) 21 I I Financial Assumptions and Revenue Estimates 42 Student Al locations 46 I !' 1 , Building Utilization Projections 47 Program Plans by Year 51 f ( I 1986-87 52 Goals and Objectives for 1986-87 53 ,1 i I 11 Calendar for All Contract Lengths 57 I Support Services 64 Educational Programs 75 1 I Administrative Programs 95 t 1987-88 111 ) 1988-89 144 1989-90 162 1 1990-91 177 1991-92 185 i Ji' !i I I 1 i i I I MISSION STATEMENT I OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential. To that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: (1) a program of basic education for all students
(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)
and (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and athletics. Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. I I' 1 I I 1 1 I i1 -1- i I J I ) I I I I I If I PLANNING SEQUENCE FOR THE 1986-87 SIX-YEAR PLAN AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN i The 1986-87 six-year plan cannot be based upon an evaluation of what happened during the 1985-86 school year because there is not enough time to evaluate the year before the term report has to be filed. Therefore, it must be based upon the results of the 1984-85 school year. For purposes of clarification, the mission statement adopted by the Board of Directors will be the general goal of the District. All activities of the District will be centered around that mission statement. The goals that are stated in the first year of the six-year plan are goals that have been established that will be addressed in the six-year plan. These are the specific plans around which the plan will be written. The annual goals that are adopted by the Board prior to the beginning of the school year will be used as specific measurements by which the District will be able to evaluate its growth. GOALS FOR MEASURING GROWTH 1 GOALS FOR THE SIX-YEAR PLAN MISSION STATEMENT 1. The District administrators will evaluate the degree to which the 1984-85 goals were reached. 2. 3. The Board of Directors will approve the goals for the 1985-86 school year, (see attached) 1 I The District will hold three public meetings for the purpose of receiving input from the citizens concerning the 1986-87 school year. The dates for those meetings are listed below. i Rockefeller Intermediate School - September 19, 1985 Pulaski Heights Junior High School - September 23, 1985 Parkview High School - September 30, 1985 , I 4. Appoint a planning coordinator November, 1985. t 5. The Board of Directors will adopt a mission statement November, 1985. 1 I i I I -2- I j 6. The Superintendent will appoint grade level and/or subject area committees composed of staff members to study their respective areas. Recommendations will be presented to the Superintendent prior to December. 1985. 7. The individual buildings will begin to plan how they will receive community input for developing tneir building plan. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1 The Superintendent will prepare for the Board a six-year plan. The plan will be presented to the Board prior to January 22, 1986. The District will conduct a series of public meetings for the purpose of sharing the plan with the public and for the purpose of receiving input on the plan. Those meetings are scheduled as listed below. On or about January 28, 1986 On or about February 5, 1986 On or about February 13, 1986 The Board of Directors will conduct a series of public work sessions on the proposed six-year plan. The Board of Directors will discuss the proposed six-year plan at regularly scheduled Board meetings in January, February, and March. The public shall have the opportunity to address the Board about their concerns relating to the planning report. The Board shall adopt the six-year plan on or before May 1, 1986. The Board shall adopt the individual building plans on or before May 15, 1986. The District and the individual building plans will be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education prior to July 1, 1986. The District will evaluate the degree to which the goals established for 1985-86 school were attained and report those to the Board and the public prior to September 1, 1986. The Board will adopt goals for the 1986-87 school year prior to the beginning of the 1986-87 school year. The Superintendent will announce the dates for the public meetings for the purpose of hearing concerns of the public on items included in the 1987-88 school year prior to October 1, 1986. The Board will adopt or modify the mission statement prior to December 1, 1986. -3- 1 Revised 8-28-85 1 IITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS/OBJECTIVES 1985-86 1. 2. 3. At least eighty-five (85%) percent of the students in the Little Rock School District will master the skil1s/competencies on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (grades 3, 6, and 8) and the Little Rock School District Criterion Referenced Test (Grades 1, 2, 4, 5 ) in the 1985-86 school year. At least seventy-five (75%) percent of the students as determined by performance on a standardized test measure will show individual growth of at least one year and one month or be at least one year above grade 1evel. The school climate at individual buildings will improve as evidenced by: a. b. decrease in behavioral incidents that cause classroom and building disruptions and result in administrative referrals and/or suspensions. increase in parental participation. I I r c. improved attendance. d. reduction in the number of class tardies. e. f. improved building cleanliness. increase in student participation by race and sex in extracurricular activities. (Where the race is in a minority increase must be shown.) (1) more black student participation in academic and service club activities. 4. (2) more white student participation in athletic activities. The difference between the percentage of black students above grade level and the percentage of white students above grade (5) percent as measured by stan- level will decrease by five dardized tests. 5. 6. Teacher absences due to short term illness (1-19 days) will be decreased by ten (10) percent over the 1984-85 school year. Ninety (90) percent of the parents who complete the "Quality of Education" survey that will be conducted during the 1985-86 school year will rate the quality of education being provided in the Little Rock School District as satisfactory. (This goal will not be used in principal's evaluation.) -4-I PRIORITIES First Priority A. To help all students receive and master the tools for learning: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. reading writing mathematical skills science and scientific skills study skills speaking (communication) creative thought critical thought B. To develop in students an awareness and an appreciation of their heritage: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. history music art language literature politics economics philosophy sociology Second Priority The second level of priorities are listed below. These are. as the rafpnnri-zation of second priority suggests, not as important as the areas in the first priority. These are areas in which the educational system should assist but for which it should not assume primary responsibility. The * schools do not have the financial capability nor the expertise to assume total responsibility for these activities. 'I I a a II I I! The development of socialization skills and internprsnnal tjki 1 1 <:: f I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. counseling services psychological services health education sex education drug education extracurricular activities -5- 1 1 fl fl Third Priority Support services or logistical concerns: f 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. business concerns personnel functions school lunch programs school transportation programs negotiations and contract management building use and maintenance I Fourth Priority 1 These areas could be classified as "other" functions with which the schools become involved: I 1. 2. 3. i hot breakfasts day care centers community use of facilities 3 -6- I I I ri Hrwi I Director of Communications Associate Superintendent PRINCIPALS-CommunitY I Board oi Directors Superintendent Special Assistants Associate Superintendent Evaluallon/Testing Salety Pupil Accounting Student Records Desegregatlon/Human Relations Manager for Support Services Administrative Assistant Director ol Special Education [Supervisors ol Special Education Director of Vocational-Technical Education [Supervisors of Vo-Tech Education Director of Physical Educallon/Alhleflcs Stall Academy Director ol Personnel Director ol Federal Programs [pAC Coordinator Coordinator of VIPS Legislation Litigation Director ol Pupil Services Administrative Assistant Director ol Financial Services Director ol Data Processing Director ol Plant Services Facilities Coordinator Supvs. of Custodians Supv. ol Adult Education Supv. ol Engllsh/Soclal Studies Supv. ol Elementary Education Supv. ol Instructional Technologies Supv. ol Math Supv. ol Reading/Director of IRC Supv. ol Music Supv. ol Science Coord, ol Cultural Arts Resources Coord, ol Gilled/Talenled Nurses Guidance Counselors Social Workers Psychological Examiners CARE Program Director ol Purchasing [warehouse Manager Director of Transportation [Supvs. of Transportation I Difflctor of Food Service Supvs. of Food Service Warehouse Manager J I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 by Grade Level I I 4$ t !L I 1 -8- T r & ( f'** Little Rock Public Schools November 26, 1985 TO: FROM: Dr. Ed Kelly, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Leonard L. Thalmueller, Special Assistant // to the Superintendent, Evaluation and Testing SUBJECT: Projected Enrollment for 1986-87 Attached are the enrollment projections for the 1986-87 school year. The October 1, 1985, enrollment data and the percentages of change in the primary, intermediate, junior high, and senior high levels over a four-year period were used in calculating the projected enrollments. Basic Assumptions 1. The present school organization will remain intact for the 1986-87 school year. 2. The October 1, 1985, enrollment summary is accurate. 3. The pattern during the past four school years will continue into the 1986-87 school year. 1I These projections represent the enrollments anticipated for October 1, 1986. em JI cc: Executive Staff 3 p p -9- I I 5 * ft. _ jg SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRADED CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW METROPOLITAN TOTAL SENIOR HIGH 2050 1250 1150 N/A 4450 19 19 I o I Special Schools Kindergarten Primary Elementary Intermediate Junior High Senior High Total ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 10th GRADE 818 402 417 1637 Actual Enrollment October 1, 1985 15 1 ,640 2,925 3,619 2,559 4,484 4,057 19,299 nth GRADE 614 346 334 1294 SUMMARY 12th GRADE 533 289 344 1166 SUBTOTAL 1965 1037 1095 19 4116 Projected Enrollment October 1, 1986 15 1,634 2,974 3,613 2,681 4,358 4,116 19,391 KINDERGARTEN 63 25 19 107 Percent Change 0 -0.4% +1.7% -0.2% +4.8% -2.8% +1.5% +0.5% TOTAL 2028 1062 1114 19 4223 li J 4i iMUtl Iw lit - i SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRADED DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MANN PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH 870 725 1000 950 725 765 5035 13 13 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 th GRADE 165 240 229 355 245 221 1455 Sth GRADE 178 246 241 342 246 227 1480 9th GRADE 173 237 271 286 238 205 1410 TOTAL 516 723 754 983 729 653 4358 I I 1J SCHOOL BOOKER FRANKLIN GARLAND GIBBS PULASKI HEIGHTS ROCKEFELLER STEPHENS WASHINGTON TOTAL INTERMEDIATE BUILDING CAPACITY 620 490 465 350 500 450 400 330 3605 UNGRADED 36 19 55 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 4 th GRADE 180 133 100 92 130 95 114 80 924 5th GRADE 178 130 111 90 128 101 98 72 908 6 th GRADE 164 110 84 79 130 90 79 58 794 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTAL 558 373 314 261 388 286 291 210 2681 558 68 88 48 26 150 51 47 478 441 402 309 414 436 342 257 2159. L J J a a a a n CALE SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY UNGRAOEL) 1st GRADE 465 12 75 CARVER ISH KING MITCHELL RIGHTSELL 455 375 280 255 375 9 84 57 83 73 72 I co I ROMINE WESTERN HILLS WILSON SUBTOTAL ELEMENTARY WILLIAMS MAGNEl GRAND TOTAL ELEMENTARY 585 210 470 3470 530 4000 99 49 77 21 21 669 72 741 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2nd GRADE 69 65 46 70 47 68 90 52 5 593 75 668 3rd GRADE 57 66 50 54 54 58 61 48 57 505 78 583 4 th GRADE 56 43 55 67 36 40 77 33 51 468 72 540 5 th GRADE 56 55 45 50 45 44 66 44 4 469 63 532 6th GRADE 50 49 49 60 33 40 63 49 0. 