{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_311","title":"Cluster A meetings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Cluster A meetings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/311"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["62 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED OCT 6 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 October 2. 1998 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Heritage West Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have been chosen to facilitate the work of Cluster A for the 98-99 school year. The focus of our work will center on customer relations and school climate. I would like to invite you to send me the name of someone from your office that would like to work with us on this cluster assignment. It should be an interesting assignment. We have a great group of schools to work with. Give me a call, if youd like to visit about this. Sincerely, Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Asst. Supt, PRE 324-2122 krlease@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.usOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nOctober 30, 1998 To: Kathy Lease From: Ann Bro' Re: Cluster A i^n^UC^- Thanks for inviting me to work with Cluster A. Customer relations and school climate are subjects dear to my heart, so Ill be happy to contribute what I can. When we last talked, I promised to send you some information related to the clusters mission that is also a part of my personal manifesto on public relations. I then immediately left on a two week out-of-state trip so am just now getting this to you. Sorry for the delay. Although the LRSDs new desegregation plan supercedes all others, the district pledged to continue to work cooperatively with the PCSSD and the NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Enclosed is the Public Relations section of that plan, which in 1992 the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to incorporate into the Interdistrict Plan from the 1989 Tri-District Desegregation Plan. (Sounds like whos on first, so enough history.) I have to confess up front that I wrote this section back in 1989, based on my own convictions, research, and input from a broad-based, tri-district task force that included teachers, principals, community leaders, and parents. Although Id have done a better job of writing it today, it still accurately reflects what I believe about public relations and customer service. Also, the section contains lots of good ideas that are still valid. It might helpful for the cluster to review the section, especially since the district is still supposed to be supporting the plan of which it is part. Im really excited about working with the cluster group. Just let me know when and where and Ill be there.INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District April 29, 1992PUBLIC RELATIONS 5^/5.  Summary and Recommendations Public relations describes the process by which schools and the community achieve awareness, understanding, and confidence through communication, shared experiences, and a history of fulfilled promises. Desegregation will succeed only so far as the commumty supports and participates iu it. Therefore, creating an understanding of desegregation as a preferred way of living together and teaching our children, and marketing the programs which support desegregation, is the basic function of public relations as a means to achieving support of the public schools. Highlights of the recommendations of parents are as follows: - The public relations programs and strategies currently employed by the districts are approved for continuation but with e addition of certain approaches which have been suggested by parents. - The districts will search for ways to increase the number of staff who are responsible for public relations programs. - Emphasis must be placed on the accomplishments of the schools and educating the community about the various features of the desegregation plan. - The districts will cooperate to form a media coalition as a commumcation and advisory link with the local media.  Innovative ways must be devised to commumcate with citizens who are difficult to reach. - Each district will establish a school communication network which will feature a communications coordinator at each building. - Outreach into the community must be energetic and ongoing, including fresh and creative ways to promote the public schools, and boost employee morale and job satisfaction. - Staff, students, and parents must be prepared with information and skills so they can serve as positive ambassadors for the schools. - Communication channels between school-based personnel, district leadership, and the community must be established and maintained. - The districts will demonstrate dependability and integrity by faithfully including, informing, and communication with the community. Page 59RECEIVED NOV 1 2 1998 OFICEOF / DESEGREGATION MONITOR receded HOV ! Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S, Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: From: Date: Re: Cluster A Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE November 10,1998 Meeting, Nov. 17, at 1:30 p.m. Board Room Just a reminder.   Cluster A will meet on_Monday, November^7* at 1:30 in the Board Room. Please join uTand bring with you any information that you have on customer service and school climate. ) 7 Little Rock School District November 16, 1998 Administrative Directive TO: FROM: SUBJECT All Principals '^K^Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent, Operations i^Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent, School Services Documentation of Involvement of Campus Leadership Team and School Community in the Development of New Work Project Lists During the November cluster meetings, principals will receive a memo from the Director of Facility Services requesting that schools review and revise lists of existing requests for new work for the school facility. This revised list will become the basis for projects for a millage campaign next fall. Review the existing lists carefully and delete any requests that are no longer desires. Add any requests for additions, modifications, or renovations to the school. These lists will not include requests for repairs. Those items that cannot be funded in the current fiscal year will be developed into another list at the Facility Services Department and will also be added to the list of projects for the millage campaign. are The involvement of the Campus Leadership Team and representatives from your school community are critical to this task. Involve both groups in the discussions of which projects to be included in the project list. Provide documentation to the Operations Division of the names of the individuals and their positions who participate in the decisions of which projects are to be included on the revised new work list. Be certain to include representatives from your PTA and from other support groups or organizations within your school community. If there is an active neighborhood association in your area, a representative from that group is also recommended for participation. At the high school level, student representatives are appropriate for participation. Return the revised new work lists to Mr. Eaton on or before December 14, 1998. Send the documentation of the participants in the project decisions to the Operations Division on the same date. Attachment C: Doug Eaton Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 MEMORANDUM FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: November 13,1998 TO: II Principal^nd Building Managers FROM: OU . Eaton, Director of Facility Services SUBJ: New Work Lists s Attached to this memorandum is a current listing of the new work projects that our records indicate we have received from your site. You are requested to review this listing, delete any items that you feel are no longer needed at the school, and submit work orders for any new work that you desire to be considered in new work planning sessions for possible funding the latter part of this year. New work consists of additions, modifications, or renovations to facilities that do not exist at this time, submitted at this time. Items needing repair or maintenance are not to be Please review your academic program to ensure that the facilities that you have meet the needs of your program now and in the future. These are the type projects that we are trying to identify as new work. Consideration should also be given support facilities such as driveways, parking lots, and play areas. You are requested to forward any new work requests to Facility Services by December 14, 1998. DCE/apl/newwork3//- i7-^i A Operations Division - Financial Priorities November Cluster Meetings Operations Division has developed the following Financial Priorities for the 1998-99 school year: 1. Complete and implement the recommendations from the Management Audit. 2. List, fund, and begin renovation and repair projects in all district facilities. 3. Design, fund and construct Stephens and new west Little Rock schools. Timeline extends into year 2000 for these projects. 4. Develop plans for occupation of Garland and Mitchell buildings after construction and opening of Stephens school. 5. Develop plans for the possible relocation of administrative office space. 6. Complete and implement plans for the transportation of students for the 1999-2000 school year to comply with the new student assignment zones and the middle school conversion. 7. Develop and implement safety and security building and program modifications for the 1999-2000 school year. 8. Provide funding, procurement, and installation of technology projects in all district facilities as outlined in the districts technology plan. Time line extends into year 2000. 9. Develop, administer, and implement Quality Index for Operations Division departments.C  Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: From: Date: Re: Cluster A Kathy Lease, AssL Supt, PRE January 12,1999 Meetings Cluster A will not meet today as we discussed in our last meeting. A sub-committee meeting is scheduled on January 20,1999 at 10:00 in my office (Room 9, IRC). The sub-committee consists of the following people: Linda Watson Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Debbie Milam Pat Price Doug Eaton Darrel Paradis Mike Martelio Morlin McCoy Ann Brown Cluster A will meet February 17* at 1.30 in the Board Room. If you have identified items from the old climate surveys that you think we should consider keeping, please send them to me before January 20. The sub-committee will hammer out a draft of our climate surveys for the Cluster to edit in February. I hope youre well rested! We have lots to do. Thanks for your efforts on the old surveys. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUM RECEIVE!? To: Cluster A MAR 2 4 1999 From: -4'^athy Lease, Asst. Superintendent OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: March 8, 1999 Re: Meeting Tuesday, March 16th Reminder. Cluster A will meet on Tuesday, March 16**^ at 1:30 p.m. in the Board Room.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_303","title":"Collaborate Action Team","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Teachers","Parents","Civic leaders","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Collaborate Action Team"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/303"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["149 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECBWO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 OCT 3 0 i9S8 OfflCEOr tBfGREGATI0NM0NIT0a!*i8 October 30,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhakar Ann Brown, ODM Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Please plan to meet with me and and Ms. Cathy Jordan from SEDL on Tuesday, November 3, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 19. We will discuss with her the possibility of our participating in a collaborative action team. Im attaching some information on the project for your review prior to the meeting. BAL/adg Attachments RECEIVED 2 OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DEScGREGAPON MOSrrORIMS What is the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Process? The Collaboration Action Team (CAT) process guides family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students who collaborate as partners to improve results for children, youth, and families. The team helps improve results by developing plans and taking actions that address issues and concerns of the school and community. These plans and activities build on a commitment to bring together representatives of the community as a team to improve the chances for children  and their families to succeed in school and in life. The development of a CAT process includes activities organized around three concepts\nteam building, team planning and momentum generation. These activities encourage individual team members to work together as a productive unit to solve problems and to build new opportunities. Although the work differs in team building, team planning, and momentum generation, all three are needed to build a cohesive and effective community/school team. Teams that are strong in all three of these concepts will be capable of making significant progress. Collaborative Action Teams develop strength by practicing team building and team planning skills while generating momentum. Small changes that can produce big results create momentum for the team. During the planning stages when the team may seem to be talking more than doing, generating momentum creates a sense of progress and accomplishment. It also helps keep the team focused in the doing stages when a sense of direction can become blurred. Progress begins to happen as the teams energy and momentum build. Building Collaborative Action Teamsa Wha-t are the \u0026amp;asic Concepts of the Collaborative Action Team Process? The concepts that guide a Collaborative Action Team in its work are:  Team Building  Team Planning e?  Momentum Team Building and Team Planning. The process begins by identifying a group of diverse team members. Each person contributes a different perspective as school personnel, family member, - businessperson, community volunteer, or student. They meet together around the same table and commit to work together on common interests that will build on their school and community assets. Talking constructively from different vantage points and planning and working together to begin projects helps members build relationships with each other. Mutual respect and trust grow as personal relationships evolve. Momentum. Momentum is created by using team building and team planning together to generate movement and forward progress toward achieving the teams mission. Momentum builds when individuals are moved to act specifically on important ideas and issues. They become engaged and active in something bigger than themselves. Many teams create momentum by working on manageable size projects. In St. Bernard's Parish, Louisiana, a team began galvanizing its members when it successfully found funding and refurbished a much needed sign in front of the school to announce activities. Completing this simple project together built a sense of forward movement and accomplishment. Other projects such as a family fair attended by 300 people were more complex, as were efforts to increase parents invol' unent in their childrens education. Early success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Buildinf' Collaborative Action Teams't CAT Development Process Team Building Team Planning The next circle details the specific elements of Team Planning. The ring labeled momentum involves specific actions that generate the energy to make progress toward achieving the teams vision and mission. The outer circle represents the specific elements of Team Building. These three concepts-7eaw Building, Team Planning, and Momentum-mnst work together to create the synergy required to build and sustain partnerships that work toward the vision through the Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation activities. Building Collabonitive Aclinn Teams 1 What are CATs and what is their purpose? I  RECI WED \"Meeting school community needs through expiinded partnerships\" OCT 3 0 1998 They are team.s whose members represent a broad cross-section nJ the school community, including parents, school staff, busiruss. civic and religiou.s organizations, health and social sets u e pros id ers, and teacher educator in.stitutions. Their purpose is to meet school community needs through expanding partnerships, thereby broadening systemic change in education. OFF DESE6REGATI EOh m MONITORING 2 What arc some need? of these areas of school comnuinity WJhaiit sure GATsT Three critical areas have been identified by Southwest Educational Development Diboratory (SEDL). 1 hey are. more success-oriented approache.s to reducing violence in schools, drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse\nteenage pregnancy, and school gang activities\n10 important reasons to establish Collaborative Action Teams more family-friendly, .student-centered comprehensive sersice delivery systems\nand  more kiiowledf-e among educators about iategratmg studentd early growth and education experiences later. with those that occur 3 t I l[f\" How did the CAT concept come about? I Southwest Educational Development Laboratory *211 East 7th Street  Austin, Texas 7870J-328I  512/476-6861  During a previously completed project, SEDL de\\-eloited and unple- merited Home, Sclurol, Conuiwnity Partnerships in its five-.state South- western Region. Diese [xirmerships irleruifiedpriority-C(\u0026gt;iu eni.s in their comnuuiities and .succe.wfitlly resolved .some of these com em.s through J collaboration ami mutual problem solving. CATs are extended v t rsii \u0026lt; ' these iKirtnerdiip.s in t/uit they incltule representatives from a wuler rmig, of organisations, incliutuig teacher education institutions. !4 What is unique about the CAT Model? The CA T Model i.s based on the principle of self-reliance within a communitv. Members take responsibility for developing and implementing an action plan that identifies and itse.s local resoun-e.s to resolve issue.s that members have identified a.s important to their community. It uses a two-dimensional, integrated approach\nTeam Building and Team Planning. These dimen.sion.s help members function ollahoraiive, cohesive team while developing and impleits il C menting a plan for making productive changes in the school community. Through guided activitie.s members will experience and practice consensus-building skills, effective communication, shared leadership, and decision making. Thi.s emphasi.s on Team Building, Team Planning, and Momentum Generation is the model's strength and the foundation of the team and peipetu- ates il.s replication. You mentioned Team Building and Team Planning as dimensions of the approach. Please describe them. Team Planning i.s the nuts and holts of defining and implementing the projects that add re.vs the concern.s of the school communiiy that were identified by the team. Thi.s includes, for example, setting goal.s and objectives, determining role.s and responsibilities, developing strategies, and setting lask.s and timeline.s to accomplish the work. Team Building is the prm ess of how teams work together as a unit. The activitie.s of Team Building allow the group to develop skills for exploring and eventually settling on ways of working together effectively. .Momentum is created by using Team Building and Team Planning together to generate movement and forward progress. 6 What is SEDL's plan for developing Collaborative Action Teams throughout the Southwestern Region. During 1996-2000, SDDI. will use a planning and iinplcincnlaiiun model in the five slates (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mesh o. and Texas) and refine it for replication. The first CATs in Fabens, TX, Violet, LA\nWest Memphis, AR\nand Albuquerque, NM will seis e us resource.s for additional CATs a.s they are established. .Sites established thu.s far in 1998 include\nAnn Parish Elementary School, Los Lunas, NM\nBalmorhea ISD, TX\nDel Valle High School, Del Valle. TX\nPonca City Mid-High School, OK\nDollarway ISD. AR\nand Barbara Jordan Elementary School, New Orleans, I A. CATs ill be self-sustaining once they have completed their Team Building and Team Planning work. By the year 2000. up to 40 C .A T sites will he tn existence. 7 How long does each CAT exist? Aa long a.s there are school needs to he met. The membership ma\\ hange hut the CAT itself regularly examines its eflectivcnes^. priority concerns, and its mission. il\\ Who can develop CATs? CATsite.s can begin in individual elementary or secondary schools, consortium.s within a school district, county, or slate. 9 What are Rural Development Collaborative Action Teams? Using the same CAT process described above, these teams are formed tn ruru. areas to link community and economic development with school improti mt t.t A service learning plan is developeilfor student and community meinber\\ to learn and practice entrepreneurship while serving the needs of the greater community. Comment.s and retptesls regarding Rural Development Aetton Teams can be directed to Pat Deloney al STDL.The CAT Development Process The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Development Process guides home, school, and community through the process of building and sustaining partnerships to improve results for children, youth, and families. CAT members learn effective collaboration practices, identify the most pressing issues in their communities, and then develop, implement, and evaluate action plans for addressing those issues. Examples from CAT sites:  Middle schools in Oklahoma City identified violence as a major concern and are developing mentoring programs for their students.  An elementary school in West Memphis, Arkansas decided to focus on increasing community awareness and involvement in academic efforts and have established a family resource center to help in this purpose. received OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Team Building and Team Planning The strength of the CAT model is the integration of team building and team planning. SEDL staff guide team members in applying the model to strengthen skills in consensus building, effective communication, networking, and shared leadership. At the same time, CAT members practice the nuts and bolts of defining and implementing projects that address their identified priority concerns. According to a CAT member from the Louisiana CAT site, We moved in a few short months from skepticism to optimism to success. We are a team and we can never go back. (Over) More examples...  The South Valley of Albuquerque established school-based health and social services for students and their families. Their success was recently recognized at the Department of Educations regional conference in Dallas.  A rural CAT site located along the Texas-Mexico border seeks to increase parent involvement in school efforts. The CAT has provided immigrant parents with an active medium for developing community leadership skills. Benefits to CAT sites By participating in this effort, you will...  receive initial training in the use of the model,  receive on-site monthly technical assistance and training,  receive consultation by telephone and e-mail, -  participate in an annual Training Institute with other CAT sites,  have opportunities to network with other CATs,  receive resource materials. How to Join the Project SEDL will add new sites to the CAT Development project each spring from across its five-state region of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These sites will be selected according to their commitment to partnership building and full inclusion of family and community members in schools. Sites must be willing to commit to the project for three years. For more information on the CAT development project, contact any of the staff listed below. Pat Deloney, Jerry Elder, Jose Velazquez, or Catherine Jordan a|~1B Phone: Fax: E-mail: Web site: 800/476-6861 512/476-2286 as tockto@sedl. org http\n//www.sedl.org/ rib- [nsr aj 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhaker Ann Brown Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson Connie Whitfield received NOV i 2 JS98 Cfi^CEOF CESE^SfflOOGfflTORJNS FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, ^sociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Collaborative Team Thanks to all of you who came to the November 2 meeting! I was very pleased with the outcome, and I am looking forward to our next steps. We agreed to meet again on Friday, November 20, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 19 at the IRC. Our agenda will include the following: 1. Brief review/ of November 2 meeting Debbie Milam 2. Discussion of a vision for the LRSD parent and community programs and services Bonnie Lesley 3. Discussion of a focus for the possible SEDL partnership Liz Lucker 4. Planning of next steps I look forward to seeing you all on November 20*^. BAL/adg cc: Catherine Jordan, SEDL 01/29/1994 19:19 5013242296 LRSD VIPS M P^ 04 EO'd Meeting Objeettvea: little rock school DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12\" Street 7:30 .m, - October 7,1399 ' awareness of Collaborative Action Team work in LltDe Rock Objective Two\nDefine and Build Representative Membership agenda process and how it will Item Time Person Reaponaibte Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives Ice Breaker Exercise Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership ot CAT Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda. obyacHves) Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. 15 min. 15 min 30 min 5 min. 5 min. Marion Baldwin Essie Middleton Barabara OsbomeZKaye Rainey Debbie Milam/Connio Whitfield Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Calvin Brady/Amber Mooney VOZ:tT 66-SO-43Oi3:ia bB13242296 LRSD VIPS M PAGE 03 TO: FROM: RE DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72202 LittJe Rock School District Collaborative Action Team members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator Next meetino - October 7, 1999 September 30. 1990 Collaborative Action Team meeting is sat for Thursday, October 7 at 7.30 a m Center. We hope you can join us. This will be our official first maeting and we want to get off to a good start. Please call ViPS at 324-2290 to confirm your attendance Thank you for your support. ZOd VOZ:TT 66-SO-4^^OSeptember?, 1999 SOUTHWEST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY 211 East Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701-3281 Voice or TDD: 512/476-6861 FAX: 512/476-2286 RECBW Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SEP i 0 1999 OFiCEO? CESEGREEAroilMCHSS Dear Ms. Brown: The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) is pleased to invite you to participate in a start-up training session for the Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team (CAT) project. This training will take place on September 23 1999 at the Greater Second Baptist Church. 5616 Geyer Springs Rd. Registration and coffee will be from 8:00-8:30 a.m. Enclosed is an agenda for the day. An additional two and half-hour training will be conducted the following momina for an organizina aroup that will be selected during the daylong training. This organizing group will develop plans for the first CAT meeting. Your participation is key to the development of a Little Rock Schools Collaborative Action Team. The project will help parents, school personnel, and community representatives develop a team approach to address the needs of the Little Rock school community and will guide you in developing an action plan to get this done. SEDL staff have planned this training to engage participants in a full day of activities that combines presentations, small and large group activities, and individual participant feedback. Our goals for e training are that participants will:  discuss the process for developing a Collaborative Action Team\n identify and apply strategies for partnership development\nand  develop an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of SEDL staff and the Organizing Group in the CAT development process. Come and join us Thursday, September 23 and be an integral part of an exciting new Little Rock Schools/SEDL project. Lunch will be provided. If you unable to attend this training, please call Ms. Debbie Milam at 324-2297 so we can get an accurate count of participants. We look forward to seeing you September 23\"*. Inberely, L Jerry O, Elder, Program Specialist ' Program for Refining Educational Partnerships ^n^. Rudo, Program Associate TOgram for Refining Educational Partnerships Enclosure AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AEFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Site Start-Up Training for Developing a Collaborative Action Team at Little Rock School District September 23,1999 The Site Start-Up Training consists of a seven hour training the first day for all members of the Collaborative Action Team and a two and one half -hour training session the following day for members of the Organizing Group. Day One Goals  Discuss process for developing a Collaborative Action Team (CAT)  Identify and apply strategies for partnership development  Identify members of CAT Organizing Group Agenda for Day One 8:00 - 8:30 Sign Up \u0026amp; Smell the Coffee! (Continental Breakfast) 8:30 - 9:15 Welcome \u0026amp; Warm-Up Activity 9:15 - 9:45 Overview of SEDL and Collaborative Action Team Project 9:45 - 10:00 Where do we start? Self-Assessment 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 11:45 Team Identification: Finding A Common Issue 11:45 - 12:45 On your mark... get set... LUNCH!!! 