453 75 528 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTM 375 362 311 384 288 322 456 275 405 3178 435 3613 75 50 50 51 49 50 100 41 52 518 0 518 45C 412 361 435 337 372 I 556 31S 457 3656 435 4111 JI E . IBIm BRADY SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY 450 FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT JEFFERSON MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF TERRY WOODRUFF TOTAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS 300 450 590 465 565 470 535 300 4125 UNGRADED 10 19 29 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 PRIMARY SCHOOLS 1st GRADE 138 99 99 141 105 176 141 165 92 1156 2nd GRADE no 75 94 109 84 150 120 116 58 916 3rd GRADE 92 61 90 84 100 134 103 138 71 873 SUBTOTAL KINDERGARTEN TOTAL 340 235 283 344 308 460 364 419 221 2974 50 63 47 57 75 63 50 75 51 531 390 298 330 401 383 523 414 494 272 3505 7 1 1 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1986-87 Through 1991-92 1 I I I. I 1 I j I -15-Utti mhuI immI UM' ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 I ! ENROLLMENT PRIMARY INTERMEDIATE ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH SENIOR HIGH TOTAL 1-12 .1 I I -1 1986-87 2974 531 2681 478 3613 518 4358 4116 107 17,742 1634 - 2 Lui 1987-88 2993 541 2849 474 3689 525 4342 4056 107 17,929 1647 I II i I i 1 o ex 5 Q Lui I o ex: 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 3015 3023 3084 3131 551 560 571 583 2888 2936 2984 3034 472 469 467 464 3773 3877 3995 4071 534 543 549 557 4284 4248 4199 4156 4062 4069 4077 4085 107 107 107 107 18,022 18,153 18,339 18,477 1664 1679 1694 1711 t r f I I I f II 1 - 3 K 4 - 6 K 1 - 6 K 7 - 9 i I I I I * These data do not include approximately fifteen students who likely will be assigned to schools such as, Fullerton, Francis Allen, Pathfinder, and Youth Home. TeH mi s ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 r ( SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 1 I I I ! SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K 10-12 K I I t r Central 1965 63 1947 63 1972 63 1998 63 2026 63 2054 63 I 'i I I Hall 1037 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 1056 25 r Parkview 1095 19 1033 19 1014 19 995 19 975 19 955 19 II I I Metropolitan 19 20 K 20 20 20 20 I I L I I I II 1- I II I u k TOTAL SENIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH 4116 7 - 9 516 723 754 983 729 653 4358 107 4056 107 4062 107 4069 107 4077 107 4085 107 K 7 - 9 496 728 680 1039 747 652 4342 K 7 - 9 K 7-9 K 7-9 K 7 9 K 1 465 716 636 1051 757 659 4284 437 415 400 J i 728 596 1068 762 657 4248 735 742 561 531 1086 1105 748 728 654 650 ) ( 4199 4156 *Represents the full-time students at Metropolitan. rw"! A] ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 II SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS 4 - 6 K 4-6 K 4-6 K 4 - 6 K 4-6 K 4 - 6 K Booker 558 608 609 609 609 609 I I 00 I t j Franklin Garland 373 314 68 88 399 326 63 88 403 321 59 88 405 327 55 88 407 330 51 88 410 332 47 88 T< i ir Gibbs 261 48 270 48 262 48 255 48 247 48 240 48 Pulaski Heights 388 26 385 27 383 28 386 29 390 30 395 31 I I Rockefeller 286 150 306 150 315 150 319 150 324 150 330 150 Stephens 291 51 333 52 360 53 384 54 409 55 434 56 t i Washington 210 47 222 46 235 46 251 45 268 45 284 44 I L I TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 2681 478 2849 474 2888 472 2936 469 2984 467 3034 464 u I, ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 CO 4- I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 - 6 K 1 - 6 K 1 6 K 1 - 6 K 1 6 K 1 6 K Bale 375 75 427 75 482 75 528 75 575 75 610 Carver 362 50 354 50 345 50 350 50 352 50 350 50 Ish 311 50 303 50 ,294 50 278 50 267 50 262 50 Ki ng 384 51 401 52 430 53 441 54 462 54 480 55 Mitchel 1 288 49 292 49 286 49 293 49 291 49 294 49 Rightsei 1 322 50 331 50 336 50 347 50 348 50 350 50 Romine 456 100 462 104 465 no 481 115 513 120 520 I 125 Western Hills Wil son Williams Magnet TOTAL ELEMENTARY 275 405 435 3613 41 52 518 255 422 442 3689 41 54 525 251 435 449 3773 41 56 534 257 447 455 3877 41 59 543 258 470 459 3995 41 60 549 260 480 465 4071 41 62 557 Ilin a E ftSwfcj I ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS PRIMARY SCHOOLS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 SCHOOL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1986-87 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1988-89 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1989-90 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1990-91 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1991-92 I I I I I I r t I k i I h ki ti f I I PRIMARY SCHOOLS Brady Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowcii ff Terry Woodruff TOTAL PRIMARY 1 - 3 340 235 283 344 308 460 364 419 221 2974 K SO 63 47 57 75 63 50 75 51 1 - 3 K 1 - 3 K 1 - 3 K 1 3 K 1 - 3 K 360 249 283 340 289 481 372 412 207 2993 50 65 43 57 75 65 60 75 51 541 378 259 258 340 287 495 369 428 201 3015 SO 67 41 58 75 67 67 75 51 551 398 270 225 344 287 506 369 436 188 3023 SO 69 38 60 75 69 73 75 51 560 421 282 222 351 291 519 378 444 176 3084 SO 71 35 63 75 71 80 75 51 571 446 295 210 357 294 534 378 452 165 3131 SO 74 32 66 75 73 87 75 51 583 ( ( i I 1 I I I COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILES (STAFFING) 1985-86/1986-87 i I I ! I s J B I -21-HIGH SCHOOL 1985-8I) COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE CENTRAL 1986-87 Change 1985-86 HALL 1986-87 Change 7 ! p ENROLLMENT K 10 11 12 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT* STAFF, CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Drama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec./Child Devel Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Mu', i ( Art ROTO Special Ed. Counselors E i bra r1ans Speech Therapy Admini s tra tor'. TOTAL certifiedSTAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodia1 Food Service Nurses I I I i I I1 I Aides (except CARI) Instructional Superv i sory I TOTAI NON'CE'RTIFIFt) tOtaC staff Students arc counted at their base schools 63.0 763.0 607.0 556.0 0.0 63.0 818.0 614.0 533.0 0.0 25.0 380.0 300.0 324.0 0.0 25.0 402.0 346.0 289.0 0.0 1989.0 2028.0 (+39.0) 1029.0 1062.0 I 16.0 1 .0 3.2 2.0 12.0 8.8 9.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 6.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 16.0 1 .0 3.2 2.0 12.0 8.8 9.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 6.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 8.2 1 .0 1 .4 1 .0 6.0 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 1 .0 2.6 3.0 4.4 1 .6 1 .0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1 .0 8.2 1 .0 1 .4 1 .0 6.0 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 1 .0 2.6 3.0 4.4 1 .6 1 .0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1 .0 r 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 .109.4 109.4 (0) 64.0 . 64.0 (Q) 14.0 12.0 7.0 1 .0 14.0 12.0 7.0 1 .0 8.0 10.0 5.0 .5 8.0 10.0 5.0 .5 t L II I" 1,1 I 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 .0 37.0 37.0 (0) , .24,5_____ 24.5 __(0_l 146.4 146.4 _X0) J._84t.5 88.5 ZCOJ -22- HIGH SCHOOL 1985-86 COMPARATIVESCHOOL PROFILE METROPOLITAN PARKVIEW 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I' ir: ] I I ENROLLMENT K 10 11 12 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT* STAFF, CERTIFIED Engli sh/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Orama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed. Business Ed. Uistr. Ed. Home Ec./Chi 1d Devel Health/P.E. Foreign 1 anguaejes Muit Art ROTC Special Ed. Counselors Librarians Speech Therapy Admin i s t rators lOTAL CERYi'FIEO STAFF STAFF. NON CLRTIFILI) Clerical Custodi a I Food Service Nui'ses Aides (except CARL) I ns true t i ona1 SupervIsory TOTAl NON CERT IFILO TOTAL STAFF Students are counted at their base schools I 19.0 19.0 656.0..........'656.0 25.5 25.5 2.0 2.0 .2 2.0 2.0 29.7 29.7 (0): 2.0 5.0 1 .0 1 .0 2.0 5.0 1 .0 1 .0 I 2.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 12.0 41 .7 -23- 12.0 4'1 .1 (0) 20.0 403.0 383.0 321 .0 0.0 19.0 417.0 334.0 344.0 0.0 1127.0 111'4.0 Fn.'o) 9.6 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 8.0 5.0 5.4 4.8 6.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.4 4.0 1 .0 9.6 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 8.0 5.0 5.4 4.8 6.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.4 4.0 1 .0 I I 4.0 4.0 70.4 70.4 (0} I 8.0 8.0 3.0 .5 8.0 8.0 3.0 .5 L 1 .0 1 .0 ^L.L*2d.5 'JjCo} _ l-lQ) I ' 90.9' 90.9 Ml I I. H ' L 'I' iJI I I COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE [ JUNIOR HIGH DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS /aE-a ENROLLMENT 7 89 Ungraded total' ENROLLMENT* 198*^-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change a STAFF, CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journali sm Speech/Orama Reading Mathematics Science Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Musi c Art ROIC Special Ed. Counselors 1 ibra ri ans Speech Therapy Admi n i s tra tors lOIAL CERTIFIED STAU I I t 1 '.lAFl . NON CERTIFIED C 1 ei'i ea 1 Cus todi a 1 Food Servict* Nurses I Aides (except CARE) 1 ns true t i ona1 Superv i sory I 1 101 Al NON CERT I I I ED I 10TA1 staff 4 Students are counted at their base schools 175.0 183.0 228.0 0.0 586.0 5.0 3.0 5.2 4.6 5.0 3.2 1.0 2.6 1.6 2.0 1 .0 2.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 43.2 3.0 6.0 4.0 .3 13.3 56.5 -24- 165.0 178.0 173.0 0.0 516.0, LJC-lQiO 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.8 3.2 1 .0 2.6 1 .6 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 42.2 3.0 6.0 4.0 .3 13.3 55.5 i I I I (-1-0) I I iI (0) (-1.0) I i I I 1 i 241 .0 240.0 253.0 0.0 240.0 246.0 237.0 0.0 734,^0 ^723,0____QT. 0} 6.4 6.4 3.0 6.8 5.2 5.8 3.6 1 .0 3.0 6.8 5.2 5.8 3.6 1 .0 I I ! 1 3.4 1 .6 1 .4 1 .0 3.4 1 .6 1 .4 1 .0 i t 1i . I 3.0 2.0 1 .0 3.0 2.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 48.2 48.2 (0) 3.5 6.0 7.0 .5 3.5 6.0 7.0 .5 'I I [ 17.0 17.0 (0) 65.2 65.2 (0) H. ' i ii-i ! 'ic! t f T JUNIOR HIGH ENROLLMENT 789 Ungraded TOTAL'ENROLLMENT* STAFF. CERTIFIED English/Language Arts Journa 1 i srn Speech/Draina Reading Mathematics Sc i ence Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign Languages Music' Art ROIC Special Ed. Counselors I ibr.irians Speech Therapy Adminis trators I 245.0 290.0 280.0 13.0 828.0 7.4 4.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.6 1 .0 3.0 2.0 2.2 1.0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE HENDERSON 1986-87 Change 229.0 241 .0 271 .0 13.0 754.0 7.2 4.0 6.6 6.4 6.6 2.6 1 .0 3.0 2.0 2.2 1 .0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 MANN 1985-86 355.0 292.0 268.0 0.0 ( -74- 0l_., '91. O 8.2 3.0 7.6 9.8 6.0 4.0 1 .0 101 AL CERTIFIED STAFI 55.6 54,6 (-1.0) 1986-87 Change 355.0 342.0 286.0 0.0 1 i 1 1 I ...._Z983',__[+6o) 9.0 3.0 8.0 10.0 6.2 4.0 1 .0 I i I I STAFF. NON CERTIFIID C 1 er i Cl) 1 Lus tod i a 1 Food Service Nurses I I 1( i i i i I Ii 2.2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .0 2.2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 1 .0 I 3.0 3.0 58.0 59.6 (+1.6) i!i 4.0 8.0 6.0 .5 4.0 8.0 6.0 .5 I I 4.0 7.0 6.0 .5 4.0 7.0 6.0 .5 i 1 H. 1 Aides (except CARI ) 1 ns true t iona1 Superv1snry lOIAl NON CiRTIFlED total staff Studentb are counted at their base schools 11 I 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 24.5 24.5 (0) I I i 3.0 3.0 80.1 79.1 (-1.0) -25- 20.5 20.5 (0) 78.5 80.1 (1.6) COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE JUNIOR HIGH PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST 1980-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change fl ENROLLMENT 7 89 Ungraded 240.0 239.0 252.0 9.0 245.0 246.0 238.0 9.0 222.0 215.0 244.0 0.0 221 .0 227.0 205.0 0.0 fl total" E'NROLLMENT* 740.0 738.0 (72.0) _^68]_.0____ 653.0 . (-28.0) fl fl fl I STAFF, CERTIFIED Engli sh/Language Arts Journa1i sm Speech/Urarna Reading Mathematics Sc i ence Social Studies Vocational Ed./Career Ed. Business Ed. Distr. Ed. Home Ec. Health/P.E. Foreign 1, anguages Music Art RO 11 jpecial Ld. Counselors I ill IS) ri,) ns Speech Therapy Admi nistrator s I i 5.6 5.6 6.0 6.0 lOlAl ClRIIFITl) SIAM MAI 1 , NON Cl RI II Ii.p (. 1 er ) c.i 1 Cus tod i ,11 Iood Service Nurses I I i Aides (excepi (ARI ) 1 os tr'ui 1100a 1 luper'v 1 sor-y s OHAI non (J HI II ill) lOlAl MATT Students are counted at their base schools 3.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.6 .6 3.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.6 .6 3.0 5.2 4.8 5.0 2.2 .8 3.0 5.2 4.8 5.0 2.2 .8 2.8 2.0 1 .2 1 .0 2.8 2.0 1 .2 1 .0 II 2.2 1 .2 2.0 1 .4 2.2 1 .2 2.0 1 .4 4.2 3.0 1.0 4.2 3.0 1 .0 I 3.0 3.0 I II 4.0 3.0 1 .0 4.0 3.0 1 .0 3.0 3.0 46.8 46.8 (0) 44.8 44.8 (0) 3.5 6.0 7.0 .3 3.5 6.0 7.0 .3 1 I I I i i 16.8 16.8 (0) I 63.6 63.6 {0} -26- 3.0 5.0 7.0 .3 3.0 5.0 7.0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 16.3 16.3 (0) 61 .1 61.1 (0) ''SI J COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROF IL E INTERMEDIATE BOOKER FRANKLIN 1I9 ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungradlid TOTAL ENROLL'mLNT 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 STAFF, CERTIFIED I ns true ti ona1 K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR.' S'TA'FF ' %Isi AVG. CI ASS SIZE " I sIIClAl INSTR. SIAII I I bra ri (ins Music leathers Art Tf'achers Counselors Resourte Room (Sp. In.) Ch. 1 Readin<) Ch. I Math f 1 P.L. Teachers Adm Inis Lra Lors Speech Therapy 101Al CLRTITIEd STAH SI AFI , NGN CERTIFIED C let) (, a 1 Custodia1 I ood Scrv 11.(.' Nurses A i<lf. ((XI cpt CARI ) 1 ns t. riji t iona 1 Superv1sory T0TAL_N0N CLRTJFILI) total staff i I I I I I I I I I I I 179.0 141 .0 160.0 37.0 180.0 179.0 164.0 36.0 74.0 131 .0 109.0 145.0 0.0 68.0 133.0 130.0 110.0 0.0 Tu'.o" 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 24.0,, 21 .5 1 .0 1 .5 1 .0 .3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 37.3 2.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 4.0 26.5 63.8 659 .d {,+42.0) 7. .459. d 44h0_ __,_{-18^0) 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 I _2A.fO X+2Xi ' 18.0 JL.0_ _ _ 21 .5 1 .0 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .5 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 41 .8 2.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 4.0 26.5 68.3 (0) I i I I (+4.5) J I (o) I I I i I 25.5 25.9 ( + .4) fc -11- 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 26.0 25.0 (-1.0) 2.0 4.0 4.0 .3 2.0 4.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.2 1 .0 2.2 13.5 ,.13.5_____(0) (+4.5)1 39.5 " 38.5 (rb.O) I 4 3 7 T COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE INTERMEDIATE ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungraded T_OTAL XnMlME_NT STAFF, CERTIFIED I ns true ti ona1 K 4 5 6 Ungraded JJS1C,s1af ' avg. class size GARLAND GIBBS I I 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change n dFClAl INSTR. STAII LI bra f ians Music Teacher-s Art Teachers Counsel 0 r*. Resource Room (Sp. Id.) Ch. I Readinij Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Administrators Speech Thera()y I I total CERTirirD SJAFf I I SIAFI , NON CERTIFIED (Clerical Custod i a 1 loud Service Nurses 1 I * i I I i I Aide', (e^xcept (.API ) In', t.riK t lon.il Superv1 SOIy 1 I t I Wkk.NQN C'E'RTIFIED iPJAl:. 8tAF 87.0 109.0 87.0 113.0 19.0 88.0 100.0 111 .0 84.0 19.0 49.0 95.0 77.0 83.0 0.0 48.0 92.0 90.0 79.0 0.0 I, I 41570' '"40270 (''3-OT'L3O4._O_
lo?-Zo7ZZIt5^o) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 18.0 23.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 .6 25.8 1.5 3.0 3.0 .3 3.0 1.7 12.5 38.3 "1'8.0 14.0 T4.0 is:: -28- 22.3 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .6 25.8 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .3 3.0 1.7 12.5 38.3 (-.7) (0) [ I I I I II I i (0) _ 21 .7 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .4 20.6 1.5 3.5 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 11.9 (0) L.. 32.1 22:0I+.3') 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .4 20.6 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 - J_b9_ 22^ I (0) (0) ::cq)_
h 7 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE INTERMEDIATE PULASKI HEIGHTS ROCKEFELLER 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change w ENROLLMENT K 45 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF " AVO. CLASS SIZE ' Ul (,|AI INSIR. SIAM I 25.0 131 .0 130.0 108.0 0.0 26.0 130.0 128.0 130.0 0.0 150.0 97.0 88.0 76.0 0.0 150.0 95.0 101 .0 90.0 0.0 I i II I 394,0 414.0 (+20.01 .411 '.0 T .43.JL_X+21..O) 1 .0 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 1 .0 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 i! ( 16.0 16.0 (or: 18_.-0______ m... s, I 24.6 25.8 (+1.2) t 22.8 24.2 ^I+lJ) ' I 1 I hr.i r I an Music Teachers Art, TeacFiers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. id.) Ch. 1 Reiidint) Cii. 1 Ma t il P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy total certified STAFF STAFF , NON CERTIFlED C1 er 1 (.a 1 Cus tod i a 1 Food Servite Nurses Aides (except CARI ) Inst rue 11ona1 Superv1sory JlQN CER11F irp total STAFF-I I I IIII I I I 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 2.0 1 .0 1.0 I I i 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 il ' t : i 1 .0 .4 1 .0 .4 II 1 .0 .6 1 .0 .6 23.4 23.4 (0) t I ! I 23.8 23.8 (.0) I il I 1 I' 1.5 3.0 0.0 .5 1 .5 3.0 0.0 .5 I I I 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .5 1 .5 3.5 4.0 .5 1 .0 1 .9 1 .0 1 .9 1 .0 1 .3 1 .0 1 .3 I! . 1 1- i!. 7.9 7.9 (0) 11.8 ~ 11.8~~' Co) I SI .3 31 .3 (0) 35.6 35.6 .(0) I I I 1 li -29- II 1 I I 5 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE I INTERMEDIATE ENROLLMENT K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL' ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL TNSTR. STAFF '' AYG. CLASS size SPECIAI INSTR. STAFF I. i brar ians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Readintj Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy I 1985-86 50.0 103.0 79.0 72.0 0.0 304.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 12.0 25
3 .5 .5 .4 .3 3.0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 STEPHENS 19.86-87 Change 1985-86 WASHINGTON 1986-87 Change I 1 IO 19.2 I I STAFF , NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses i 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 Aides (excepi (.ARI ) 1 ns truet i ona1 Superv1sory I 1 .0 1 .6 total non'C'ERilFl EO LQIAL^tafT'.... 10.9 51.0 114.0 98.0 79.0 0.0 342_.O ' 1+38.0} 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 I+l^ 48.0 76.0 70.0 44.0 0.0 47.0 80.0 72.0 58.0 0.0 238.0 257.0 (+19.01 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 ( 10.0 10.0 '26.3 I+iYol......_y_.8_ Ma9), .5 .5 .4 .3 3.0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 .5 20.2 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 1 .6 .5 .5 .4 .3 1.0 1 .0 0.0 .5 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 I I 1 .0 .4 1 .0 .4 (+1 - OL ' Y5 J1 .15.1 _ -.(0), 3o_J
:L jij ?~ (+i
b) -30- 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 if : I 1 .0 1.1 1 .0 1.1 10.4 10.4 ..J.CQl 1 < 25.^ 25^PRIMARY COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE BRADY FAIR PARK I ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change ' 'I s TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF I' AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. td.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini strators Speech Therapy totalcertified stafi STAFF. NON CERTIFIED C1 eri ca1 Custodial Food Service Nurses s Aides (except LARI ) Inst rue 11ondI Superv1sory 110N.Cj._RXl_FIL0 T0IA13TA1T------ 47.0 132.0 102.0 94.0 50.0 138.0 110.0 92.0 JZ5. Q____ 390.0____t+I5_,01 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 15.0 UH _ _____ 25.0______ 26.. 0____(+1.0) 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 I .3 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 21 .8 21 .8 (0) 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.1 1 .0 2.1 11.9 11.9 (oi._: 33.7 -31- 62.0 95.0 67.0 66.0 61 .0 99.0 75.0 61.0 II i 290.0 296.0 I+6,OJ 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 22.3 .5 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 IJ ..3 33.7. -.,-101,. .L._30,L_ 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 10} .5 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 (0) 11. J____ 10). 30.6 1 (Oj I I ( i' I I t I I' 1 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE PRIMARY J 1985-86 JEFFERSON MCDERMOTT 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change i ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 71 .0 107.0 101 .0 94.0 18.0 75.0 105.0 84.0 100.0 19.0 65.0 171 .0 138.0 104.0 0.0 63.0 176.0 150.0 134.0 0.0 ( Ia TOTAL ENROLLMENT 391.0 383.0 I=ajU. 478.0 523.0 (+45.0) I ' I STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE r I1 3 SPECIAL INSTR. STATE L i bra rians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini s tra tors Speech Therapy total' CERTIFIED STATE I I STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I 1 Aides (except (ARI ) I ns trui t i ona1 Superv1sory I TOTAim CERjjriED TOKriTATT'-- 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 II 18.0 17.0 1-1... 0) X+LJD. 21 .7 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 24.3 1 .5 2.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 12.2 ... 36.5. 22.5 7+-8y 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.3 1.5 2.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 12.2 I 23.9 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 24.9 I+l.O) 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 (-1.0) 26.3 27.3 (+1-0) 1 .5 3.0 5.0 .3 1 .5 3.0 5.0 .3 1 1 .0 1 .8 1 .0 1 .8 I (0). ____ 12.6______ _Cq) Z 35 Z Zl-ltQ) .L. -38,9_ .35. 9. (+1.0) -32- ..s I T I PRIMARY COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE MEADOWCLIFF 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 TERRY 1986-87 Change a3s ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 50.0 144.0 107.0 115.0 43.0 141 .0 120.0 103.0 75.0 149.0 138.0 115.0 75.0 165.0 116.0 138.0 I TOTAL ENROLLMENT 416.61 24O7.6 19^ 477.0 494.0 (+17.0) pI STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 2.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 r TOTAL INSTR. STAFF 17.0 16.0 (--bQl 21 .0 21.0. IM i AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy totalCERTIFIED STAFF 2'4V4 23.9 22.7 23.5 I+^8J 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 I 1 I staff, non CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I Aides (except CAKE) I ns true tlona I SupervIsory I j i TOTAL NON CERTIFIEO total' staff .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.8 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 11.8 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 22.8 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 2.0 11.8 (-1.0) .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 28.3 2.5 4.5 5.0 .3 1 .0 2.6 28.3 _ (0) 2.5 4.5 5.0 .3 1 .0 2.6 ! (0)_______15.9_______ J5.2_____ XQ) 35.6 ....,3A.6_ ._Irl.Q)_L._44,2______44^ (Q) I i h. -33- i COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ^1 h PRIMARY FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 50.0 98.0 91 .0 109.0 0.0 47.0 99.0 94.0 90.0 0.0 58.0 141 .0 101 .0 102.0 10.0 57.0 141.0 109.0 84.0 10.0 i. Ii TOTAL ENROLLMENT 348.0 330.0 (-18.0) 412.Q 4Q1.0 t-n.oj -a STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 1 .0 3.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 1 .0 Are I Is TOTAL INSTR. STAFF MG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrar ians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admini strators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAR STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARI ) Instrut 11ond 1 Superv i sory TOTAL NO'N CERTIFIED total STAFF 4- 14.0 14.0 ioi 18.0 17.0 L--L-Q) ^_24r8 23.5____ 22,.-a___ 23 ..5_____ t+JJ 1 .0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 19.8 2.0 3.0 2.0 .3 3.0 1.9 12.2 1.0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 19.8 2.0 3.0 2.0 .3 3.0 1 .9 (0) 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 .3 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 23.8 22.8 (-1-.0) 2.0 3.0 5.0 .3 2.0 3.0 5.0 .3 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 (0) _ J5-5 15.4 {.0} 32,0.___ 13210, lllQL JZ _3_9_.L2_1 ._,_3K.2 .(-T.0) -34- PRIMARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE WOODRUFF 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I1 < .1 I i I ENROLLMENT K123 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 Ungraded (Sp. Ed.) TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L i bra ri ans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.L. Teachers Admi ni s trators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodia1 Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARL) I ns true Liona1 Superv i sory TOTAL NON'certified TWL~sTA7r 59.0 84.0 71 .0 59.0 0.0 51.0 92.0 58.0 71 .0 0.0 273
o-- -27270 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 101 I 21 .0 20.9 .5 .5 .5 .5 I ' J I I !