12:45 - 1:45 Team Mobilization: Planning for Action 1:45 - 2:10 Collaboration Energizer 2:10-3:00 Project Development: Celebrating Strengths 3:00-3:15 Break 3:15 - 3:50 Project Implementation: Evaluating Success 3:50 - 4:00 Closure \u0026amp; Training Evaluation J NOV i TO\nFROM: RE: DATE\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator CAT meeting - Thursday, November 4, 7:30 a.m. October 30, 1999 W33 Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is Thursday, November 4 at 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center at 6401 West 12* Street. Members of our team have just finished attending two days of training at the regional SEDL conference here in Little Rock. They will be sharing information with the rest of the team on what the other CATs are doing in our region. We hope you will join us. We have enclosed copies of the previous meetings agenda and handouts for those of you who could not attend. Also included is a survey regarding your preference for meeting times. Please complete a survey and return it IF you did not complete one at the meeting. Feel free to invite any community or student representatives that you know. We have a fairly good group of parents and school reps but were lacking in community and student representation.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12'* Street 7:30 a.m. - October 7, 1999 Meeting Objectives:  Objective One: Increase awareness of Collaborative Action Team process and how it will work in Little Rock  Objective Two: Define and Build Representative Membership AGENDA Item Time Person Responsible Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives 5 min. Marion Baldwin Ice Breaker Exercise 15 min. Essie Middleton Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process 15 min. Barabara Osbome/Kaye Rainey Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership of CAT 30 min Debbie Milam/Connie Whitfield Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda, objectives) 5 min. Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. Calvin Brady/Amber MooneySession Goals  Develop understanding and appreciation for representative membership  Define representative membership that reflects local community T-1 12 12/22/98 Representative Membership What is it? A cross-section of the local population that reflects the diversity of the community, including parents and family members, school staff, health and social service providers, institutions of higher education, community organizations, private industry/business, and others. Why is it important? To develop a comprehensive response to school and community needs for the well-being of the students and their families T-2 13 12/22/98Collaborative Action Team Please mark the times you would be willing to meet. 7:30 am 12:00 noon evening (list time) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday(list time) Name PhoneNovember 23, 1999 To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Marion Baldwin, Community Education CAT Meeting - Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. VI ' J I' u, lSSGRGATiC'tj Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center located at 6401 West 12^ Street. We look forward to everyone attending.KJ 1 Welcome LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Meeting January 6, 2000 Oebbie Milam Choose a recorder and evaluator for meeting Debbie Milam Adopt a mission statement Marion Baldwin DIVIDE INTO REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS Reach consensus on one issue to address in small groups Reach consensus on one issue to address in large group Develop one long term action for issue Develop one short term action for issue Review next meeting RsBCE^yg JAN 3 i 2009 GfHGc Of Facilitators Facilitators Facilitators Kaye Rainey ICollaborative Action Team Minutes October 7,1999 Marion Baldwin opened the first official meeting of the Little Rock Collaborative Action Team by welcoming the group of 40 participants and reviewing the days agenda. Essie Middleton provided an ice breaker that got everyone moving around and talking to each otlier. Barbara Osborne reported on the start-up training that was provided by SEDL in September. Kaye Rainey reviewed the CAT process. Debbie Milam facilitated a process for identifying representative membership for the team. Groups that need to be invited to join Include other youth serving organizations, health care agencies, business representatives, minority populations and members of the faith community. Diane Vibhakar and Priscilla Alexander reviewed the next steps. Calvin Brady and Amber Mooney conducted the meeting evaluation. November 4,1999 Clementine Kelley welcomed the group of 41 participants. Suellen Vann provided an ice breaker that got everyones brains working. Judy Powers gave an overview of SEDLs CAT conference that was held in Little Rock on October 27-29, 1999. Little Rock representatives who attended were Debbie Milam, Diane Vibhakar, Kaye Rainey, Marion Baldwin, Rita Baldwin, Judy Powers, Essie Middleton, Connie Whitfield, Priscilla Alexander, Mike Vogler, Calvin Bracy and Amber Mooney. Leon Adams took the group through an exercise to refine the drafts of a mission statement that the group had hurriedly written at the end of the previous meeting. December 4,1999 The team met at 7:30 on December 4, 1999 at the Adult Leisure Center. Marion Baldwin facilitated the meeting of 25 participants. The team went through a consensus building activity, using a parable to reach consensus on which characters behavior they most approved of to which they least approved of. The team then reviewed drafts of a mission statement. A small group volunteered to finish the wordsmithing for the teams next meeting. The small group consists of Marion Baldwin, Diane Vibhakar, Barbara Osborne, Rita Baldwin, Sarah Huckabee, Dave Hoffpouir, Judy Powers, Marian Shead Jackson and Dante Smith. They will meet on Tuesday, January 4 at 7:30 a.m. at Dubs. The next CAT meeting is Thursday, January 6 at 7:30 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center. Barbara Osborne, representing the City, agreed to take care of room arrangements and coffee for the meeting. Each member should bring three priority actions they would like to see the CAT work on this year. The group will spend the meeting reaching consensus on identifying the top priority for the team to address.Consensus Decision Making Consensus decision making is one of the most effective methods of group decision making. It requires that all members agree with the decision to the extent that they can live with it. In other words, even though the decision may not be what an individuals preferred choice of action would be, he or she will agree to support it How Consensus Decision Making Works 1 A member of the team states the proposed decision. 2 The proposal is written on a flip chart or board so that everyone can see it and check it for accuracy and completeness. 3. The facilitator asks each member in turn to talk about whether they support the decision and why or why not. 4. Members of the team who are opposed to the decision can offer their suggestions for modifications or an alternative decision. o. If all members of the team agree they can support the proposed decision, then a consensus exists. No decision is finalized until every member indicates they can live with the decision. Guidelines for Consensus Decision Making Avoid arguing for your own position. Present yourviews as clearly as possible and then listen carefully to the reactions of other members. Avoid personal attacks.  Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when the discussion reaches an impasse. Instead, look for the next most acceptable option for all  concerned. Do not change your mind simply to avoid conflict. When agreement seems to come too quickly and easily, be suspicious. Explore the reasons for this and be sure that everyone accepts the decision for similar reasons.' t 13Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Mission Statement Our mission is to develop educational partnerships among parents, students, the community, and the district to advocate for the well-being of and to provide opportunitiesall children and youth for the building and strengthening of minds.Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Vision Statement To maximize family, school, student, and community involvement so all children and youth may reach their potential.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 02 AMMENDMENTS- ChecUist forStudent Re!ttrnnn Plcssfi 3dd the following to the chccldist: T. Handicap Accessibie Adequate  YesQ Inadequate 0 Does each Stan have two handrails YesO Non Commoits? No  tl*e following to foe checklist procedures:  After checking in with foe office, please ask if there is anyone that would like to acwmpany you on your check. This is not needed, however, we want foe schools to know that we are there to help them, not to intrude.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 03 RESTROOM CHECKLIST PROCEDURES LRSD Collaborative Action Team  Complete your checklist between ^nil 17 and 21. Go to the schools between 10:30 and 1:30.  Bring your checklist packets with you to each school. Bring the principal letter, as wed, just in case there are any questions.  When you arrive at the school, please notify the office to let them know why you are there. For example, I am here as a representative of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team and we have identified school restrooms as a concern\ntherefixe 1 am here to perform a survey of the restrooms at your schooF. Be sure to ask for a visitors pass/badge. * Ask the office staff if there have been any custodians absent within the last week and how many work at that school  Visit one boy, one girl and a staff bathroom at all the schools. In addition, visit a londergorten class bathroom at the dementary schools.  Fill out checklist - Be very specific with your comments, especuUy if yon check that the area is inadequate. For example: I found the stall doors to be inadequate because 5 out of the 10 stalls had broken locks, or I found the toilet paper inadequate because there was only a roll or less in each stafl at H .00 in the morning  Check out with the office before you leave.  Mail to or bring surveys by Kayo Rainey at 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 by April 24. If you prefer, you may \u0026amp;x your checklist to Kaye at 324-2044. Please remember when foxing that there is a fi'ont AND back to the survey.  If you have any questions, call Kaye Rainey at 324-2293 or Heather Gage at 663- 5541. Thank You!lO CD c CL \u0026amp; s (X i CO m co a\u0026gt; r4 IS in s in IS co o o CM S\u0026gt; Senior High Schools 1. cansAt iNTHwinitAi stwhes * ISaOPiAGt,O2 124 2300 2. 4A.FAIH 1342ODlll4Aa.D(XklHA,IO 22S3I6U 1. HAU UNIVEHSin STUDIES 6700-M'a, 05 67I-G2OO 4. UcCiaiANiUSttlESSZ CBMHUMICAItONSAWWET t 9417 Qoifgr Spring RA, 09 570 4100 A PAHnnan arts a ecuke maohet * 2601 Mn Baioi* fl A, 04 226-10011 n*cattonaMbcftn/caf Uucatlon a MEIROPOUTAN CABEER lECRHIGAI CBITBl 7701 ScoU Hwiabn Di., 09 5656485 Middle Schools 7. CLOVBUMUEACMlEMy aaUIMianRl.OS 870 4065 a tWHSARKIEfltiAnOMiSTUHESZ SFTEBSIAianBlEQUCAnSnNASREI * I WO ww All., 00 324 24401 \u0026amp; FOUST liaBHTS 5901 Eimi4rwiDi.,06 67I-S390 to. Hai)Ei|)N REAUHS43BICtSMAGNET* , 401 JdnBoHowHil, OS 22S-M60 II. MASaWLE tOBIIMaOatniaWHA, MakiMe.ARTZIOl 495-7400 IL HORACCHMHt MnSkWEMCEMMlNEr t lOOOE RnuBfellHd., 06 3242400 11. musniifttHTS 467N.I%a\u0026lt;B 671-6250 It BOUIHWesi IMIS-Bnart a. 04 5704070 19. AUERNAIIVEtEARUlNBCailER tt)O/ptiefsinSt,02 3242370 . Elementary Schools ta SA06ETT A BSOOPkmRA.OB 124-2475 17. BAl A 6501 HI BZfut 51,04 570-4060 10 OASOHE A 3S23BaielmtM,0S S7O-4TM 19. BOOWaAHTS WUDIET  201EBatwSL,06 124-2402 20, BRAOT A 79l5W.ttol4iaiiia,05 228-3006 2L CA1WBMSICSIIULS7 HAFH-SCiaCEMASHH t 2100 EM 60) 81,02 324-2460 22. OffiOT A IltflOCtSniUU, MatoM,AH 72103 570^ 23 ttOWHUIAlE A 6900Hli6iaa)ilil.,lR 570^4055 24. DODD A 6423.Sto08ciBcli HA, 04  45S-7430 25. EAR PARK a 61BN.HBnlunSI.,05 671B2M 26. ranurPMK IBIH.r)fcrSl,O7 0716267 I. 6NJAMnFHAIM.IMCaMHLIMIMT)0HS lECHHQLOBVaiMfcKTAfiY 1701 S.HitMi)S).,04 671-6380 2BL FULBRIGlir 3OQPIessafllVski7Dr..l2 228-3080 29. GARUVtU ACADEMY A 3CI5 Hl 256161., 04 671 627S Ml OEYCnSPWNOS 6240 Mabilvala nils. 09 67O4t\u0026gt; II. GIBBS FOHBON LAHOlUUieSZ niEHMAnoMIU. STUDIES HACNH t i11SHltiiSt,02 3242490 32. HMmNUniBMUfi,JR.H6HIRTBKin LEARNMGlNrannSTAICTMAStlET   A SSSMutlLuUiai K10D,Jr.DL,02 324-2135 n JEI7ERB0M 2SOOH.Md\u0026lt;]hley.07 671^11 H MABGUUHE A BOOIMabcIvalgQil-^, UMidwl, AR 72103 466-7420 38. McOBIMDFT 1200R\u0026gt;w(Vo\u0026lt;rHd.,07 220-3072 n IKADDWCUFF ZSSlHiilonOr^ra STIMtCS 37. mrCIfiL ACADEMY Of CREJUIVE DRAMATIC ARTS A 2410B0tlMya,0B 324-2415 . Onra CREEK 160(0llBiOl(Pt(n7.,09 456-7440 anrUASHHEIEms ai8M.nriBSt,05 6ZI-62Sa 411. flienTauLAuumrA Dtiw.teisi,08 . 324 2430 41. ROCKHEUEBEIBIETFIARITUtOEARIYCHUIIIOOD MAGHET SGHDCN. t A 7O0E.17lha.O8 324-2385 42. ftOMRECOMFinERSCIBlIXAHD DASICdnilS HTEJUHSimCT f 3400 RoitiAiaFlA.IH 228-3086 41 TEBRY 10800 Mm Lynn Di., 11 220-3603 44. WJUUUU) 76 IMutnOOsta 01,69 S70 4IIU a. booker T-WAIHMSTOH BASIC SnUS/MATR-SCENCE MASWTUnamSTIUGT * 4 A 1l5W.27ltia,O6 324-2470 46. MATSON A 70lViiltavDr.,.a 670-4166 4t UESTBWHUS 4901 WnM Hills, M S7O-\u0026lt;(7S \u0026lt; WtXWUSBASCSNUSMABMn * 730|ES(Bnana,07 E7l-B3li3 40i muoli A 4OI5SlBni1uR4.,O4 670-4160 Sa WOOHHUFf A 30l0W7lh,05 671-6270 2804/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 06 Date April 12,2000 To: Principals From: Betsy Johnson (Community Member) LRSD Collaborative Action Team I am writing on behalf of die Collaborative Action Team (CAT) of the Little Rock School District CAT represents concerned parents, students, LRSD staff, and members of the community who are interested in the improvement of our schools. Responding to student CAT members, who identified sanitary conditions at their schools as a concern, CAT is sending volunteers to tour school restrooms. The site visit to your school will take place between April 14* and April 21*. We will ask the CAT volunteer to check in at the office when they arrive, and to check out when they have completed their tour. We would appreciate your office answering the following questions for the volunteers: Have there been any custodians absent from your staff within die past week? If so, how many hours/days have the custodians been absent? Thanks you for your cooperation. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 320-5150. cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley 04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 07 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: _____ Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Cl Custodial Staff # of staff Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff  Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: So^ Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\n_ How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate D Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments:__________ Stall doors Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Cl Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments:________ Inadequate Q None Cl None  None Cl Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate Q Yes  No Cl Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2060 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 08 lights Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q * Temperature control Adequate Q\nComments- Inadequate Q 5. Ventilation\nFans  Comments: Inadequate D 6, Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No Q Adequate Deodorizer Adequate E3 Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No O Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate O Comments\n_____ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Site decklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 09 collaborative action team SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. GirE D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Boys Q Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No n Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate D Comments: Toilet paper Adequate  Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O None  How many ^E? Inadequate Q None D Paper toweb How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O None  Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Yes  No  Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No O Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 10 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d ! CoTrunenTs- Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation\nFans . d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comment!!- Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Coaunents: Inadequate D Yes d No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 11 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL\n________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Conaments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate O Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\n_ Inadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate  Comments\n_______ Inadequate Q None  None  None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate CH Yes n No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 12 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D  Temperature control Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation. Fans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Conoments: Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Yes  Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate ED Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  No n Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D CnmrngntS' Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 13 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Boys  Kindergarten O Staff D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate O Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D None D None  None n Yes Q Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate EJ Yes  No  She Checklist 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 14 5. 6. Lights Adequate d Comments: ' Temperature control Adequate d j Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Yes n No  Ventilation\nFans d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate Q Comments' Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes C Yes  No n Adequate No  No n No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No O Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 15 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date\n____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Cominefits- Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Cl Comments: Toilet paper Adequate El Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate El How many stalls^ Inadequate El Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate C Connments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate  None n None Q None  Yes  Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities\nRunning water Adequate Q Comments- Inadequate O Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  SneCheckKst 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 16 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Temperature control Adequate d\nComments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Ventilation: Fans d Commente- Deodorizer Adequate Q Comments- CleanliQess: Dry floors Adequate O Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate D Yes  Yes n Yes D Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Y,s  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 17 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________Time\nLocation of restroom  1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments\n___ Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  . How many? No n Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate E3 Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels Sow many dispensers? Adequate CD Comments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate C Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D None  None Q None Q Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes Q No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 18 \\ 5. 6. Lights Adequate O Commentg- Inadequate Q Temperature control Adequate D\nComments: Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No O No  Ventilation\nFans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Inadequate D Inadequate O Inadequate O Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate  Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 2-04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP 19 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Convicted by\nDate\n_____________ Time\nLocation of restroom Girls  Boys  Kindergarten D Staff O  1. Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments' How many dispensers? Inadequate O None  3. 4. Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\nHow many stalls? Inadequate Q None Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q None  Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Yes  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate O Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 20 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  ' Temperature control Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes n No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments\nDeodorizer Adequate d Comm ante Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate O Yes D Yes n Yes d Yes n No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No D Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/0004/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 21 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls d Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comm ante- Boys  Kindergarten D Staff ID Any absent this week? Yes d How many? No  Sapplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate d Comments: Toilet paper Adequate d Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate d How many stalls? Inadequate d Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate D Locks for stall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate ID None  None ID None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 5. 6. \\ Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d Comment\n' Inadequate D Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments\nCleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments\nYes  TnaHequate^ O Inadequate D Inadequate d Inadequate D Yes Q Yes  Yes  No D Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes d No d Site Checklist 04/13/00 2Student Perception of the Physical Appearance of their School In the spring of 2000, elementary students, grades 4 and 5, were surveyed as to their perception of the physical appearance of their school. All schools collected and reported data. Attached, is a sample of the survey and results by school. Students rated their schools condition and general cleanliness mostly fair or poor. They felt that the bathrooms were in the most need of cleaning and that soap was needed in these bathrooms. Students felt that it was the custodians responsibility to keep their school clean and interestingly enough students rated themselves third on this list. Schools need to begin building positive student perceptions and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. Except for Fair Park and Mitchell there appears to be adequate response by the 4* and 5'* grade students to the survey. Students felt that the bathrooms were the number one facility that needed the most repairs and cleaning, followed by the cafeteria and hallways. However, students at Carver (13%), Chicot (13%), Wakefield (9%) and Williams (7%) reported no repairs were needed. In general, only a little over a third (38.7%) of the students rated the general conditions of their school as excellent or good. Students at Carver (70%), Cloverdale (57.9%), and Geyer Springs (67.1%) were examples of some exceptions to this general feeling. Student feelings about the general cleanliness of the schools were lower than the previous question on school conditions, with only 33.5% of students rating their school as excellent or good. Again, Carver (48.8%), Cloverdale (62.1%), and Geyer Springs (53.9%) were some of the exceptions to the general feeling about cleanliness. Students reported that soap in the bathrooms was the number one supply item not available. Soap was followed by tissue and paper towels in the bathrooms as those items most often not available. Students at Baseline (19%), Cloverdale (15%), Gibbs (12%), Jefferson (15%), Otter Creek (14%), Rockefeller (31%), and Wilson (17%) reported that all supplies are available. Question six could be problematic. The design of the survey appears to have limited the response or guided students to a specific response. Most students considered mice or bugs as the primary sanitation problem. The question probably should have been posed as Is there a sanitation problem at your school? However, a number of students reported no problems, (i.e., Bale 13%, Baseline 17%, Carver 19%, Cloverdale 21%, Gibbs 16%, and Williams 18%). Finally, students ranked custodians as the most responsible for the cleanliness of the schools. Students ranked everyone second and themselves third. With some exceptions students are not pleased with the condition or cleanliness of their school. It is probably not surprising that bathrooms were rated as the facility most in need of repair. The data from question six on the primary sanitation problem should be considered unreliable. Interestingly enough, students did not consider themselves as the primary entity for keeping their school clean. Schools should review their results on this survey and begin the process of building positive student perception and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 1. What do you consider to be the facility that is in the most need of repair? School Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Bathrooms Cafeteria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 3 2 2 Hallways 5 4 4 4 4 6 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 5 4 3 5 5 3 6 4 4 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 Classrooms Auditorium 4 3 5 5 3 2 7 4 4 3 5 5 2 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 5 2 2 6 5 7 6 3 4 2 6 2 6 _6 _5 5 _2 6  3 2   7 6 6 7_ 1  3 6 7 3_  6 4 3 5 4 3  3 4 5 5 Gym 3 5 7 3 2 3 2 6 3 1 7 6 7 1 3 1 3 2 6 7 1 6 7 6 5 1 1 6 6 2 3 5 2 1 6 No Repairs are Media Center Needed 7 1 6 7 1 1 6 7 1 1 6 1 5 6 6 5 7 6 5 5 6 7 5 5 1 7 6 6 7 1 7 1 6 7 6 1 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 2% 13% 13% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% 0% 1% 7% 0% 4% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 9% 1% 1% 2% 7% 0% 0% 3%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 2. How would you rate the general conditions of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 7.3% 8.2% 18.2% 4.8% 6.3% 10.9% 13.5% 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.2% 4.8% 2.3% 4.3% 21.5% 21.7% 5.1% 35.0% 14.1% 8.9% 5.4% 11.4% 7.7% 1.2% 0.0% 21.9% 1.4% 3.9% 1.6% 10.9% 4.8% 8.1% 6.4% 5.3% 8.2% 8.4% Good 4.9% 19.7% 37.7% 39.4% 7.8% 55.1% 18.1% 55.3% 14.3% 41.7% 44.3% 8.6% 35.7% 10.1% 45.6% 33.7% 35.9% 35.0% 21.7% 30.0% 14.9% 31.6% 34.6% 24.1% 8.8% 42.7% 25.7% 35.3% 6.3% 35.0% 5.7% 47.5% 45.9% 27.6% 28.8% 30.3% Fair 9.8% 49.2% 24.7% 46.1% 43.8% 27.6% 49.0% 36.8% 34.7% 33.3% 39.2% 33.3% 41.1% 55.1% 21.5% 25.3% 41.0% 20.0% 30.4% 54.4% 47.3% 39.5% 42.3% 38.6% 49.1% 28.1% 50.0% 48.4% 19.0% 40.1% 33.3% 27.3% 38.5% 48.7% 49.3% 38.7% Poor 78.0% 23.0% 19.5% 9.7% 42.2% 6.4% 19.4% 5.3% 46.9% 25.0% 9.3% 53.3% 20.9% 30.4% 11.4% 19.3% 17.9% 10.0% 33.7% 6.7% 32.4% 17.5% 15.4% 36.1% 42.1% 7.3% 22.9% 12.4% 73.0% 13.9% 56.2% 17.2% 9.2% 18.4% 13.7% 22.6% Average Number of Students Resending to All of the Questions on the Survey 43 62 84 166 64 166 161 39 49 12 107 109 131 69 85 86 122 21 95 97 77 118 80 86 59 99 74 164 68 146 108 101 116 77 74 3215LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 3. How would you rate the cleanliness of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 4.9% 5.0% 17.9% 2.5% 3.2% 8.8% 16.4% 13.5% 6.1% 0.0% 5.0% 3.7% 7.8% 7.2% 21.8% 27.8% 7.0% 0.0% 11.7% 9.2% 2.6% 12.4% 2.6% 5.9% 6.9% 14.7% 2.9% 7.0% 0.0% 11.9% 5.7% 12.0% 10.5% 9.3% 12.3% 9.0% Good 9.8% 30.0% 32.1% 17.5% 6.3% 40.0% 18.9% 48.6% 16.3% 0.0% 40.6% 17.8% 22.5% 15.9% 32.1% 34.2% 25.4% 28.6% 20.2% 25.3% 11.8% 22.1% 19.7% 16.2% 20.7% 38.9% 21.7% 32.3% 3.4% 26.7% 12.3% 31.5% 27.2% 30.7% 21.9% 24.5% Fair 22.0% 33.3% 26.9% 43.8% 25.4% 41.9% 39.6% 32.4% 34.7% 33.3%, 42.6% 29.9% 34.1% 50.7% 32.1%, 30.4%o 48.2% 42.9% 38.3% 50.6% 42.1% 33.6%, 28.9%o 48.5%o 41.4%, 32.6%. 