j ' It J .3 .5 1 .0 1 .0 .5 17.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 .3 1 .0 1.4 9.2 .3 .5 1 .0 1 .0 .5 17.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .4 (0) 9,2 .......(OJ______ 26.5 " 26.5 "(Of -35- I I , , I i ' ' I': I,! i ! i I J Till bh fli I i 1 II I Ii T COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ! i ELEMENTARY BALE CARVER i 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change I 1 I 1 ENROLLMENT K123 4 56 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF" AVG. 'CLASS' SI'ZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. 1 Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy TOTAL CER'TIFIED STAFF ' STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory total non CERTIFIED TTyTAL" STAFF I i 75.0 60.0 50.0 55.0 51 .0 49.0 43.0 12.0 75.0 75.0 69.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 50.0 12.0 50.0 83.0 63.0 60.0 63.0 54.0 46.0 0.0 50.0 84.0 65.0 66.0 43.0 55.0 49.0 0.0 I 395.0 450.0 (+55.0) 419.0 412.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 18.0 19.0 19X1_____ 19_.P______ LOX . 21
9'"' 23.6 (+1.'7') "22.0 21'.6 (-.4) 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1.0 0.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 ^2^2 26.2 r+1-0) 2872 28.2 Jol77 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .5 3.0 2.1 BTT 38.3 1 .5 3.0 3.0 .5 3.0 2.1 TXT 39.3 1 .5 3.5 5.0 .5 1 .0 2.3 liJ. 42.0 1 .5 3.5 5.0 .5 1 .0 2.3 13.8 UU 7 ELEMENTARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ISH KING 1986-87 Change 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1 ip1 1 1 -A ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SIZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrari ans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. 1 Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Admi ni strators Speech Therapy TOTAL CERTIFIED STAFF STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory total NON CERTI FlEB total staff 50.0 57.0 59.0 56.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 7.0 50.0 57.0 46.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 49.0 9.0 50.0 86.0 55.0 65.0 48.0 64.0 45.0 0.0 51.0 83.0 70.0 54.0 67.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 I 373.0 361 .0 (-12.0) 413.0 435.0 (+22.0) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0______15.0 23.3 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .3 2.0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 ____ 25.8 1.5 3.0 4.0 .4 2.0 1 .7 12^ 38.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1 ! (-1..0)____ 17^.0______ 18.a_. 2~4'.O ' '(+.7} 1 .0 1.0 .5 .3 2.0 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 24.2 24.1 -(1.0.) I 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 ( 24\8r_ _23^ 1.5 3.0 4.0 .4 2.Q 1.7 12^ UI 2ZU JUL.0J 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 1.1 11^ 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 1 .0 1.0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 24.2 1.5 3.0 4.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 Iki 35.7 t ib(bj Bi (i) . 0 Hi' I'I 1 I if -11 I1 ELEMENTARY 1985-86 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE MITCHELL 1986-87 Change 1985-86 RIGHTSELL 1986-87 Change ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF MG. CLASSSfZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy TOTALCERT1FIEO STAFF " STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory tutal non cEftnniD total STAFF 50.0 58.0 64.0 43.0 51 .0 35.0 47.0 0.0 49.0 73.0 47.0 54.0 36.0 45.0 33.0 0.0 50.0 78.0 62.0 47.0 45.0 40.0 56.0 0.0 50.0 72.0 68.0 58.0 40.0 44.0 40.0 0.0 f I 348.0 337.0 UlUU 378.0 2ZZJ1 1-6.0). 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 1670 2177 1 .0 1 .0 .4 .3 1 .0 2.0 1.0 1 .0 1.0 U.l 1 .5 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 317? -38- 141P " 'r-2,.. 0L_ .16,0. ____ 16..0_____ 2470 1 .0 1 .0 .4 .3 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.0 .3 1 .0 1 .7 T+2.3y ~ 23.6 23.2 (-4) I 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 .0 .5 .4 .3 3.0 3.0 1 .0 1 1 .0 .5 1 .0 .5 J. _Z2'^-J ______ (Qi 3T7~2 7-7-07 26.7 iol 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 13.2 1 .5 3.0 4.0 .3 3.0 1 .4 13.2 30^ I 1 nn Hl li I Ji 7 ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT K123 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT 1985-86 95.0 96.0 69.0 85.0 73.0 68.0 84.0 570.0 COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ROMINE 1986-87 Change WESTERN HILLS 1985-86 1986-87 Change STAFF. CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TOTAL INSTR. STAFF 24.0 AVG. CLASS SIZE ^2 I 100.0 99.0 90.0 61 .0 77.0 66.0 63.0 556.0 (-14.0) 41 .0 56.0 54.0 41 .0 39.0 54.0 41 .0 41.0 49.0 52.0 48.0 33.0 44.0 49.0 326.0 316.0 MQ-0) - I I 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .0 2.0 2.0
i 24-b - JQI_____ 14^ 13.0,____(-K0) II 22x1 23.2 24.3 SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF Librarians Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Admi ni strators Speech Therapy TOTAL* CERTIFIED staff STAFF. NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses I il Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervisory wial non ccftTiriCD B^tAl staff 1.0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1.0 .2 .3 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 I, 1 I i!| ri* II- 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 I II I. 11 .1 il I I * 31 ?5 31 .5 7
JPIZL'_L,22,5 19.5 2.5 4.5 6.0 .5 2.5 4.5 6.0 .5 1 .5 2.5 2.0 .5 1.5 2.5 2.0 .5 jf ifkI 2.0 5.8 2.0 5.8 1 .0 1 .5 1 .0 1.5 2173 BIT 2x2 2J1 iPi i 52.8 52.8 -39- (0) I 2975 22^ IIJ il T Fp I I si a COMPARATIVE SCHOOL PROFILE ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT K123 45 6 Ungraded TOTAL ENROLLMENT STAFF, CERTIFIED Instructional K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded TOTAL INSTR. STAFF AVG. CLASS SfZE SPECIAL INSTR. STAFF L ibrarjans Music Teachers Art Teachers Counselors Resource Room (Sp. Ed.) Ch. I Reading Ch. I Math P.E. Teachers Administrators Speech Therapy total certified staff ~~ STAFF, NON CERTIFIED Clerical Custodial Food Service Nurses Aides (except CARE) Instructional Supervi sory TOTAL NON CERTTmg TCTATTrAFF *Posit1ons for UnaradedStu^ WILLIAMS MAGNET 1985-86 1986-87 Change 1985-86 WILSON 1986-87 Change 0.0 75.0 71 .0 71.0 72.0 77.0 67.0 16.0 0.0 72.0 75.0 78.0 72.0 63.0 75.0 0.0 50.0 94.0 61.0 61 .0 60.0 59.0 74.0 0.0 52.0 77.0 86.0 57.0 61 .0 64.0 60.0 0.0 I 435.0 (-14.0) 459.0 457.0 (-2.0) 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *1 .0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 *1 .0 I 2o:o 2O.O lor::. 21 .0 2O.O"3.-L_Q) 22.4 1.0 1 .0 1.0 .3 1.0 0.0 1 .0 1.0 0.0 26:3' 2.0 3.5 4.0 .5 3.0 2.0 15.0 TTTs 2_] .1_____ (.-_^ 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .3 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.0 26.3 2.0 3.5 4.0 .5 3.0 2.0 15.0 21 .8 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 .5 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 (0] 26'. 5 IS IS 22.8 ~ (+1.0) 1 .0 .5 .2 .3 .5 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 1 .0 25.5 (-1.0) I J I 2.0 3.5 5.0 .3 2.0 3.5 5.0 .3 ( 3.0 4.4 3.0 4.4 18.2 44.7 iS^ 43.7 in !' r (-1-Q) .3 T T J I I PERSONNEL SUMMARY I! ' I 1 1985-86 1986-87 Positions Total Regular Federal Total Regular Federal i Admini strators Teachers Clerical Central Admin. School Secretaries Library Clerks Federal Health/Social Services Nurses Social Workers Therapists Psychological Examiners Support Personnel Food Service Transportation Custodial Maintenance Aides Instructional Instructional Assistants Non Instructional *40.4 FTE GRAND TOTAL 1 127 116.1 10.9 127 116.1 10.9 1191.3 1047.2 144.1 1186.9 1039.2 1 147.7^ 55.5 76.5 31 2.9 16 2 2 1 145 111 180.5 37 51 28 75 2138.7 53.5 70.5 31 16 2 4 111 180.5 31 28 28 69* 2 6 2.9 2 3 145 23 6 1 55.5 76.5 31 2.9 16 2 2 7 145 111 180.5 37 51 28 75 2134.3 53.5 70.5 31 16 2 4 111 180.5 37 28 28 69* 2 6 2.9 2 3 145 23 6 Reflects a net decrease of 4.4 FTE derived from the following reductions and additions: Reductions Addi tions Dunbar Henderson Frankl in Jefferson Meadowci iff Fulbright Woodruff Ish Mitchell Western Hills Wilson 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 1.0 77:0 Mann Booker Stephens McDermott Bale King 1 .6 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 : I I I 1 I : -41- II j h I i h 3 I i FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE ESTIMATES 1 1 ( t '11. I' 1 -42- 1 t I I
t I SIX-YEAR REVENUE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS 1986-87 THROUGH 1991-92 9 I . GENERAL SCENARIO Revenue (jrouth will be constrained durino the period by several factors. Nationally, it is likely the administration will continue to follow policies that will "boil the fat out" of the economy, and the Arkansas economy will continue to do worse than the national picture. It is unlikely that federal funds for education will increase significantly even if the voucher system gets the treatment it should. Since Congress seems to have no better handle on the national economy than the administration, it is questionable that the 1988 election will have any positive effect on the economy. 1' 11 ! P I f id I 2. LOCAL REVENUES Amendment 59 will prevent growth in local income i' from personal property until the millage rate equals that of real property (that may take ten years). Utility property income will be frozen for the first five years and will begin a reduction process in the sixth year. The growth in real property will depend on the state of the I* I economy. Ue have projected annual growth for the period at the average annual rate experienced for the past nine years. 3. STATE AID Besides the general impact of the national economy, the agricultural outlook specifically will restrict state income in the near In addition, our form^a aid nay be reduced the first two years of the period for "repayment"/excess formula payments in the past two future. years. In light of these constraints, we have projected small Increases In state aid for the period. Ue have projected operational funding for the gifted and talented program for the entire period. 4. FEDERAL AID We have not projected the Magnet School Assistance Grant in 1986-87 because, although two-year funding is the normal life of the grant, there are no guarantees. Ue should have more specific information about the grant before the 1986-87 budget Is adopted. The projection of federal aid Is baaed on Indirect costs and Impact aid. 5. BAL ANGES The district should maintain a minimum of *1 million in the contingency throughout the period. I I I I I s -43- I I I 'Ip4 I p1 pI p 1 I 8B87rvBS DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES Current Taxes Delinquent Taxes 40X Pullback Excess Treasurer's Fee Depository Interest Revenue in Lieu of Taxes Tuit ion 'Miscellaneous and Rents Interest on Investnents Athletic Receipts REVENUE TOTAL COUNTY SOURCES County General REVENUE TOTAL STATE SOURCES 1986-87 REVENUE ESTIMATE REVISION 1 (11-26-85) 85-86 ESTIMATE 86-87 ESTIMATE GAIN (LOSS) $1,13S,840 20.071.156 1,244.318 11.060.350 68.000 150,000 60.000 50,000 50,000 175,000 55,000 $32,983,824 36 $36 .000,000 (133,840> I I I I I I 3 Kindergarten Supplies MFPA Apportionment Vocational Guidance Handicapped Children Orphan Children Transportation High School Textbooks Gifted Grant 18.104 14,341.961 80,000 953,323 0 132,325 16,801 993,018 435,092 75,000 TOTAL $17,045,624 IS REVENUE OTHER SOURCES I I Public Lau 874 Tranefer Tron Fed. Grants Transfer Tron Bond Acct. 40,000 80,000 360.209 TOTAL $480,209 TOTAL REVENUE $51.649,533 -44- 22.364,071 1,244.318 11.597.625 68.000 150.000 60.000 50.000 50.000 175.000 55.000 $2,292,915 0 $537,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i i I! r $35,814,014 Z,830,190 36 0 $36 $0 I. I ! II 18,104 14,457,967 80,000 953,323 0 132,325 16,801 1,051,233 435,092 144,269 $17,289,114 40,000 80,000 0 $120,000 $54,223,164 0 $116,006 0 0 0 0 0 $58,215 0 $69,269 1 i $243,490 0 0 ($360,209) Ir ($360,209) $2,573,631 1 I I 1 II j 3 r iiSS^sii YEAR 1986-87 CATEGORY BALANCE 1,000,000 LOCAL REVENUE 35,814,014 SIX-YEAR REVENUE ESTIMATES 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1,000,000 37,454,280 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 38,990,249 40,619,454 42,338,423 44,160,612 I 4^ tn I COUNTY REVENUE 36 36 36 36 36 36 STATE AID 17,290,112 17,523,309 18,049,008 18,590,478 19,148,192 20,105,602 FEDERAL 120,000 120,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 210,000 TOTAL 54,224,162 56,097,625 58,239,293 60,409,968 62,686,651 65,476,250 I T 1 I ! STUDENT ALLOCATIONS I i': I . St Allocations for materials, supplies, and textbooks will be made on the following basis: School Based Materials & Supplies K-6 $16.00 Junior High $17.00 s Senior High $21.00 Includes kindergarten supplies, instructional supplies, instructional equipment, library supplies, and library books. Textbooks K-6 $31.50 I i Junior High $30.00 Senior High $39.00 Includes state and local funding. I 1 I i I i! i ' -46- 5 I I g f 1 -3 BUILDING UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS I I i I
I n 1 1 t.i I i i 1 II I I I i I I A J B I 0 b -47- T 1985-86 BUILDING UTILIZATION (Based on October 1, 1985 Enrollment) 1 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT Z UTILIZATION PORTABLE BLDG. CAPACITY ADJUSTED % I OF UTILIZATION ' ' s Senior High Schools I b Central Hall Parkview Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Elementary Schools Bale Carver Gillam Ish King Mitchell Rightsell Romine Western Hills Williams Wilson 2050 1250 1150 870 725 1000 950 725 765 465 455 255 375 280 255 375 585 210 530 470 1934 1008 1110 573 717 824 917 738 669 397 417 0 380 421 349 384 559 324 443 450 -48- 94Z 81Z 97Z 66Z 99Z 82Z 97Z 102Z 87Z 85Z 92Z 0 lOlZ 150Z 137Z 102Z 96Z 154Z 84Z 96Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 (1) 25 (1) 0 65 (3) 115 (5) 100 (4) 0 80 (4) 90 (4) 0 50 (2) 94Z 81Z 97Z 66Z 99Z 82Z 97Z 102Z 87Z 81Z 87Z 0 86Z 107Z 98Z 102Z 84Z 108Z 84Z 87Z I I7 1985-86 Building Utilization PORTABLE BLDG. ADJUSTED ) SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT Z UTILIZATIONS CAPACITY OF UTILIZATION Intermediate Schools Booker 620 522 84Z 0 84Z Franklin 490 467 95Z 0 95Z Garland 465 414 89Z 0 89Z Gibbs 350 306 87Z 0 87Z Pulaski Heights 500 394 79Z 0 79Z Rockefeller 450 407 90Z 0 90Z I Stephens 400 304 76Z 0 76Z Washington 330 240 73Z 0 73Z Primary Schools Brady 450 366 81Z 0 81Z r ' 1 1 Fair Park 300 288 96Z 25 (1) 89Z i Forest Park 450 348 77Z 0 77Z I i 1 Fulbright 590 417 71Z 0 71Z Jefferson 465 394 85Z 0 85Z 1 I I i I McDermott 565 474 84Z 0 84Z Meadowcliff 470 408 87Z 0 87Z i I' Terry 535 484 90Z 15 (1) 88Z u Woodruff 300 275 92Z 0 92Z ! u ! I i r F I I a f ! I I 'I i I I -49- I IT I BUILDING UTILIZATION SUMMARY Capacity Enrollment !S Utilization High School 4450 4052 91Z 1 I Junior High School Elementary School Intermediate School Primary School TOTALS Adding the Portable Classrooms (26) Elementary Bale Carver Ish King Mitchell Romine Westren Hills Wilson Primary Fair Park Terry 5035 4255 3605 4125 21,470 Capacity 4438 4124 3054 3454 19,122 Enrollment 88Z 97X 85% 84% 89% % Utilization 25 25 65 115 100 80 90 50 550 + 4255 - 4805 4125 86% I 25 15 40 + 4125 - 4165 3454 83% The total capacity of the Little Rock School District, including portable classrooms and Gillam, Is 22,060, based on classroom sizes as specified In the new standards. The October, 1985 enrollment is 19,122. That is a difference of 2,938 excess spaces I 1 at 100% capacity. If the building capacity were at 95%, then there would be 1,835 spaces in excess space. -50- I 1 II I j f I PROGRAM PLANS BY YEAR .1 I I I (I i i I J -51- at 1 r J I 3 1986-87 a J 1 a I I I r i I 4 ji t -52- 1 I I I f 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1986-87 1 1 1 I -53-r p1pg EDUCATIONAL GOALS The Little Rock School District will provide a comprehensive educational program that will enable each child to achieve his/her highest potential in the least restrictive environment. statement of Need I. I The Little Rock School District has developed a system which emphasizes a the basics in reading, mathematics, and writing skills. The District p attempts to evaluate how well the student masters these basic skills. In addition to the "basic" skills, the District needs to put more emphasis on the developmental skills. Students need to do more reading and writing, and develop higher level thinking skills. Objective Number One J The District will attempt to develop an early childhood program. Objective Number Two I Specific curriculum objectives and specific levels of knowledge in measurable forms for all subjects will be developed for grades 7, 8, and 9. Objective Number Three Various methods, including criterion referenced tests, will be used to test students in grades K-8 that will assess "basic" skills and higher level thinking skills. Objective Number Four The District will test student progress through measures other than standardized tests. Objective Number Five The District will continue to work toward the elimination of barriers that prohibit academic progress of all students. I I -54- 7 1 I 3 FINANCIAL GOALS The Little Rock School District will provide the most comprehensive programs within the limits of the District's financial capabilities. r statement of Need Limited financial resources will require the administration to manage the District on a priority basis. what items have the highest priority. Decisions will have to be made as to J New sources of revenue will be needed if special programs are to be p1 it t funded. Changes in Amendment 59 and the manner in which school districts are funded will be needed in order to improve the long-term financial position of the District. Objective Number One The District will fund programs for the 1986-87 school year on a priority basis. Objective Number Two The District administration will seek sources of revenue to fund specific programs. Objective Number Three The District administration will continue to seek more efficient ways of managing the District's limited funds. Objective Number Four The District will work cooperatively with state entities to seek improvements in the funding of education at the state and federal levels. -55- I I1I J 1 ADMINISTRATION GOALS J I . .1 The Little Rock School District administration will manage the District in a manner that will provide the most efficient and equitable education possible. I p statement of Need I There is a need to continue to improve the quality of teaching and the quality of administration in the Little Rock School District. There is a need to broaden expectations of students academically in order to avoid limiting expectations to just the "basics." There is a need to increase the academic expectations of students in the "regular" and "basic" classes and avoid the development of elitism in the gifted and talented programs. There is a need to remove any barriers that prohibit the District from reaching a unitary status. There is a need to limit the administrative requirements of paperwork for teachers and a need to develop a better communication between schools concerning students who have problems that are not easily recognized through the record-keeping procedures. The District needs to eliminate the practipe of taking the teachers and principals from the building during periods of instruction. Objective Number One The District administration will examine practices of the District that are discriminatory and will remove them. Objective Number Two The District administration will remove all unnecessary and burdensome paperwork. Objective Number Three The District administration will reduce, if not eliminate, the amount of time that teachers and principals are out of the building during periods of instruction. I Objective Number Four The District administration will continue to monitor employee performance and develop strategies to improve weak performance when it is observed. I -56- I t J .urI-n I J HBB n CALENDAR FOR ALL CONTRACT LENGTHS 83 B I rf I -57- I July WO SV I 4^' Ji' 1 ip M T W 1 2 August September LH 1 2 3 October CM CO I 1 November 3 4 5 December 1 2 3 January 87 February 2 3 4 March 2 3 4 April 1 May 0 June 1 WO 2 WO 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 9.25 Months - 185 Days August 21 - June 3 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School O tn o < tn m XJ O m X (ZV o -o s: o o Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 SD 4 f M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F M T U Th F m on co LH 4 1 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 1 SO 5 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 SD 8 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 SD 9 6 7 8 11
12 T 13 14 15 18 19 20 24 I 21 25 I 22 28 WO 25 29 WO 26 30 WO 27 31 28 29 2 2 3 7 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 21 1 21 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 i 21 22 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 15: 16 17 18 19 24
25 SH SH 22 23 + 7 8 9 12: 13 LH WO 11 11 8 6 SO 10 14 15 16 19 20 26 SH 24 21 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 12 13 16 17 18 19 WO 20 SV SV 23, 24 SV 25 9 7 11 10 13 14 15 16 17 201 21 22 8 12 11 15 12 16 13 17 14 18 15 19 18, 19 22 23 + I i 20 24 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 27 28 29 30 WD 31 22 18 1 1 1 23 18 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 SH 30 SH 31 15 1 7 15 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 26 30 27 28 29 18 20 16 22 20 1 175 2 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 9 8 19 20 17 22 20 3 185 M I July August September October November December January '87 Februa ry March April May June wo e SV T 1 W 2 LH 1 2 3 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 4 4 1 3 1mm' '.iWltiU iMii' WJ Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 12 Months - 240 Days July 1 - June 30 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School t/i m P o O T5 o i o I CO z o O Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 4 F LH 4 M T W 'Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F co to GO o GO 1 5 3 7 5 2 6 6 3 1 5 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 8 1 8 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 9 9 6 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 10 10 7 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 11 1 11 8 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 12 14 15 11 : 12 15 13 17 I 16 14 18 15 i 16 12 , 13 16 16 13 11 15 17 17 14 12 16 16 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 13 17 T 17 14 18 16 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 18 15 19 17 21 19 16 20 20 17 li 19 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 1 22 18 I 19 22 I 23 20, 21 24 , 25 22 23 liT 19 20 23 . 24 23 24 20
21 t 18, 19 22 23 1 20 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 25 22 20 24 .. 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 21 25 26 29 30 1 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 23 LH 27 LH SH 28 SH SH 25 22 26 26 23 21 25 26 23 27 27 24 22. 26 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 30 27 31 28 26 39 31 28 29 30 29 27 30 28 29 1 1 2 1 7 4 1 3 18 19 20 20 22 22 20 22 250 250 days minus 10 vacation days = 240 contracted day M WD SV T M July 1 2 August 'iiWIM r I cn oI LH September 1 2 3. October 1 November 3 4 December 1 2 January '87 February 2 3 Ma rch 2 3 April May WD June 1 2 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 11 Months - 220 Days July 21 - June 19 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School o tz GO O -< GO tn m 2 O -O ( m O o m o z GO Z o o o GO (/ Th 3 A 2 F M T M Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F 5 3 4 4 1 WD 3 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 WD 4 LH 4 WD 1 5 3 7 7 WD 4 1 6 10 5 8 SH 2 6 6 3 1 WO 5 5 9 9 6 4 WD 8 8 WO 9 WO 10 WD 11 WD 14 WD 15 WD 16 WD 17 WD 18 WD WO 21 WO WD 22 WD WD 23 WD 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 WD 9 6 7 8 n , 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 WD 24 I 21 WO 25 I WD 28 WO WD 29 WD WD 30 WD WD 31 * 9 9 22 25 26 27 28 29 2 2 17 21 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 WD 10 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 WD 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 21 1 21 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 WD 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 20' 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 WD 31 22 1 23 1 17 j 18 J i 15 i 16 12
13 16 16 13 11 WD 15 19 20 17 14 21 24
25 SH SH 26 SH 18 15 19 16 22! 23 t LH WD 19 20 24 21 17 17 14 12 WD 16 18 18 15 13 WD 17 19 19 16 14 WD 18 LH 27 SH 28 18 1 1 18 LH 25 22 SH SH SH SH 26 29 30 31 15 1 7 15 23 26 27 28 29 30 18 2 1 1 19 20 WO 20 17 15 WD 19 23. 24 SV SV 23. 24 20| 21 18, 19 22 23 t 25 SV 25 22 20 24 26 SV 26 27 SV 27 30 31 20 16 1 20 11 23 24 21 22 27 LH 25 28 29 30 22 22. 25 26 29 26 27 28 29 20 1 20 30 1 175 2 6 9 14 15 43 220 a M M ID .V T July 1 August September LH 1 2 October W 2 3 1 f I*
I cn * I November 3 4 5 December 1 2 3 January '87 February 2 3 4 March 2 3 4 April 1 May June 1 WD 2 WD 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 10.5 Months - 210 Days July 31 - June 17 SH LH SO I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School tz* o o O m r- o cn Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 WD 4 F M T W Th F M T U Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F I tn O -D r- m a o X iz* co z o D LH 4 WD 1 7 WD 4 8 wo" 5 9 WD 6 10 WD 7 11 WD 8 14 WO 15 WD 11'12 T 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 1 WD 5 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 4 WD 8 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 5 WD 9 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 6 WD 10 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 7 WD 11 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 8 WD 12 isl 16 13 14 17 I 18 15 16 12: 13 16 16 13 11 WD 15 17 17 14 12 WD 16 16 WO 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 13 WO 17 17 WO 14 18 WD 15 21 WD 18 22 WD 19 23 WD 20 24 1 21 25 I 22 28 WD 25 29 WD 26 30 WD 27 WD 31 28 29 2 2 1 1 17 21 18 19 16 117 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 i 21 19 16 20 WD 20 17 15 19 22 20 i 23 21 24' 25 X SH SH 221 23 t LH WD 19 20 23, 24 SV SV 23, 24 20| 21 18| 19 22 23 t 1 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 24 1 25 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 26 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 29 27 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 30 28 SH 30 27 31 28 26 30 29 SH 31 28 29 27 30 29 30 28 21 1 21 WD 31 30 29 22 18 15 18 20 16 1 1 1 23 18 1 7 15 2 1 1 1 19 20 17 22 20 1 175 2 22 1 6 9 12 33 21 13 210July roos I UD SV Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation M T U Th F H T U Th F 1 2 3 LH 4 7 8 9 August September October November December January '87 February Ma rch April May June 1 4 5 6 10 WD 7 11 WO 8 r LH 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 3 1 2 2 o 1 4 2 3 3 WO 2 5 3 4 4 1 WD 3 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1986-87 Calendar 10 Months - 200 Days August 7 - June 10 SH LH SD I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School -< x co o : in O TJ C 1 tn O m z o o o M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F co co co o co 14 MD 15 WO 11 12 15 i 16 T I 13 i 14 t 16 WD 13 17 15 17 I 18 19 17 WD 14 18 16 20 18 WO 15 21 WO 18 22 WD 19 23 WO 20 24 I 21 25 I 22 28 WO 25 29 WD 26 30 WD 27 31 28 29 2 2 13 17 19 17 21 22 23 201 21 24 22 25 26 29 30 21 1 21 23 24 27 28 29 39 WD 31 22 1 23 4 LH 1 5 SH 2 8 5 9 6 10 11 12 15 i 16 17 18 19 24
25 SH SH 22! 23 LHt' WD 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 5 5 2 WD 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 6 3 1 WD 5 9 6 4 WD 8 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 WD 20 SV SV 23 24 7 5 WD 9 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20| 21 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 I 18 19 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 WD 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22' 23 1 t t 24 LH 27 LH 25 SH 28 SH 26 SH 29 SH 30 SH 31 18 15 1 1 18 1 7 15 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 18 2 1 1 19 26 27 20 20 SV 26 SV 27 30 31 16 1 17 23 24 27 28 29 30 22 22 21 22 LH 25 26 27 28 29 20 1 20 25 26 29 30 1 7 8 175 2 6 9 23 200 July cn GO E I M August LH , September October November Oecember January '87 February March April May June 1 3 1 2 2 o 1 wo SV T 1 2 4 2 3 3 wo 2 W 2 3 1 5 3 4 4 1 wo 3 Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation 1986-87 Calendar 9.50 Months - 190 Days August 14 - June 3 SH LH SO I Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School o un tz o o > z -< izv I f c co o m o -o O m un 2 O O o (/> 2 > O X < Ln o Th 3 4 2 6 4 LH 1 5 5 2 so 4 F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T W Th F M T U Th F LH 4 1 5 3 7 5 SH 2 6 6 3 7 4 8 6 10 8 5 9 9 6 8 5 9 7 11 9 6 10 10 7 9 6 10 8 12 10 7 11 11 8 10 7 11 9 13 11 8 12 12 9 11 8 12 10 14 12 9 13 13 10 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 11 : 12 15 13 17 I 16 14 18 15 16 12i 13 16 16 13 17 17 14 13 17 15 19 17 14 18 18 15 1 SD 5 4 so 8 5 SD 9 6 SD 10 7 8 n 12 13 11 12 15 16 17 WD 14 18 I WD 15 19 16 17 20 18 15 19 19 16 14 18 21 19 16 20 WD 20 17 15 19 WO 18 22 WD 19 23 20 21 24 25 X SH SH 22 I 23 LH WD 19 20 23 24 SV SV 23
24 20| 21 18| 19 I 22 23 t t - WD 20 24 22 26 SH 24 21 25 SV 25 22 20 24 24 I 21 25 23 LH 27 LH 25 22 26 SV 26 23 21 25 25 1 22 26 24 SH 28 SH 26 23 27 SV 27 24 22 26 28 29 WD 25 29 27 SH 29 26 30 27 LH 25 29 WD 26 30 28 SH 30 27 31 28 26 30 30 WD 27 29 SH 31 28 29 27 31 28 29 2 2 8 12 30 WD 31 21 22 18 15 1 1 1 1 1 7 21 23 18 15 29 30 18 20 16 30 28 29 I 2 1 1 1 22 20 1 175 2 1 2 6 9 13 19 20 17 22 20. 3 190 -i-i . -,5' I <4? JU'. SUPPORT SERVICES 1986-87 I I I. I I I1 I X. -64- I ' *1 I I I T n 'I: PROBLEM NUMBER ONE J 1 The current school bus fleet consists of ninety-one (91) route buses and sixteen (16) special education vehicles, the majority of which must be replaced within the next three (3) years to ensure current service levels. A. Proposed Solution I i I I I 1. Accelerate the procurement cycle of buses by entering into lease-purchase agreements. 2. Offer for sale all vehicles considered to be unrepairable. B. Analysis I i i The current bus fleet has forty-eight (48) 1977 Ford buses, most of which have in excess of 100,000 miles. The District is averaging five (5) breakdowns a day with a high (worst case) estimate of eleven (11) on any one day. Replacement parts, particularly engines and transmissions, are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. Recognizing replacement requirements, the District has obtained ten (10) new buses each year for the past four (4) years. Continuation of this replacement cycle is required to maintain current service. A five year lease-purchase plan will allow the procurement of buses at approximately $6,400 per bus per year with a purchase option of $1 at the end of five years. The total cost of a bus 1 would be approximately $32,000 as opposed to $25,000. This would appear to be the best method of updating and increasing the fleet within yearly budgetary constraints. C. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. To provide adequate operational vehicles to ensure service at the present levels. b. To continue replacement at minimum cost. I 2. Implementation Strategy a. Funds will be allocated to lease buses at $6,400 per bus per year. I b. Older, high mileage buses will be sold to partially alleviate the cost of the replacement program. I -65- i'T 3. Responsibility S' Under the direction of the Manager of Support Services, the Director of Transportation will be responsible for implementing this plan. 4. Evaluation I Evaluation will be based upon the time line and cost of modernizing and increasing the size of the bus fleet. pj a a 5. Cost Ten additional vehicles at $6,400 per bus per year $ 64,000 -66-T 1 PROBLEM NUMBER TWO I District lunch and breakfast programs operate as an integral part of the educational process without financial support from District operating funds. Participation in the federal child nutrition program provides free and reduced price benefits for approximately 9,500 students. Because of the federal legislative process, there is no stability in funding from year to year. A. B. Proposed Solution j I Operation of the lunch and breakfast programs will continue under the federal and state guidelines, based on available funding for 1986-87. Analysis Program income from federal reimbursement is not expected to increase by any significant amount. Child nutrition programs are up for reauthorization by Congress in 1985. Federal section 4 reimbursement is currently received for all reimbursable meals served in the program. Reimbursement for free meals. Section 11, covers the cost of raw food, labor, and other expenses, including replacement eeqquuiippmmeenntt.. The price charged for student meals increases in direct relation to rising labor (salary increases) a,.n.Jd f'o--oJd cosLts_.. The value of donated commodities received from I I a C. the United States Department of Agriculture will possibly decrease by one-half to one cent per meal. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. b. To break even for the 1986-87 school year in the District lunch and breakfast programs. Report by July 20, 1987. 1 2. 