52.2%, 36.1% 25.4% 40.0% 22.6% 37.0% 47.4% 28.0%, 37.0% 37.5% Poor 63.4% 31,7% 23.1% 36.3% 65.1% 9.4% 25.2% 5.4% 42.9% 66.7% 11.9% 48.6% 35.7% 26.1% 14.1% 7.6% 19.3% 28.6% 29.8% 14.9% 43.4% 31.9% 48.7% 29.4% 31.0% 13.7% 23.2% 24.7% 71.2% 21.5% 59.4% 19.6% 14.9% 32.0% 28.8% 29.0%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 4. What do you consider to be the facility you feel is in the most need of cleaning? Bathrooms Cafeteria Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 2 3 6 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 Hallways Classrooms Auditorium 3 6 5 4 3 5 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 6 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 4 6 5 3 2 5 3 5 2 4 6 6 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 6 3 5 3 3 5 2 5 5 3 4 2 4 6 6 6 5 3 5 6 2 2 5 5 6 6 6 4 6 6 3 5 1 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 6 3 4 4 5 Gym 3 1 3 5 3 3 5 3 2 7 6 7 6 2 1 5 7 1 1 7 6 6 7 2    6     6 All Facilities Media Center are Clean 5 7 6 7 1 7 1 1 6 1 6 1 6 7 1 5 1 'o 5 5 6 7 5 5 2 1 1 6 7 1 7 1 1 1 6 7 0% 0% 12% 1% 3% 5% 12% 15% 0% 0% 5% 6% 2% 0% 2% 10% 4% 0% 5% 6% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% 15% 3% 2% 1% 3% 7% 4% 6% 1% 12% 5%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 5. What do you consider to be the supply item which is most often not available? Soap in the Tissue in the bathrooms bathrooms Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 Paper towels in the bathrooms 3 3 1 3 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 Working pencil All sharpener in Trashcans Supplies the in the are classrooms bathrooms Available 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 1 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 4 3 2 5 1 1 4 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 2% 0% 19% 1% 6% 7% 9% 15% 8% 0% 5% 9% 2% 3% 1% 12% 15% 10% 9% 9% 3% 10% 14% 5% 0% 31% 0% 7% 10% 3% 4% 5% 3% 17% 11% 8%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 6. What do you consider to be the primary sanitation problem at your school? Badgett______ Bale________ Baseline Booker______ Brady_______ Carver______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Garland______ Geyer Springs Gibbs________ Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell______ Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine______ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams______ Wilson_______ Woodruff mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foui odors mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors other mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs (Mold \u0026amp; Mildew) Total There are no sanitation problems at my school. 2% 13% 17% 2% 6% 19% 5% 21% 8% 0% 9% 5% 6% 0% 7% 16% 2% 5% 6% 11% 1% 3% 8% 3% 0% 6% 4% 12% 1% 4% 3% 12% 19% 1% 11% 7%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 7. Who is responsible for the cleanliness of you school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff_____ Total Principal 16% 10% 13% 12% 16% 14% 12% 11% 14% 23% 13% 10% 14% 19% 9% 15% 11% 17% 16% 15% 10% 10% 18% 8% 16% 14% 16% 14% 8% 6% 15% 17% 15% 11% 15% 13% Custodians 18% 24% 26% 27% 22% 23% 31% 33% 39% 19% 19% 20% 32% 23% 30% 25% 25% 25% 28% 23% 18% 23% 28% 27% 25% 23% 21% 25% 26% 29% 28% 21% 30% 26% 24% 25% Heopie irom the community 5% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% 5% 7% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 7% 3% 1% 5% 6% 4% 3% 2% 0% 9% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% T eachers 9% 6% 5% 13% 17% 13% 10% 9% 11% 21% 15% 11% 12% 17% 10% 15% 12% 16% 14% 11% 8% 12% 14% 11% 12% 13% 13% 13% 9% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 14% 12% btuoents, including myself 11% 13% 10% 18% 18% 18% 18% 21% 9% 13% 17% 13% 14% 17% 20% 17% 19% 16% 15% 13% 18% 20% 24% 16% 18% 18% 11% 17% 22% 20% 13% 18% 19% 17% 15% 17% Everyone 22% 39% 35% 16% 16% 13% 14% 19% 24% 13% 17% 21% 13% 17% 15% 16% 21% 10% 12% 17% 28% 21% 9% 19% 14% 15% 21% 13% 30% 16% 26% 18% 13% 22% 21% 18% Parents 5% 2% 2% 3% 0% 7% 1% 0% 1% 4% 6% 5% 3% 1% 9% 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 8% 10% 6% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% siuaents, noi including myself 7% 4% 5% 4% 8% 3% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 8% 6% 2% 1% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 5% 2% 3% 4% Visitors ~6^ 1% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 1% 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 8% 4% 1% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% 7% 0% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3%Parent Involvement Survey In the fall of 2000, volunteers from LRSDs Collaborative Action Team (CAT) collected survey information data from parents attending their respective schools open house. Data from 17 schools, (i.e. 10 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high schools) were collected and reported. Attached to this report is a copy of the survey and survey results by level. Survey results are aggregated by level and disaggregated by school. Across all levels parents report being involved by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, by monitoring homework, taking their children to the library and volunteering. There was a lack of parent response to the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. This made analysis difficult. Parents felt they could be more involved if they understood the curriculum, could be offered workshops, had evening conferences with teachers, and have a homework hot line. The results of this survey should not be generalized to the whole school district. The school surveyed should use this data to build parent involvement through workshops and evening conferences. The next three paragraphs summarize the survey data by level. Parents from Bale, Brady, Franklin, Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, Wakefield, Western Hills, Wilson, and Woodruff participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 5 to 27 per school. Most parents reported that they involved themselves in their childs education by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, and by monitoring homework. Parents reported that their job interferes the most when trying to become more involved with the school. Some other interferences were lack of at home assistance that parent could provide the schools and not being given a list of volunteer activities. Parents felt that the quality of communications was good, and that letters and newsletters were the most common form of communications. A number of parents, across all levels, did not complete the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. Those parents that did respond reported that most communications occuned 2-3 days prior to an event and that some type of communications occurred weekly. When asked how the schools could help them, as parents become more involved, parents responded equally with understanding the curriculum, workshops, and evening conferences with teachers. Parents from Southwest, Mann, Mabelvale, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale middle schools participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 12 to 21 per school. Middle school parents only differed from their elementary counterparts in the method and frequency of communications and support form school. Middle level parents tended to get more telephone calls than letters and typically received communications on a monthly rather than weekly basis. Finally, parents reported that a homework hot line would be very helpful towards involving parents. Parents from Central (N = 26) and Parkview (N = 13) High schools participated in the survey. High school parents from these two schools reported taking their children to the library and volunteering more than their middle and elementary peers. High school parents had similar interferences, to school involvement, as their middle and elementary peers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01Parents rated the quality of communications as OK and typically received this information on a monthly basis. High school parents also felt that the homework hot line would be beneficial. Data were collected on only a third of the school in the District. As such, this at a report should be viewed only in the context of those reporting schools. Parents attending open house completed surveys. This in itself is an indicator of high parental involvement. There were low numbers of parents completing the survey (e.g., 5 Woodruff). Two of the questions (i.e. quality and frequency of communications) had _ low response rate. This calls into question the reliability of data on these two questions. In spite of the shortcomings the surveys did reveal some important information. The schools of the parents surveyed should encourage parents to be involved in the childrens education. According to the survey this could be accomplished by providing more volunteer opportunities, offering workshops to help parents understand the cuniculum and at-home assistance, a homework hot line, and evening conferences with teachers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 2 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Aggregate Data: 17 Schools (N = 297) 297 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 258 258 255 212 193 176 146 59 32 87% 87% 86% 71% 65% 59% 49% 20% 11% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 192 44 36 18 16 11 8 8 7 65% 15% 12% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 177 75 28 60% 25% 9% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 161 137 119 7 54% 46% 40% 2% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 165 13 4 56% 4% 1% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 99 61 6 33% 21% 2% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 130 102 96 93 65 44% 34% 32% 31% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Bale (N = 25) 25 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 19 19 18 13 13 11 7 4 1 76% 76% 72% 52% 52% 44% 28% 16% 4% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Lack of child care. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 16 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 64% 16% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 18 3 0 72% 12% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 12 12 7 0 48% 48% 28% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 14 0 0 56% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 12 0 0 48% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 8 4 3 3 44% 32% 16% 12% 12%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Brady (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 11 11 11 9 7 6 4 3 2 65% 65% 65% 53% 41% 35% 24% 18% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 47% 18% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 24% 6% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 8 6 2 1 47% 35% 12% 6% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 47% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 6% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 6 5 4 3 2 35% 29% 24% 18% 12% 7 4 1 8 1 0 5 1 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Cloverdale Middle (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 9 8 7 7 2 1 88% 82% 82% 53% 47% 41% 41% 12% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 71% 24% 18% 18% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 29% 24% Method of communication Telephone Calls Letters Newsletters Home Visits 8 7 5 0 47% 41% 29% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 35% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 18% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 9 7 5 3 3 53% 41% 29% 18% 18% 7 5 4 6 1 0 5 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Forest Heights Middle (N = 19) 19 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 19 19 17 17 17 15 14 9 6 100% 100% 89% 89% 89% 79% 74% 47% 32% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 12 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 63% 21% 16% 11% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 37% 37% 21% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 4 3 0 63% 21% 16% 0% 7 7 4 Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 5 1 0 26% 5% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 2 1 53% 11% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 14 8 8 7 3 74% 42% 42% 37% 16%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Franklin (N = 27) 27 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 23 21 18 18 12 12 3 2 89% 85% 78% 67% 67% 44% 44% 11% 7% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Lack of child care. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 17 6 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 63% 22% 19% 19% 7% 7% 4% 4% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 15 9 1 56% 33% 4% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 14 11 2 63% 52% 41% 7% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 15 1 0 56% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 10 3 0 37% 11% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 12 10 10 6 6 44% 37% 37% 22% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mabelvale Middle (N = 12) 12 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 12 11 11 10 9 8 6 2 1 100% 92% 92% 83% 75% 67% 50% 17% 8% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 8 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 67% 17% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 58% 17% 17% Method of communication Telephone Calls Newsletters Letters Home Visits 7 5 4 0 58% 42% 33% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 42% 8% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 25% 17% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 6 5 5 2 58% 50% 42% 42% 17% 7 2 2 5 1 0 3 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mann Middle (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 18 18 17 17 16 14 13 3 1 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 70% 65% 15% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 14 5 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 70% 25% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 45% 45% 10% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 9 4 1 60% 45% 20% 5% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 45% 10% 5% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 35% 15% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 11 10 8 7 6 55% 50% 40% 35% 30% 9 9 2 9 2 1 7 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mitchell (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 12 10 9 7 1 1 88% 82% 82% 71% 59% 53% 41% 6% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 9 6 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 53% 35% 12% 12% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 14 2 0 82% 12% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 10 6 0 13 1 0 8 7 6 4 3 65% 59% 35% 0% 76% 6% 0% 12% 0% 0% 47% 41% 35% 24% 18% 2 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Parkview (N = 13) 13 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 13 12 11 11 11 11 8 1 0 100% 92% 85% 85% 85% 85% 62% 8% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 62% 15% 15% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. OK Very Good Needs Improvement 62% 23% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 69% 31% 23% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 38% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 69% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 7 5 4 3 54% 54% 38% 31% 23% 8 3 0 5 0 0 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Rightsell (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 17 16 15 11 11 11 6 2 1 85% 80% 75% 55% 55% 55% 30% 10% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 70% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 4 3 65% 20% 15% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 10 9 1 14 0 0 12 12 10 8 7 55% 50% 45% 5% 70% 0% 0% 45% 10% 0% 60% 60% 50% 40% 35% 9 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Romine (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 5 3 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 50% 30% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 0% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 90% 40% 30% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 20% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Workshops 2 2 1 1 0 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 9 0 0 8 1 0 7 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Southwest Middle (N = 21) 21 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 21 19 18 17 14 12 6 4 2 100% 90% 86% 81% 67% 57% 29% 19% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 14 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 67% 19% 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 6 1 62% 29% 5% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 12 10 9 1 57% 48% 43% 5% 38% 10% 0% 29% 24% 0% 10 10 8 5 4 48% 48% 38% 24% 19% 8 2 0 6 5 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wakefield (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 10 10 8 7 7 5 4 0 0 100% 100% 80% 70% 70% 50% 40% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 10 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 10% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 8 5 2 0 80% 50% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. 