1 To utilize microcomputer capability in supplying individual school food service operations with three financial management statements within the 175-day operating period by January 1, 1987. Implementation Strategy a. b. To direct department operations for preparation and service of 2,099,475 meals in the lunch program and 428,000 meals in the breakfast program. Monthly financial reports will be available to the Manager, Support Services, by the 20th of the second month following the report period. -67- I I 7 Ri I 3. Responsibility 3 I ss' Under the direction of the Manager, Support Services, the Director of Food Services will be responsible for implementing this plan. 4. Evaluation The District programs will be evaluated by District and State Department of Education personnel, using the Assessment Improvement Monitoring System Performance Standards and I I the Supervisory Assistance Review procedures. Financial audits will be performed by independent school auditors. State Department of Education auditors, and a commodity reviewer. 5. Cost Operational cost for all programs is anticipated to be $5,181,901 (includes no funds from District operating budget). |l! 1 'ft I1 I 1 HII li .III i' I -68- J I T T .1I ' 4 PROBLEM NUMBER THREE The existing nutrition education program for kindergarten through third grade is coordinated and funded by the Food Service Department. The funds for this program are from continuing federal grants which provide for payment of educational food experiences only. The program is an integral part of the basic skills curriculum for all students in K-3, emphasizing language arts, reading, and math skills to teach nutrition concepts. Skills are cross-referenced with the Early Prevention of School Failure Program, the Cumulative Reading Record Folder, and Mastery Skills Record for Mathematics currently used by the District. A. B. C. Proposed Solution Funding application will be made to the State Department of Education to continue the Little Rock School District nutrition education program for all students in grades K-3 for 1986-87. Analysis Federal legislation will impact the continuation of this program. Should Congress decide to cut nutrition education funds for 1987, the Nutrition Education Section of the State Department of Education would determine the outcome of the grant applications. Operation Plan 1. 2. Objective a. b. To submit a letter of application to the Arkansas State Department of Education by April 30, 1986. To coordinate the curriculum plans, revision, and implementation for the 1986-87 school year. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. Review the nutrition education curriculum with the Elementary Education Supervisor by August 15, 1986. Procure and organize the distribution of food, materials, and supplies to Kindergarten, Primary 1, Primary 2, and Primary 3 classrooms by September 30, 1986. Complete pre-test and post-test procedures at all grade levels by May 30, 1987. -69- .1 ll 3. Responsibility 1 4. -Il 5. Under the direction of the Manager of Support Services and the Director of Food Service, the Coordinator of Nutrition Education will be responsible for this plan. Evaluation a. b. c. Cost The State Department of Education requires a financial audit of grant funds. The Nutrition Education Coordinator will conduct pre-tests and post-test evaluations of randomly-selected students to measure knowledge gained through program participation. At the end of the school year, teachers will be surveyed to evaluate curriculum and program organization. Grant and coordinator's salary is $26,214. (This amount is included in Program Operation Cost in a preceding problem.) I I I -70- i 4 ri I PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR S The computer system currently makes no provision for the addition of test scores (standardized or other) into the student database. A. B. Proposed Solution The computer system should be able to capture and manipulate student test scores for both standardized tests and District-wide tests for all District students. Analysis The addition of standardized and District test scores would make it possible to produce statistics and studies of student perform-ance without the current investment in staff time. Also, the addition of these scores to the student record would become a part of the student's historical record, which could be used for longitudinal studies. The District is currently considering an in-depth evaluation of each child for placement in the gifted program. Specific computer assistance will be required in order to effectively utilize standardized test scores as a component of this evaluation and to be complete the evaluation in a timely manner for student placement. C. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. Objective To add the ability to capture and manipulate student test scores to the District's computer system by June, 1987. Implementation Strategy During the 1985-86 school year, an analysis of the requirements for effective use of such test scores and the best method for collecting the scores will be performed. Appropriate procedures and computer programs will be developed and tested using the results of standardized tests given to students during the 1984-85 and the 1985-86 school years. The system will be implemented for all students in the 1986-87 school year. Responsibility "I The Director of Data Processing, under the supervision of the Manager of Support Services, will be responsible for the implementation of this plan. -71- J I 4. Evaluation This plan will be considered successful if the 1987-88 multi-year analyses of student standardized testing can be performed by the computer system instead of manually and if the 1986-87 single-year analyses can also be performed using the computer system. 5. Cost Staff time 1 /A'. i 1 -72- 'I l!l r f:' hi J I n PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE 3 The lack of funds to replace antiquated equipment continues to affect the efficient operation of the District's food service facilities. The identification of equipment for replacement has been on an emergency basis as opposed to a plan. The Food Service Department has developed a manual property accounting system during the last five (5) years
however, an automated system would provide timely reports that would provide better management and utilization of equipment. A. Proposed Solution Manage available resources to maintain quality nutrition feeding program. I B. Analysis The implementation of an automated property accounting system will enable the department to systematically replace antiquated equipment on a priority basis. The Food Service Department has w classified equipment and will develop an automated inventory control system, using the department microcomputer. c. Operational Plan n J- 1. Objectives a. n To implement a department automated property accounting system for food service equipment by January 1, 1987. b. B To revise plan for capital expenditures for a three-year period, based on equipment replacement schedule, using automated data and maintenance records, by May 30, 1987. B 2. Implementation Strategy a. B Complete property accounting data for input by January 1, 1986. b. Using automated property accounting reports, establish criteria and adjust plan for a five-year capital expenditure plan by May 30, 1987. 3. Responsibility Under the direction of the Manager, Support Services, the Director of Food Service will be responsible for this plan. I n 4. Evaluation I Evaluation will be based on task completion schedule. -73- *I 4' 5. Cost I No increase in funding will be required. Implementation will be through utilization of existing staff and hardware. I 3 I I 'i I t -74- ), I aS 4n 4 1 1 B] 1' K] E 1 I B 'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 1986-87 I r DB I I PROBLEM NUMBER ONE Many youngsters are entering kindergarten in the Little Rock School 3 District unprepared for kindergarten work, their school career at a disadvantage. A. Proposed Solution As a result, they begin A program for pre-kindergarten youngsters that will concentrate on developing the skills necessary for learning will be developed. B. Analysis Pre-kindergarten youngsters who have not been exposed to early childhood experiences that lead to learning readiness are at a disadvantage upon entering kindergarten. The Little Rock School District will develop a program to identify youngsters who need kindergarten readiness skills and offer this program on a volunteer basis at selected sites. I I il C. Operational Plan 1. Objective To offer a program to identify and serve pre-kindergarten youngsters who need learning readiness skills. 2. Implementation Plan The program will be developed prior to January, 1986, in order to begin the identification process in the spring of 1986. The number of children served will depend on the number of available teachers. Criteria for entrance to the I program will be developed prior to the identification process being developed. 3. Responsibility 4. The Associate Superintendent will be responsible for the development and implementation of this program. Evaluation This program will be evaluated over a three-year period. Successful accomplishment of the objective will be measured by test scores on standardized tests of the youngsters identified for the program as compared with test scores of youngsters not included in the readiness program. -75- 1 7 1 5. Cost The cost will be determined by the number of teachers employed. It is estimated that more students should receive pre-school instruction than will be able to receive service immediately. The cost per teacher based on 1985-86 figures is about $23,500 per teacher. 1 1 -76- ,.1 T "4" PROBLEM NUMBER TWO > i Opportunities are limited for gifted and talented students to investigate and create beyond the regular classroom. A. B. Proposed Solution After evaluation of the seventeen pilot gifted and talented programs of the Little Rock School District, a gifted and talented program shall be developed in each school by June, 1987. Analysis C. I I There is a need to provide equitable access to programs designed to give comprehensive opportunities for students to extend their educational experiences. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Objective To establish gifted and talented programs in each Little Rock School District school by spring, 1987. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. d. e. Revise current pilot program consistent with spring, 1986, evaluation. Summer of 1986, staff training Inform principals of training possibilities and state requirements Recruit staff Conduct training Responsibility The Coordinator of gifted and talented programs will be responsible for the implementation of this plan under the direction of the Associate Superintendent. Evaluation The success of this proposal will be determined by observations, evaluations, and surveys. Cost $168,000 -77- T PROBLEM NUMBER THREE I The Little Rock School District is far behind in offering computer programming opportunities. A. Proposed Solution H In order to meet state standards and to strengthen the quality of the mathematics program, a committee for computer implementation should be established immediately to determine the cost and guidelines for computer implementation. B. Analysis rj 1. With PASCAL now being offered as an Advanced Placement, all three school districts in Pulaski County will need to lay the groundwork for this course offering. C. 2. 3. Integration of computers into every applicable phase of the District's K-12 instructional program should be mapped out. With the number of microcomputers continuing to double each year, the following areas require immediate attention: a. b. establishment of a maintenance fund and/or programs to prevent repair costs from limiting programs
establishment of a line item in the budget to provide seed money for short-term computer pilots and feasibility studies in a wide variety of K-12 subject matter areas. Operational Plan 1. Objective I ! To form a committee for computer implementation to determine guidelines, pilot expenditures, and expenses for implementing computers into the District's K-12 curriculum. 2. Implementation Strategy Prepare recommendations for implementing the computer curriculum February, 1986. 3. Responsibility a. Selection of committee members -- The Associate Superintendent, the Math Supervisor, and the Supervisor of Instructional Technology. b. Election of chairman and recorder--Committee Members -78- 1 n J c. Selection of sub-committee -- Committee Chairperson, working under the direction of the Math Supervisor 4. d. e. Schedule meetings Committee Chairperson Write committee report Committee Chairperson and Recorder Evaluation Successful completion will be determined by the development and submission of the Committee's recommendations. a 5. Cost n 1 I 1'1 Seed money for computer pilots Maintenance program for microcomputers Resource/consultant/travel expenses Total $ 15,000 7,000 2,000 $ 24,000 -79-1 I PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR A tremendous need exists in today's society for youngsters to receive instruction in drug, alcohol, and sex education. A recent cover story in Time states that "...each year more than a million American II II teenagers will become pregnant... some 30,000 of them under age 15. Arkansas leads the nation in the number of teenage pregnancies, and many of these occur in Pulaski County. Clearly the problem of alcohol and drug abuse and the problem of teenage pregnancy must be addressed more effectively than we have been able to do thus far. A. Proposed Solution The Little Rock School District will provide instruction on drug, alcohol, and sex education in grades 4-9. B. Analysis Ui Efforts to address the problems of drug, alcohol, and sex education through extended day services have not been successful. It is necessary to provide instruction in these areas within the regular curriculum. c. Operational Plan 1. Objective 2. To incorporate instruction in drug, alcohol, and sex education as part of the regular curriculum in grades 4-9. Implementation Strategy A committee of supervisors and teachers will be appointed to recommend appropriate content for programs in drug, alcohol, and sex education for students in grades 4-9. Their recommendations will be received by September, 1986. Teachers will receive inservice training in appropriate methods of instruction in these areas during the first semester of the 1986-87 school year. Program content will be incorporated into the regular curriculum by January, 1987. 3. Responsibility The Committee will make its initial recommendations to the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum who will present them to the Superintendent and Board. Curriculum content decisions will be made by the Superintendent and Board. The responsibility for implementation will be that of the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum. -80-Lrd 4. Evaluation III 1 5. I The evaluation of the program will be determined by teachers, principals, students, and parents who are involved with the program. Cost Supplies and printing Inservice training, 1 day 0 $35 for 142 Total $ 2,000 $ 4,970 $ 6,970 I -81- '1* if - PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE There is a need to ensure that at the junior high and high school levels all students are being required to master the same basic level of knowledge in each subject area taught. Presently, teachers have a heavy burden grading tests. There is a need to give some type of district-wide standardized tests that assures uniformity in teaching and learning without placing an additional burden on the teachers. A. Proposed Solution B. C. I It is recommended that the District develop a bank of test questions for each of the subject areas taught. These test questions will be stored in the District's mainframe computer. When it is necessary to give quarterly, semester, and year-end tests, such tests could be generated by requesting from the computer a certain number of test questions which are selected from the storage bank. This procedure would allow uniform expectations of teaching and learning. Analysis Although the curriculum that is used in the District is uniform, it is necessary to develop a uniform level of expectation for subject material that is mastered by students. By developing a computerized testing program where tests can be generated from the computer from a "bank" of questions, testing for uniform knowledge is possible. It is also possible to develop an answer sheet that can be graded by using scanning procedures. By developing such a procedure, the District can make its expectation level more uniform and aid the teachers in their areas of responsibility. replace essay tests. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective This system cannot and should not, however. It will be used only for objective tests. To develop a system where the computer can store, select, and print computer tests for all subject areas taught in the District. The objective is to develop a system that will grade the tests. The purpose of developing this system is to make uniform our expectations of students in all subject areas. Implementation Strategy The District will begin this process in the 1986-87 school year by making sure the instructional objectives for each subject area are updated, and the plan for developing the computerization will begin in 1986-87. In 1987-88, it is planned that the areas of English, mathematic, science, and 1 -82- 1 1 iS social studies at the junior high level will be completed. In the 1988-89 school year, all other courses at the junior high level will be included. During the 1986-87 and 1988-89 school year, the process of writing test questions and including them in the computer will take place for all subjects at the senior high level. It is planned that by the 1989-90 school year, this process can be used for all subjects in grades 7-12. I A 3. Responsibility The responsibility for this effort will be the Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum and instruction and the Director of Data Processing. F 4. Evaluation 3 The success of this proposal will be determined by whether or not this plan is implemented. h 5. Cost Staff Time 1 I -83- I rI PROBLEM NUMBER SIX For several years, the junior high school has suffered from an identity crisis that remains somewhat unresolved. Some educators believe the junior highs should be abolished and replaced with middle 4 schools. Others believe the existing junior high structure, with a different program, would best meet the needs of early adolescents. There are some indications that young adolescents of today are maturing faster than they used to and that the typical six-three-three grade pattern no longer works well for today's students. Other concerns are that junior high schools too often are simply miniature versions of high school (complete with emphasis on subject matter mastery) with little regard for growth characteristics and special needs of early adolescents. All of these concerns point to the need for reviewing the total junior high program. In addition to these concerns, the Arkansas standards will require that several courses be offered at the seventh and eighth grade levels which are not now required by the Little Rock School District. The present six-period day will make it difficult if not impossible to provide all the required courses, to students. Many electives will be unavailable I A. B. Proposed Solution Appoint a task force to review the total junior high program and make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding curriculum, scheduling, staffing, and extracurricular activities. Analysis J Besides apparent differences that exist between District offerings and state requirements, there are some obvious concerns with the overall effectiveness of the junior high program. Attention needs to be given to such issues as cognitive development of early adolescents, learning styles, physical and social maturation. 11 teacher qualities" most needed by those who instruct junior high youngsters, appropriate extracurricular I activities, and guidance and counseling needs. The scheduling of classes should be reviewed to determine if a different system of instructional delivery might be more appropriate for the junior highy school. Other issues include the opportunity to develop I learning and study skills under the direction of trained personnel, the opportunity to explore career interests, and the need to establish programs in drug, alcohol, and sex education for junior high youngsters. -84- I I C. Operational Plan 1. Objectives a. To develop a task force to study the junior high program and make recommendations to the Superintendent in the following areas: I 1. 2. 3. 4, Curriculum Scheduling Staffing patterns Extracurricular activities b. f To establish timetables for implementation of program changes prior to June, 1987. I 2. Implementation Strategy a. Select committee members and define role of task force by February, 1986. b. Present committee recommendations to the Superintendent by April 15, 1986. 1 I I I 3. Responsibility The Task Force will present recommendations to the Superintendent. Responsibility for implementation will rest with the Associate Superintendents and the Manager of Support Services. 4. Evaluation Final reports from the Task Force will be evident. Surveys of teachers and students will be used for evaluative purposes. 5. Cost The cost of the Task Force will be minimal. The costs for redesigning the junior high program will be developed in the report of the Task Force to the Superintendent. -85-PROBLEM NUMBER SEVEN Many students in our District would like to have the opportunity to take additional courses beyond what is available to them within a six-period day. Additionally, the new standards will require that new courses be added to the curriculum. Some of these courses will be required. This is a special problem for the junior high program. : 1 A. Proposed Solution Provide an extended school day for junior and senior high school students so that they will be able to take additional courses and thus receive a more comprehensive education than would otherwise be possible. B. Analysis i1 It will be difficult, if not impossible, to offer all the required courses necessary to meet the standards within the current six-period day. While consideration has been given to a seven-period day, such a decision would mean shortening class periods and thus reducing individual teacher-student interaction within a given class. At the same time, many students would like the opportunity to take additional courses beyond those required for graduation. From a cost perspective, it would be difficult if not impossible to employ teachers to teach an additional hour. A method for extension of the school day that is cost effective is needed. 1 C. Operational Plan I 1. Objectives a. b. 2. > To complete a report to the Superintendent and Board by January 1987 containing an analysis of extended day programs and recommendations for implementation. To implement an extended day schedule in the 1987-88 school year. Implementation Strategy A committee of principals, teachers, and central office administrators will study extended day programs and will make recommendations to the Superintendent and Board for the implementation of a cost-effective program by the 1987-88 school year. Principals will assess staffing needs, determine staff reporting and leaving time, and develop a master schedule by April, 1987. needs A -86- J 3. Responsibility 7J1 The initial recommendations will be made by the Committee. Responsibility for implementation will be that of the secondary principals working under the assigned associate superintendent. I 4. Evaluation 1 5. Teachers, students, administrators, and parents will assess the success of the extended day program. Cost Committee expenses (printing and supplies) $ 50.00 w s -87- '5' II si
'31 k->il I a f I I PROBLEM NUMBER EIGHT I The Little Rock School District needs to continue planning secondary magnet schools. A. B. C. 1 Proposed Solution 1I Planning for a secondary high school for the visual and performing arts should continue. Analysis The magnet schools program of the Little Rock School District has been very well received by students and patrons. The Eighth Circuit Court has directed Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County District to examine magnet options. Operational Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. Objective To design a high school that would develop the potential of students from all cultural and socio-economic backgrounds who exhibit an interest, talent, and ability in the visual and performing arts. Implementation Strategy a. b. c. Determine course, objectives, content, and teaching strategies. Determine what materials, textbooks, and supplies will be needed. Spend the 1986-87 school year developing the with implementation set for 1987-88 school year. Responsibil i ty courses The Associate Superintendent will have major responsibility. The Community Committee which began work in 1984-85 will continue work with the Supervisor of Music and Coordinator of Cultural Arts as resource personnel. Evaluation Evaluation will be consistent with the evaluation that is made of all educational programs in the Little Rock School District. -88r 1 I H II I I I T 7 5. Cost s The feasibility of funding such a school under a Department of Education grant, State of Arkansas funds, or through combined efforts of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County, and North Little Rock should be explored. I I I I E -89- I 9 I I PROBLEM NUMBER NINE The District has provided a comprehensive staff development program for its staff members for several years, but it has been unevenly utilized. Some administrators and teachers avail themselves of every possible opportunity to upgrade their skills and learn more about effective educational practices. Others are either reluctant participants or choose not to participate at all. One of the concerns regarding staff development is how to get employees oriented to the philosophy and program of the District while at the same time not adversely impacting on instruction time for 4 students. There are disadvantages to programs which operate only after hours, on the weekends, and during the summer, but clearly, the impact of removing teachers from their duties in the classroom in order to receive inservice instruction training must be carefully assessed. At the same time, if a mediocre teacher's performance can 4 improve as a result of participation in a program during the school day, that too must be considered. During the 1984-85 school year, at least two schools whose teachers were out for seven half-days to participate in PET showed gains in achievement on the SRA test. 4 Another concern has to do with providing training opportunities for administrators and support personnel and for providing school-based staff development programs. Without appropriate leadership from principals, it is unlikely that any lasting change will occur in the instructional practices of teachers. At the same time, unless principals receive the training they need, they can hardly be expected to emerge as instructional leaders of their schools. Further, specially trained teachers have unique needs that are not always appropriately addressed by the District's staff development model. A. B. Proposed Solution Establish a staff development program for all District employees and Board members which will provide systematic training in issues and concerns vital to the District and which will enhance the ability of the identified groups to carry out their responsibilities more effectively. Analysis 1. Effective June 1, 1987, the State Department of Education will require that each district develop and implement a plan for professional staff development and inservice training for school board members, school and district administrators, teachers, and support staff on a continuing and regular basis throughout the year. -90- -I. 1: C. 2. Although the District has recognized the need for staff development as evidenced by the staff development model, scheduling has prevented full and/or effective implementation. Operational Plan rI i J ( i 1 I 1. Objective To upgrade student performance and achievement by providing systematic inservice training for Little Rock School District School Board members, school and district adminstrators, teachers, and support staff. i I 2. Implementation Strategy a. The Board will adopt a policy concerning staff development. b. A staff development advisory committee will be appointed with a provision for rotating membership. This committee will receive and act upon proposals and recommendations from employees concerning the content of staff development programs. 1 c. A needs assessment will be conducted to determine the areas of interest and concern as perceived by all groups of District employees. I d. Each principal and central office administrator will attain observation status in PET. I e. Annual inservice for principals will be provided, utilizing the Leadership Academy and the Principals Center. f. By February 1 of each year the principal will present to the Associate Superintendent (Curriculum) a building level staff development plan for the year based on local needs assessment data. g. The Associate Superintendents will complete all areas of staff development as set forth in the Little Rock School District Staff Development Model (i.e., PET, Mastery Learning, TESA, and Assertive Discipline). I I h. Annually, staff development in PET, TESA, Classroom Management, and Assertive Discipline will be provided until all schools have completed training in these components. I I i. A Principals Center will be established. I ! -91- i p, I j. k. 1. The components of the Program for Effective Building Leadership (PEBL) will be implemented. All teachers will have completed PET by 1991-92 and new teachers will be employed on the condition that they take PET. -I' 3. 4. A trainer of trainers cycle will be conducted to assist principals and other employees in the delivery of staff development activities at the local schools, utilizing current and relevant theories of adult development and learning. Responsibility I The Associate Superintendent in charge of curriculum will have primary responsibility for the development and implementation of the staff development program. <3 ' Evaluation s a. b. c. d. 5. Cost The objective(s) for each inservice or staff development activity must be clearly defined. Each participant will evaluate the inservice as it relates to the stated object!ve(s). The evaluation instrument for personnel will reflect the application of skills and concepts taught in the Little Rock School District Staff Development Model. The number of students working at, above, or below grade level at the end of the first and third nine weeks of the current year will be compared with the same data of the previous year. SRA data will be used to compare growth of students for the current year with the previous year. Five PET Cycles @ $6,000 per cycle Principals Staff Development and Inservice Four Cycles of TESA, Assertive Discipline, and Classroom Management $ 30,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 30,600 $ W76(m 1. L. f -92- I
II I- 'I I .! I 11 ii J I J 9 'I * PROBLEM NUMBER TEN In order to avoid the emphasis that is being placed on minimum competencies as being an acceptable level of work for all students, it is necessary to try to develop an attitude or atmosphere for learning that accepts the best a student can do as the minimum level of performance. A. B. Proposed Solution In order to try to create an atmosphere for learning and achievement, the District will develop a series of steps to promote learning for the sake of learning without any differentiation through the use of grades. Those steps will be listed below. The District will expand the opportunities for students to learn by developing an academic summer school program. This will be a "set" program that will become an automatic part of the summer school offerings each summer. Admission to the classes that are offered will be open to any student who wishes to pursue the subjects that are taught. The District will develop a lecture series. The lecture series will be developed for the purpose of exposing students in the Little Rock School District to some of the nation's politicians, academicians, and newsmakers. The District will consider developing the use of a voluntary scholar's test. The purpose of the test, which will be voluntary, would be to give students the opportunity to know to what degree they have mastered academic material. No differentiation will be made on any diploma. Analysis For the past several years the Little Rock School District has worked hard to improve the basic skills of its students. While the basic skills have improved, the District has not developed an attitude that indicates that learning for the sake of learning is important. The above steps are proposed in order to try and create the idea that not only can all students learn but that developing ones own talent and interests can be done in various ways. The academic summer school is proposed in order to try to expand the opportunities for students to take interesting and challenging classes. The lecture program is proposed in order to give students the opportunity to be exposed to national figures in various areas. The scholars test is proposed in order to try to give students an opportunity to self-evaluate their academic development. -93- 1 i ____3-t C. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective The objective is to develop and instill an idea of academic performance in the students in each of the buildings in the Little Rock School District. By using these activities, the importance of academics can be emphasized without additional emphasis on grading and acceptance into programs based on prior performance. Implementation Strategy .JH 1! 3. 4. 5. 1 It is proposed that implementation of the proposed plan be completed by the fall of 1986, with the exception of the scholars test. It is anticipated that the scholars test will be available for all students at the end of the 1987-88 school year. Responsibility Responsibility for the program will be shared by the associates superintendents. Evaluation I Evaluation of this program will be measured by the participation in the academic summer school program, attendance at the lecture series, and by the number of students who take the scholar's test. The success of the academic coaches will be measured by an analysis of whether or not that position has had an impact on improved academic participation and performance of the students. Cost Funding for the summer school program will be by tuition. Funding for the lecture series will be sought from private donations. Costs for the tests will be determined later. depending upon what tests are used. -94- II } I i I il Hi I I I rt 5 1 I I I I ,'1 w ' 3 1 ADMINISTRATION 1986-87 -95- II (I i! 4' PROBLEM NUMBER ONE By 1990, the Little Rock School District will have to extend the number of student attendance days from 175 to 179. With the increased cost of utilities, it is necessary for the District to use as many as possible of the "low energy consumption days" for student attendance. Recently, the Arkansas General Assembly passed legislation, which was later modified, that emphasized the importance of schools scheduling student attendance days to begin after Labor Day of each year. Temperatures increase significantly after Memorial Day