4 3 3 2 2 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9 1 0 8 1 0 7 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Western Hills (N = 24) 24 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 23 23 22 18 15 13 13 5 4 96% 96% 92% 75% 63% 54% 54% 21% 17% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 16 4 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 67% 17% 13% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 19 4 1 79% 17% 4% Method of communication Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 13 10 0 71% 54% 42% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 20 1 0 83% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 15 3 0 63% 13% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 8 7 4 2 46% 33% 29% 17% 8%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wilson (N = 14) 14 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 13 13 12 7 7 6 5 0 0 93% 93% 86% 50% 50% 43% 36% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 79% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 2 0 86% 14% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. 9 8 4 0 12 1 0 8 6 3 2 0 64% 57% 29% 0% 86% 7% 0% 64% 0% 0% 57% 43% 21% 14% 0% 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Woodruff (N = 5) 5 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Joining the PTA. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Dont know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 60% 20% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 4 3 1 0 80% 60% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 100% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 80% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 3 3 2 2 0 60% 60% 40% 40% 0% 3 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Central (N = 26) 26 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 24 24 24 22 21 21 17 3 92% 92% 92% 92% 85% 81% 81% 65% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 46% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 8 6 46% 31% 23% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 19 13 12 1 73% 50% 46% 4% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 10 1 0 38% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 4 2 38% 15% 8% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 10 9 8 6 5 38% 35% 31% 23% 19%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 EiGmentsry Aggregate Data (N = 169) 169 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 145 142 108 96 86 86 68 23 16 86% 84% 64% 57% 51% 51% 40% 14% 9% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime-school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 112 25 19 14 5 5 5 4 1 66% 15% 11% 8% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 119 30 7 13 70% 18% 4% 8% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 94 87 65 4 117 7 1 44 78 13 1 77 65 56 53 43 34 56% 51% 38% 2% 69% 4% 1% 26% 46% 8% 1% 46% 38% 33% 31% 25% 20%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 MiddiG LgVGI Aggregate Data (N = 88) 88 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 81 79 79 68 65 57 46 19 12 92% 90% 90% 77% 74% 65% 52% 22% 14% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 60 14 14 9 5 4 4 3 2 68% 16% 16% 10% 6% 5% 5% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 43 29 13 3 49% 33% 15% 3% Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 46 27 38 2 52% 31% 43% 2% Timing of communications Frequency of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data 33 5 3 47 38% 6% 3% 53% 4. What support could the school involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data provide to help you become more 17 29 3 39 19% 33% 3% 44% 48 38 35 28 22 55% 43% 40% 32% 25%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 High School Aggregate Data (N = 40) 40 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 33 34 37 37 32 32 36 17 4 83% 85% 93% 93% 80% 80% 90% 43% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytimeschool involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 20 5 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 50% 13% 8% 8% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 15 16 8 1 38% 40% 20% 3% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 28 16 16 1 15 1 0 24 4 19 2 15 17 15 14 9 9 70% 40% 40% 3% 38% 3% 0% 60% 10% 48% 5% 38% 43% 38% 35% 23% 23%fJCC -/cr Chtckh-i/- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 18, 2000 To: Kaye Rainey From: Ann BroWn\" Re: CAT Restroom Monitoring Attached are the completed Site Visit Checklists for Restrooms that I was asked to complete on behalf of our CAT monitoring. I apologize for returning them late, but my schedule has been disrupted by unexpected events (the tragic death of two of my childrens young friends and out-of-town travel). I spoke to Heather Gage yesterday, and she assured me that the forms were still being compiled, so 1 hope these arent too late to be counted. Thanks so much for all your hard work on behalf of our Team.js is/. Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge APR 5 2001 April 5, 2001 *w Dear Collaborative Action Team Member\nWe appreciate all of the time and energy you have devoted to helping to improve education for the students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Your willingness to serve on the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) is evidence of your support for children in our community. During the past two years CAT members have addressed sanitary conditions at every school in the LRSD. We are pleased to have focused on this need cited by students as important in their school life and feel that there are many more opportunities for us to make a difference in our schools. This letter is to invite your active participation in the CAT and to update your contact information. We have planned a reception for CAT members on Monday, April 16, from 4:30 until 6:00 p.m. in the LRSD Board Room located at 810 West Markham Street. In addition to refreshments, we have some activities planned to energize you about the CAT and how we can help our schools. We need your attendance and input if our CAT is going to be successful. Please reaffirm your commitment to CAT by filling out the attached form and faxing it to Kaye Rainey at 324-2044. Thanks! Your Fellow CATs 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001 DESIRE TO SERVE AND INFORMATION FORM .Yes, I wish to continue to participate on, and will attend meetings of, the LRSD Collaborative Action Team. No, I cannot continue to serve as a CAT member. Name: Home Address\nHome Phone: Work Address\nWork Phone\nFax: E-mail Address: Comments Please check one: Community  Student  Parent  School \u0026lt;2\n1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the District's Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the Research Design and Methodology. Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two SEDL s report includes some data that are specific to districts, but much of their analysis is by cohort group, so even though the Little Rock School District data are included in Cohort 3 data, it is impossible to know how we compared to anyone else on some measurements. Other Cohort 3 participants are listed on p. 9 of the report. The following pages are those with references either to LRSD specifically or to Cohort 3 in the analysis of Site Characteristics:  p. 35Demographic data, by district  p. 36Types of schools served, by cohort  p. 37 Special parent involvement programs, by cohort  p. 39Survey on Team Confidence, by cohort  p. 40Type^of community challenges, by cohort  P- 42Existence of community factors, by cohort  p. 44Days between project start-up and first CAT meeting, by district In the chapter on CAT Sustainability, the following pages are those with references to LRSD or to Cohort 3 data:  p. 49Responses to surveys, CAT Self-Assessment and Exit Survey, bv district  pp. 58-60Levels of perceived support from school administration, campus staff, community at-large, parent/other family member, and students for CAT sustainability, aggregated  p. 66Time of goal accomplishment, by cohort  p. 70 Perceived changes in CAT recognition/importance in the community, aggregated  P- ^2Importance of taking action on goals, aggregated f 1 i I i i The chapter on Student Outcomes is most relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Cohort 3, however, had only one year in the project, and much of the first semester was spent on training, not action, improvement in student outcomes would not be predictable. so p. 82Percent student attendance, by district p. 83Percent student attendance, by cohort p. 85Percent student attendance, districts in Arkansas p. 89Percent student dropout, by district p. 90Percent student dropout, by cohort p. 91Percent student dropout, districts in Arkansas p. 96Percent student graduation, by district p. 97Percent student graduation, by cohort p. 98Percent student graduation, districts in Arkansas pp. 100-101Sat9 scores below 25** percentile, districts in ArkansasBoard of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147, Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDL's \"Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_961","title":"Discipline","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1998/2011"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School discipline","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/961"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nGUIDELINES FOR SATURDAY SCHOOL PURPOSE RECEIVED JUN 4 1998 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING Saturday School is a disciplinary alternative to in-school detention hall and/or suspension. Nonviolent student misconduct can be assigned remediation through the Saturday School program. Saturday School provides building administrators a means through which students can be disciplined without losing time in regular class. Failure to attend Saturday School as assigned will result in further disciplinary action that will likely be a more severe punishment. While Saturday School was implemented as a secondary disciplinary option, students in elementary grades 4th-6th have occasionally been assigned if the program was a maturity-appropriate alternative for the student. LOCATION Saturday School will be located at the North Little Rock High School WestCampus, 22nd and Main Streets. This location is centrally located to serve students from across the district. Transportation to Saturday School is the responsibility of the family. Central Arkansas Transit bus routes from throughout the city stop at 22nd and Main Streets. TIMESIDATES Saturday School will begin at 8:00 a.m. and dismissed at 12:00 p.m. Students will not be dismissed early and students must be in attendance for the full morning to receive credit for attending. Should Friday classes be dismissed due to inclement weather, Saturday School will not meet. The program functions best when parents are involved in making the Saturday School assignment. Parents should be asked to bring their children to Saturday School, accompany them into the building, and sign them in at the check-in area. A list of Saturday School dates for 1996-97 is attached. STAFF Depending upon each Saturday's expected enrollment, staff will be assigned to supervise the students. On most dates, two staff members will be assigned to supervise 30 students. The work-day for Saturday School staff will be from 7:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS Seating at Saturday School is limited to thirty (30) students. Anticipating past attendance patterns to continue in 1996-97, we will continue to assign 40 students each Saturday and expect approximately 30 students to attend. Because Saturday School will serve students from across the district, the following procedure will be used to assign students to Saturday School:  Call Carol Pierce or Margaret Ness at 771-8010 to reserve a seat. School Administrators may choose to fax (771-8001) the names of students who have been assigned to Saturday School. If the fax method is used, please fax the updated list daily. Be prepared to provide the following data: i. Student's name and ID i. Home School i. Misconduct code from the disciplinary referral form  Each Monday, Carol or Margaret will begin accepting assignments for the following Saturday. Limit assignments to Saturday School to maximum of three Saturday per semester for each student.  Each Monday, Carol or Margaret will process attendance records and inform each school that assigned students to the program as to the student's success or failure in the previous Saturday's program. SATURDAY SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR PARENTS RECEIVE JUN 4 1998 OfflCOEF DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO R! PURPOSE Saturday School provides a means through which students can be disciplined without losing time in class. Non-violent misconduct can be assigned remediation through the Saturday School program. LOCATION Saturday School will be conducted at the North Little Rock High School-West Campus Science Building located at 22nd and Main Streets. Saturday classes will meet in the Science Building on the southeast comer of the campus. Refer to the campus map on the back of this sheet. TIMES/DATES Saturday School will begin at 8:00 a.m. and dismissed at 12:00 p.m. Should Friday classes be dismissed because of inclement weather, Saturday School will not meet. EXPECTATIONSOFSTUDENTSANDPARENTS    The North Little Rock School District assumes no responsibility in providing transportation to Saturday School. Transportation to Saturday School is the responsibility of the student's family. Parents are required to accompany students to Saturday School and sign them in. Parents will be asked to provide Saturday telephone numbers where they can be reached in case of emergency or a disciplinary problem at Saturday School. Parents will not be required to sign students out at 12:00 p.m.\nhowever, students should be picked up no later than 12:15 p.m. so that the building can be cleared and secured. Students will be checked in beginning at 7:45 a.m. Students arriving after 8:00 a.m. will not be admitted. At Saturday School, students will focus on homework and other assignments from their home school. Students without books and assignments will be admitted to Saturday School. In addition to homework assignments, students will complete discipline response packets related to their misconduct at school and participate in class discussion on appropriate classroom behavior. Response packets will be forwarded to the student's home schools for review. Classroom rules used in Student Assignment Class (S.A.C.) will be followed in Saturday School. - - :::- .la. ~ ~ \"\"l' /IIAI,,./ S7'~b~T ti-, ~t N~ \u0026gt;\u0026lt; K - i I ,- t : :-- ~ ~ ~ ~ \" .. \"\" \\ I' n. ~ \"' \" \"' ~\n:i:, \"' ~ I \"'~ :t ~ ~ ~ I\nCA ' ~ \"\"\\ \"' 't. \"'~ I ' ,\nwAPt.-' ~ .. .... ~ -~ ~ ~ I'- n \"' ti C\\ I !. I' -\"' ,. (JI \"' ~ ~ ():I C, 1\n\"- -~ I~ [:%.~/ -,~:-, ~ 0\\ \"t7 I' //le. C: :--1 ~~AN\u0026amp;c \" l1/'. ,Q,C,.,, \"\" ::i.,. C\u0026gt; ,1//c:-:\"\"b t \"\"i \" l/~.:.-111a-~ ~ ~~-,,:-- ~ ~ ~ \"' 2-\"I   l,,.A, / :t. 1. ,'. - .. ~ \" \"' .... .... \" ~ 'l\\ ii.. li,. ~ IPll.l.f\u0026gt;AI - iu:: cf AJA,.,,,,\u0026lt; I - I . I I - September 13 - September 20 - September 27 - October 4- October 11 - October 18 - November 8 - November 15 - November 22 - December 6- December 13 - December 20 - January 10- January 24 - January 31 - February 7 - February 14 - February 21 - February 28 - March 7 - March 14 - March 21 - April 11 - April 18 - April 25 - May2- May9- May 16- May 23 - May 30- SATURDAY SCHOOL SCHEDULE Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Wood and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes Kevin Danaher and Freida Womack Charles Jones and Caroline Faulkner Richard Woods and Bobbie Riggins Winston Turner and Veronica Dokes 97/98 School Year ,. 9f:/97 School Year SATURDASYC HOOSL CHEDULE September 7 14 21 28 October 5 12 19 26 November 2 16 23 December 7 14 January 11 18 25 February 1 8 15 22 March 1 8 29 April 5 12 19 26 May 3 10 17 24 076-329 Reorder from: COMPLETE FORMS SERVICE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DISCIPLINARY REFERRAL Student's Name Grade Date Time School Staff Description of Incident Regarding Referral: Signature of Staff Member Action(s) Previously Taken _01 Checked Student's Folder _ 02 Held Conference with Student =03 H eld Conferencew ith Parent 04 Held Conference with Parent/ Student For Office Use Only Reasons for Disciplinary Actions: 05 Consulted Counselor =06 Changed Student's Scat _07 Telephoned Parent _08 Classroom Detention 01 Disregard for directions of teachers or administrators. 02 Disregard for directions of bus driver, lunch aides, or other authorized school personnel. _09 Elementary Re~ss Detention _10 Sent Previous Report Home _I I Sent Behavior Document Home 12 Other:_ ______ _ 03 Disruption and/or interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school and school-sponsored activities. 04 Behavior that involves indecent and/or immoral acts. 05 Wagering or any form of gambling. 06 Physical abuse, assault, insult or threatened physical abuse to a school employee. 07 Physical abuse assault, insult or threatened physical abuse to another student or any other individual. 08 Possession ofa knife, razor, ice pick, explosive, pistol, rifle, shotgun, pellet gun, mace, tear gas, pepper spray, or any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument. 09 Possession of alcoholic beverages or any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law or School Board policy\nor using, under the influence, offering for sale or selling alcoholic beverages or any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law or School Board policy. 10 Destruction of or the attempt to destroy school property. 11 Stealing or the attempt to steal school property or the property belonging to another individual. 12 Cheating or copying the work of another student. 13 Failure to abide by attendance rules. 14 Excessive tardiness to class. (Secondary use only) 15 Use of profanity, vulgar language or obscene gestures. 16 Committing extortion, coercion, blackmail or forcing another person to act through the use of force or threat of force. 17 Engaging in verbal abuses such as name calling, ethnic or racial slurs, or using derogatory statements to other students, school personnel or other individuals. 18 Hazing includes subjecting students to indignity, humiliation, intimidation, social or other ostracism, shame or disgrace. 19 Gang Related Activities include belonging to or participating in secret societies of any kind. Gangs are prohibited on school grounds and at school-sponsored activities. Clothing, pins, and symbols of such organizations are also prohibited. 20 Sexual harassment. Action Taken by Administration: 0 I Conference with Student 02 Conference with Parent 03 Conference with Student and Parent 04 Privileges Denied 05 Behavior Contract 06 DetentionH all Time:_. __ _ Room: ___ # of Days: __ 07 Student Will Make Up Time 08 Student Placed on Probation 09 Student Assignment Class (S.A.C.) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension 12 Alternative School Suspension (K-6) 13 Bus Suspension 14 Saturday School 15 Recommended Expulsion 16 Other:_. _____ _ School# Student ID Teacher ID Date Referral Reason Action Parent Contacted Parent: Please sign this form and return it to the Principal's Office. Parents are encouraged to contact the school administrators. Signature of Administrator Signature of Student Signature of Parent Comments: ____________________________________ _ White copy - parent 1995-96 Canary copy - teacher/after principal action Pink copy - principal Goldenrod copy - teacher/when referring B-17 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Suspension Student's Name ------------------- Student ID# -------------- School ______________ Grade ___ _ Date ______________ _ Address of Parent or Guardian:------------------------------- Dear ____________ _ Your child has been involved in the following incident: _____________________ _ This letter is to infonn you that the following disciplinary action has been taken concerning your child. Beginning ___________ , your child will be assigned to the following program for ____ day(s):      Boys/Girls Club Suspensions for students in grades seven through twelve will be served at the North Little Rock Boys/Girls Club located at 13th and Main Streets directly across the street from the Alternative School. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m. Transportation to the Boys/Girls Club Suspension program is the family's responsibility. Elementary Alternative School Suspensions for students in grades Kindergarten through six will be served at: School: ____________ Location: _____________ _ Time: _________ . Transportation to the Alternative School suspension class is provided. See attached bus schedule. Saturday School Suspensions for students in grades four through twelve will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will dismiss at 12:00 noon. This assignment is effective only on the date shown above. Failure to attend Saturday School will result in further disciplinary action. See attached Saturday School information sheet. Student Assignment Class Suspensions/SAC classes for students in grades seven through twelve are located on each secondary school campus. The class will begin and dismiss within the school's normal bell schedule. Home suspensions will be served in the students' homes. If a suspension exceeds four (4) days (not counting today), then it will be reviewed, if a parent or guardian so requests, by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. A copy of the policies of the Board of Education pertaining the suspensions and expulsions is available for examination at each school and at the Administrative Office .  Parent: Please retain this copy for your records. lfyou have further questions, please contact the school at Principal Assistant Principal/ Administrative Assistant Whitec opy-Parentc opy Yellow copy-Studenct opy Pink copy-Officec opy Goldenrodc opy-StudentA ffairsO ffice 1995-96 B-16 GUIDELINFS FOR SATURDAY SCHOOL PURPOSE Saturday School is a disciplinary alternative to in-school detention hall and/ or suspension. Nonviolent student misconduct can be assigned remediation through the Saturday School program. Saturday School provides building administrators a means through which students can be disciplined without losing time in regular class. Failure to attend Saturday School as assigned will result in further disciplinary action that will likely be a more severe punishment. While Saturday School was implemented as a secondary disciplinary option, students in elementary grades 4-6 have occasionally been assigned if the program was a maturity-appropriate alternative for the student. LOCATION Saturday School will be located at the Argenta Alternative Learning Center, 13th and Main Streets. This location is centrally located to serve students from across the district. Transportation to Saturday School is the responsibility of the family. Central Arkansas Transit bus routes from throughout the city stop at 13th and Main Streets. TIMES/DA TES Saturday School will begin at 8:00 a.m. and dismiss at 12:00 p.m. Students will not be dismissed early and students must be in attendance for the full morning to receive credit for attending. Should Friday classes be dismissed due to inclement weather, Saturday School will not meet. The program functions best when parents are involved in maldng the Saturday School assignment. Parents should be asked to bring their children to Saturday School, accompany them into the building, and sign them in at the check-in area. A list of Saturday School dates for 1994-95 is attached. STAFF Depending upon each Saturday's expected enrollment, staff will be assigned to supervise the students. On most dates, two staff members will be assigned to supervise 30 students. The work-day for Saturday School staff will be from 7:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. ASSIGNMENTO F STUDENTS Seating at Saturday School is limited to thirty (30) students. Anticipating past attendance patterns to continue in 1994-95, we will continue to assign 40 students each Saturday and expect approximately 30 students to attend. Because Saturday School will serve students from across the district, the following procedure will be used to assign students to Saturday School. - Call Doye Wasson at 771-8024 to reserve a seat. Be prepared to provide the following data, * student name and ID * home school * misconduct code from the disciplinary referral form If Doye is not available, Yolanda Platt (771-8022), Dana Chadwick (771-8023), or Esther Crawford (771-8021) can take the necessary information. - Each Monday, Doye will begin accepting assignments for the following Saturday. limit assignment to Saturday School to maximum of three Saturdays per semester for each student. - Each Monday, Doye will process attendance records and inform each school that assigned students to the program as to the student's success or failure in the previous Saturday's program. 1994-95 SATURDAY SCHOOL DATffi September 10, 17,24 October 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 November 5, 19 December 3, 10, 17 January 7, 14,21,28 February 4, 11, 18,25 March 4, 11 April 1,8, 15,22,29 May 6, 13,20,27 PURPOSE SATURDAY SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR PARENTS Saturday School provides a means through which students can be disciplined without losing time in class. Non-violent misconduct can be assigned remediation through the Saturday School program. LOCATION Saturday School will be conducted at the Alternative School (formerly Argenta Elementary), 13th and Main Streets. This location is centrally located to serve students from across the city. TIMES/DATES Saturday School will begin at 8:00 a.m. and dismiss at 12:00 p.m. Should Friday classes be dismissed because of inclement weather, Saturday School will not meet. EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS * The North Little Rock School District assumes no responsibility in providing transportation to Saturday School. Transportation to Saturday School is the responsibility of the student's family. * Parents are required to accompany students to Saturday School and sign them in. Parents will be asked to provide Saturday telephone numbers where they can be reached in case of emergency or a disciplinary problem at Saturday School. Parents will not be required to sign students out at 12:00 p.m.\nhowever, students should be picked up no later than 12: 1 S p.m. so that the building can be cleared and secured. * On Saturday, use the building's west entrance at the corner of 13th and Maple Streets. * Students will be checked in beginning at 7:45 a.m. Students arriving after 8:00 a.m. will not be admitted. * At Saturday School, students will focus on homework and other assignments from their home school. Students without books and assignments will not be admitted to Saturday School. In addition to homework assignments, students will complete discipline response packets related to their misconduct at school. Response packets will be forwarded to the students' home schools for review. * Classroom rules used in Student Assignment Class (S.A.C.) will be followed in Saturday School. School Student's Name NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DISCIPLINARY REFERRAL Date of Incident Grade Time Staff Description of Incident Regarding Referral: Signature of Staff Member Action(s) Previously Taken _ 01 Checked Student's Folder _ 02 Held Conference with Student _ 03 Held Conference with Parent _ 04 Held Conference with ParenV Student FOR OFFICE USE ONLY _ OS Consulted Counselor _ 06 Changed Student's Seat _ 07 Telephoned Parent _ 08 Classroom Detention _ 09 Elementary Recess Detention _ 1 O Sent Previous Report Home _ 11 Sent Behavior Document Home _ 12 Other: _______ _ REASONSF OR DISCIPLINARYA CTION: 01 Disregard for directions of teachers or administrators. 