therefore, it is necessary for the Little Rock School District to use as many of the days available between Labor Day and Memorial Day as possible since these are usually lower energy consumption days. A. B. C. Proposed Solution It is recommended that the Board direct the administration to negotiate a change in the manner in which the District has dismissed school for the Arkansas Education Association Convention and to study the alternatives for changing the use of spring vacation during the 1987-88 school year. Analysis ihe District has tried various energy management plans in the past. Some have been more successful than others. The District will again have to become more energy-conscious as a result of the Grand Gulf settlement and anticipated increases in the price of natural gas. This matter is further complicated by the requirement of the new state standards to increase the number of student days from 175 to 179. between Labor Day and Memorial Day. There are a given number of days Unless more days between those two dates are used for student attendance, school days will have to be used either prior to Labor Day or after Memorial Day to a greater degree than they are now used. This not only reduces the effectiveness of teaching because of the heat but also increases utility costs. Operational Plan 1. 2. Objective To better utilize the dates that are available between Labor Day and Memorial Day for student instruction by reducing the days when students are dismissed for other activities. Implementation Strategy To ask the Board of Directors to direct the administration to change the practice of dismissing school two days for the AEA convention. To examine the possibility in future years I' I I i I I E -96- 19 fl of better utilizing the days now used for spring vacation and/or Christmas vacation. 1 3. Responsibility Responsibility for this project will be that of the Superintendent of Schools and those to whom he delegates certain areas of responsibility. 4. Evaluation Successful completion of this proposed solution will be the reduction of utility consumption and by expanding the number of days of student attendance. I. b bl 5. Cost None I 1 -97-9 Bl PROBLEM NUMBER TWO Despite the District's efforts to remediate students who are placed in remedial or "low" sections of a subject, too many students are still allowed to remain in a "lower track." A. Proposed Solution I i Beginning in the 1986-87 school year, no student will be promoted beyond the sixth grade who has not been evaluated in a manner that indicates that he/she has the ability to be successful in the seventh grade. I Beginning with the 1987-88 school year, the Little Rock School District will have only two levels of required classes: regular and honors. The classes that are separated because of content level such as Algebra I, Algebra II, or Geometry, will remain. In the 1988-89 school year this requirement will be moved to the eighth grade. I In the 1989-90 school year, it will be moved to the ninth grade and on through the succeeding years until it includes the twelfth grade. p d B. Analysis There is a need to educate all students to a level of competence that enables them to be successful once they get out of high school. Presently, too many students are not required to master a minimal level of knowledge that will enable them to be successful in ensuing years. By phasing out the present levels that place students in different groups, we will ensure that all students have at least a minimal level of knowledge. Remedial programs will need to be developed other than summer school. These remedial programs can only be developed, however, with additional funds. Nonetheless, it is best to set the requirement and the expectations of all students rather than allow the number of students who presently go through school performing at such a low level. C. Operational Plan 1. Objective 1 To ensure that all students achieve a minimum amount of knowledge in a subject. 2. Implementation Strategy 1'! It is recommended that this procedure be phased in in order to prevent any additional hardships to those students who have already reached the junior high level or grades above junior high without having mastered the minimum requirements. Again, remedial programs should be established to help teach students and will be done if money is available. -98-a 1 1 II 3. Responsibility The responsibility for this effort will be that of the two Associate Superintendents. 4. Evaluation I, i I? 5. The success of this proposal will be measured by the elimination of the present grouping patterns and the increase in the number of students who master the minimum skills. Cost None 1 11 1 I 1 I -99-9 PROBLEM NUMBER THREE At the high school level, students are assigned by the computer to certain classes. The computer is not able to anticipate the fact that students have had teachers in previous years and failed the class or identify situations where learning and teaching styles don't match. The computer also is not able to know of personality conflicts between specific students and specific teachers. As a result, there are a i! large number of transfer requests early in each semester. In addition, there are a large number of students who have difficult semesters or difficult years because of the teacher to whom the student was assigned. ' I I I A. Proposed Solution I i ' B. 1 C. It is recommended that at least one of the high schools voluntarily accept on a trial basis the responsibility for developing a system where students are allowed to select their teachers and the period they want to take the particular class. Analysis It is necessary to try to adopt a plan that accommodates students in not only selecting a class, but also selecting the hour in which it is taught and the teacher they would like to have as an instructor. Student-teacher conflicts can be reduced and schedule changes can be substantially reduced. The most common concern that has been expressed about this idea is that students are not able to select teachers for themselves that are in their best interests because they will select the teachers who are the II easiest." Principals who have been involved in this type of scheduling, however, indicate that this is not so and are in favor of this process. By trying this on an experimental basis in one of our high schools, we can determine the degree to which it is successful and whether or not it should be continued and expanded to include the other high schools. Operational Plan 1. Objective To develop a scheduling system which allows the students to select not only their subjects but the hours in which the subjects are taught and the teacher that will be teaching the particular classes. I I 2. Implementation Strategy During the 1986-87 school year, high school principals will be questioned about their willingness to volunteer in such a project. After a high school has been selected, the scheduling process will be started for the spring of 1987 and will take effect in the fall of 1988. -100-9 I 3 3 2 3. Responsibility Responsibility for this project will be under the direction of the Associate Superintendent in charge of administration and the principal of the high school that is to participate. 4. Evaluation I I I The success of this project will be determined by the high I school principal. The information in his evaluation would i' '3 4 5. be gathered from students and teachers in his/her building. Cost None I I R I I J 4 I -I I I I -101- I 7 PROBLEM NUMBER FOUR The District does not have a handbook to assist administrators in the interviewing, evaluation, and selection of certified personnel. A. Proposed Solution To develop an interview handbook for the selection of certified personnel. B. Analysis The development of an interview handbook for the selection of certified personnel will provide assistance in the interviewing, evaluating, and selection of certified personnel. The handbook will also provide for some standardization in the selection of teaching personnel when a number of people are involved in the interviewing and selection process. I i I C. Operational Plan 1. Objective I I I To develop a handbook that will provide assistance to administrators as they interview to achieve an assessment of a potential candidate in a short amount of time. 2. Implementation Strategy I a. b. The selection of a committee to assist the Personnel Director in the development of the handbook by May 1, 1986. p Instructional Supervisors and Principals will be trained in the use of the handbook by June, 1986. i I i I h 3. Responsibility The Director of Personnel, under the direction of the proper Associate Superintendent, will be responsible for developing the handbook and its implementation. 4. Evaluation The selection process of certified personnel will be evaluated to determine what impact the handbook has had on the selection of quality certified personnel. Il i( II II li 5. Cost Printing and binding $ 1.000 -102-p.-iT PROBLEM NUMBER FIVE A problem exists in finding an adequate method of preparing first-year teachers to teach in the Little Rock School District. I' i S-l Each year the Little Rock School District spends a substantial amount of funds to pay for substitute teachers. During the 1984-85 school year, the District spent in excess of $700,000 for substitute teachers. In addition to the amount of money spent on substitute teachers, the quality of instruction provided by substitutes is substantially below the level of instruction provided by the regular classroom teacher. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract competent young professionals to the teaching staff and keep classroom teachers in the classroom. A. Proposed Solution To address the problems stated above, it is recommended tht the District institute a "differentiated staffing" plan. B. Analysis There is a need to provide training for first year teachers in the Little Rock School District, to provide an available source of competent substitute teachers, and to develop a means of providing a career ladder or some way of keeping professional teachers in the classroom. The differentiated staffing plan would incorporate three basic ingredients, include an entry level group of teachers. The first would These individuals would be employed in the "training" part of the program. Although all individuals would be college graduates, they will be assigned to work and be supervised by a "master teacher." They will receive additional training in the areas designated by the District such as the Program for Effective Teaching, etc. and will serve as substitute teachers. II It is hoped that this pool of training" staff will provide the source from which we will employ regular classroom teachers for the following year. The second level is the level of regular classroom teacher, is the same level that the District presently employs and the responsibilities will be the same. This ihe third level would be called the "career" category. After a given number of years of satisfactory performance, a regular classroom teacher would be eligible to be placed at the II level. career" 1 i! The "career" level teachers would not only be placed on a different salary schedule, but they would form the nucleus from which department chairmen, master teachers, and course instructors would be chosen. The individuals at the II career" level would be eligible for extra work during the summer to work on curriculum and instruction, performance based. All promotions would be -103- 7 C. Operational Plan 1. Objective The objective is to provide the District with a source from which it can draw first-year teachers who are well-prepared to go into the classroom, a reliable source of substitute teachers who are more competent than those from which we draw at the present time, and an incentive plan that will recognize, encourage, and reward career teachers in the Little Rock School District. 2. Implementation Strategy It will not Implementation will begin in the fall of 1986. be possible for us to employ all of the first-year teachers that will be needed in the fall of 1986 and create a pool of "training" teachers. We will attempt to begin hiring the "extra" staff members and developing a pool. The District will seek grants and other means of trying to establish the training pool. t I During the 1986-87 school year, the District will attempt to develop the complete career ladder process with the appropriate levels and appropriate evaluation instrument being developed. Full implementation is planned for the fall of 1987. I 3. Responsibility r The ultimate responsibility will be under the direction of the Superintendent of Schools with specific parts of the program being assigned to the Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Director of Personnel. 4. Evaluation I I i The success of this plan will be dependent upon its implementation and the degree to which the quality of instruction from first-year teachers and substitute teachers I is improved. Evaluation of the career ladder element of the plan will be through staff surveys. I 5. Cost I 1 The cost is dependent upon the number of teachers that can be hired at an approximate cost of $15,700 per new teacher, including fringe benefits. I I I 1 I -104-7 PROBLEM NUMBER SIX The need exists within the Little Rock School District to eliminate pre-school registration for students who are attending the same schools as the previous year. It would be the goal of this system to reduce the number of days of registration and the manpower used in filling out registration forms. It will, however, be necessary for students new to the District and new to the school to pre-register. A. Proposed Solution Have only two days of registration. The pupil data forms will be entered into a computer and these students placed on a printout. The school would need to send any changes to the Pupil Accounting Office on a change form. B. Analysis Through computerization of our registration process, the office personnel will be able to plan more efficiently and effectively for the upcoming school year. Also, fewer days will be necessary for registration. i I' C. Operational Plan 1. Objective 2. 3. All children attending the same school in the LRSD will be able to attend school without pre-registering. Implementation Strategy a. b. Utilize one person from Pupil Accounting to feed the information into the computer. Develop a "change form" to be fed into the computer for any changes of address, phone number, etc. Responsibility i I b. Pupil Accounting Office The school secretary will be responsible for securing the "change forms" and submitting them to Pupil Accounting along with any new pupil data forms. I a. 1 4. Evaluation Registration at the beginning of the school year will r
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.