02 Disregard for directions of bus drivers, lunch aides, or other authorized school personnel. 03 Disruption and/or Interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school and school-sponsored acthlfties. 04 Behavior that ln110lvesIn decent and/or lrrmoral acts. OS Wagering or any fonn of gmnbllng. 06 Physical abuse or assault or threatened physical abuse to a school elll)loyee. 07 Physical abuse or assault or threatened physical abuse to another student or any other Individual. 08 Possession of a knife, razor, Ice pick, e,cploslve, pistol, rifle, shotgun, pelet gun, mace, tear gas, pepper spray, or any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous Instrument. 09 Using, offering for sale or selling alcoholic beverages or any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law or School Board policy. 10 Destruction of or the attelll)t to destroy school property. 11 Stealing or the attelll)t to steal school property or the property belonging to another indi\\lidual. 1 2 Cheating or copying the wor1c of another student. 13 Failure to abide by attendance rules. 14 Use of profanity, wlgar language or obscene gestures. 1 S Cormilttfng extortion, coercion, blackmail or forcing another person to act through the use of force or threat of force. 1 6 Engaging In verbal abuses such as name calling, ethnic or racial slurs, or using derogatory statements to other students, school persomel or other Individuals. 17 Hazing Includes any willful act done by a student, either Individually or with others, to another student for the purpose of subjecting the other student to Indignity, humliatlon, Intimidation, physical abuse or threats of abuse, social or other ostracism, shame or disgrace. 18 Gang Related Activities Include belonging to or participating In secret societies of any kind. Gangs are prohibited on school grounds and at school-sponsored activities and clothing, pins, and symbols of such organizations are also prohibited. 19 Sexual harassment. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMINISTRATION: 01 Conference with Student 02 Conference with Parent 03 Conference with Student and Parent 04 Pri\\lileges Denied OS Behavior Contract 06 Detention Hall Time: _ _ Room: ___ #of Days: __ Scoool # Student() 07 Student WII Make Up Time 08 Student Placed on Probation 09 Student Assignment Class {S.A.C.) 1 0 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension 12 Alternative School Suspension {K-6) 13 Bus Suspension Teacher() Orte Referral Reason 14 Saturday School 1 S Recommended Expulsion 16 Other: _______ _ Action Parent Contacted --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parent: Please sign this form and return it to the Principal's Office. Parents are encouraged to contact the school administrators. Signature of Administrator Signature of Student Signature of Parent Comments: ____________________________________ _ white copy  parent canay copy  teacher/after principal action pink copy - principal goldenrod copy -teacher/when refening B-1 7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Suspension Student's Name----------------- Student ID# _____ _ Schoo_l_ _____________ Grade_ __ Date _______ _ Address of Parent or Guardian: 1  -------------------- Dear _____________ ,- Your child has been involved in the following incident: This letter is to inform you that the following disciplinary action has been taken concerning your child. Beginning ________ , your child will be assigned to the following program for ___ day(s):      Boys Club suspensions will be served at the North Little Rock Boys Club located at 13th and Main Streets directly across the street from the Alternative School. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m. Transportation to the Boys Club suspension program is the family's responsibility. Alternative School Suspension for students in grades Kindergarten through six will be served at Rose City Alternative School at 1 00 Earle Street. Transportation to the Alternative School suspension class is the family's responsibility. Saturday School will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will dismiss at 12:00 noon. The school is located in the Alternative School building at 1 3th and Main Streets. Tran~portation to Saturday School is the family's responsibility. This assignment is effective only on the date shown above. Failure to attend Saturday school will result in further disciplinary action. Student Assigrvnent Class (SAC) for 7th and 8th grades is located on each middle school campus. SAC for grades 9-1 2 is located in the Alternative School building at 1 3th and Main Streets. The class will begin and dismiss within the school's normal bell schedule. Transportation for high school students will be provided to and from their home campuses. Home suspensionsw ill be served in the student's home. If a suspension exceeds four (4) days (not counting today), then it will be reviewed, if a parent or guardian so requests, by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. A copy of the policies of the Board of Education pertaining to suspensions and expulsions is available for examination at each school and at the Administrative Office. **************************************************************** Parent: Please retain this copy for your records. If you have further questions, please contact the school at _________ _ Principal Assistant Principal/ Administrative Assistant White copy~t copy Yelow copy-Student copy Plnlcc opy-Office Copy Goldenrod copy-Student Affairs Office B-16 N -..J 0 0 u.:., . ... n, n, ...  '\"ti 0 ti:, 0 X ' CX) -..J  z 0 ...... ::,-- ...... n, -..J N 0 ' CX) -..J  \"' 0 -..J -..J 00 0 0 0 2003-2004 Student Handbook Committee Administrators Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director - Secondary Education Kaye Lowe, Supervisor of Elementary Schools Bill Bowers, Principal - Lakewood Middle School Pam Wilcox, Principal -Amboy Elementary School Kevin Danaher, Assistant Principal - East Campus High School Richard Woods, Assistant Principal- West Campus High School Teachers Bryan Duffie, Teacher - East Campus High School Brenda Butler, Teacher - West Campus High School Jennifer Kimbrell, Teacher - Crestwood Elementary School Amberly Runsick, Teacher- Pike View Elementary School Yolanda Ellis, Teacher-Boone Park Elementary School Shandria Gordon, Teacher - Rose City Middle School Parents RECEIVED Karen Williams, Parent - Lakewood Middle School Marty Borguss, Parent - Ridgeroad Middle School Student Larayna Gilmore, Student- West Campus High School MAR- t 2004 D OFF!/lCFf ESEGRTEl(nG,. . o., T \"RINS  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.n1rsd.k12.ar.u 4.3-COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS . Every parent, guardian, or other person having custody or charge of any,child age five (5) through seventeen (17) years on or before September 15 of that year who resides, as defined by Policy 4.1- RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, within the District shall enroll and send the child to a District school with the following exceptions: 1. The child is enrolled in private or parochial school\n2. The child is being home-schooled and the conditions of Policy 4.6- HOME SCHOOLING have been met\n3. The child will not be age six (6) on or before September 15 of that particular school year and the parent, guardian, or other person having custody or charge of the child elects not to have him/her attend kindergarten. A kindergarten wavier form prescnbed by regulation of the Department of Education must be signed and on file with the District administrative office\n4. The child has received a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education\n5. The child is age sixteen (16) or above and is enrolled in a post-secondary vocational-technical institution, a community college, or a two-year or four-year institution ofhigher education\nor 6. The child is age sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) and has met the requirements to enroll in an adult education program as defined by AC.A.  6-18-201 (b ). Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-18-201 Date Adopted: 9/24/91 Last Revised: STUDENTS 4.1-RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 4 STUDENTS 4.2-ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.3-COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.4-STUDENT TRANSFERS 4.5-SCHOOL CHOICE 4.6-HOME SCHOOLING 4.7-ABSENCES 4.8-MAKE-UP WORK 4.9-TARDIES 4.10-CLOSED CAMPUS 4.11-EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 4.12-STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS/EQUAL ACCESS 4.13-PRIVACY OF STUDENTS'RECORDS/DIRECTORY INFORMATION 4.13 FORM-OBJECTION TO PUBLICATION OF DIRECTORY INFORMATION 4.14-STUDENT PUBLICATIONS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE 4.15-CONTACT WITH STUDENTS WHILE AT SCHOOL 4.16-STUDENT VISITORS 4.17-STUDENT DISCIPLINE 4.18-PROHIBITED CONDUCT 4.19-CONDUCT TO AND FROM SCHOOL 4.20-DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL 4.21-STUDENT ASSAULT OR BATTERY 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS 4.23-TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS 4.24-DRUGS AND ALCOHOL 4.25-STUDENT DRESS AND GROOMING 4.26-GANGS AND GANG ACTIVITY 4.27-STUDENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4.28-LASER POINTERS 4.28A-CELL PHONES AND COMMUNICATION DEVICES 4.29-COMPUTER USE POLICY 4.29 FORM-STUDENT INTERNET USE AGREEMENT 4.30-SUSPENSION FROM SCHOOL 4.31-EXPULSION 4.32-SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND INTERROGATIONS 4.33-STUDENT VEHICLES 4.34-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND PARASITES 4.34A-HIV, AIDS 4.35-STUDENT MEDICATIONS 4.35 FORM-MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION CONSENT FORM 4.36-STUDENT ILLNESS/ ACCIDENT 4.37-EMERGENCY DRILLS 4.38-PERMANENT RECORDS 4.39-CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 4.40-HOMELESS STUDENTS 4.41-PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OR SCREENINGS 4.41 FORM-OBJECTION TO PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OR SCREENINGS 4.42-STUDENT HANDBOOK 4.43-BULL YING 4.1-RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS Definitions: \"Reside\" means to be physically present and to maintain a permanent place of abode for an average of no fewer than four (4) calendar days and nights per week for a primary purpose other than school attendance. \"Resident\" means a student whose parents, legal guardians, persons having legal, lawful control of the student under order of a court, or persons standing in loco parentis reside in the District. \"Residential address\" means the physical location where the student's parents, legal guardians, persons having legal, lawful control of the student under order of a court, or persons standing in loco parentis reside. A student may use the residential address of a legal guardian, person having legal, lawful control of the student under order of a court, or person standing in loco parentis only if the student resides at the same residential address and if the guardianship or other legal authority is not granted solely for educational needs or school attendance purposes. The schools of the District shall be open and free through the completion of the secondary program to all persons between the ages of five ( 5) and twenty one (21) years whose parents, legal guardians, or other persons having lawful control of the person under an order of a court reside within the District and to all persons between those ages who have been legally transferred to the District for educational purposes. Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older may establish a residence separate and apart from his or her parents or guardians for school attendance purposes. In order for a person under the age of eighteen (18) years to establish a residence for the purpose of attending the District's schools separate and apart from his or her parents, guardians, or other persons having lawful control of him or her under an order of a court, the person must actually reside in the District for a primary purpose other than that of school attendance. The children or wards of any person who is at least a half-time employee of this District but reside in another district are eligible to emoll in District schools. Legal References: AC.A 6-18-202 AC.A.  6-18-203 Date Adopted: 6/23/87 Last Revised: 4.2-ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS To enroll in a school in the District the child must be a resident of the District as defined in Policy 4.1-RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS or meet the criteria outlined in Policy 4.40--HOMELESS STUDENTS. Students may enter kindergarten if they will attain the age offive (5) on or before September 15 of the year in which they are seekingi nitial enrollmentA. ny studentw ho has been enrolledi n a state-accreditedo r state-approvedk indergartenp rogrami n anothers tate for at least sixty (60) days, who will become five (5) years old duringt he year in which he/shei s enrolledi n kindergartena, nd who meets the basicr esidency requirementf or school attendancem ay be enrolledi n kindergartenu pon writtenr equestt o the District Any child who will be six ( 6) years of age on or before October 1 of the school year of enrollment and who has not completeda state-ac,ereditekdi ndergartenp rograms hallb e evaluatedb y the Districta nd may be placedi n the first grade if the resultso f the evaluationju stifyp lacementi n the first grade and the child's parent or legal guardian agrees with placement in the first grade\notherwise the child shall be placed in kindergarten. Any child may enter first grade in a District school if the child will attain the age of six ( 6) years on or before October 1 of the school year in which the child is seeking enrollment and the child has successfully completeda kindergartenp rogrami n a publics chooli n Arkansas. Any childw ho has been enrolledi n the first gradei n a state-accreditedo r state-approvede lementarys chool in another state for a period of at least sixty (60) days, who will become age six (6) years during the school year in which he/she is enrolledi n grade one (1) , and who meets the basic residencyr equirementsf or schoola ttendancei n Arkansasm ay be enrolledi n the first gradeu pon requesti n writingb y a parent or guardian Students who move into the District from an accredited school shall be assigned to the same grade as they were attendingi n their previous school( mid-yeart ransfers)o r as they would have been assignedi n their previouss chool.H ome-schooleds tudentss hallb e evaluatedb y the Districtt o detenninet heir appropriate grade placement. Prior to the child's admission to a District school: 1. The parent,g uardian,o r other responsiblep erson shallf urnisht he child's social securityn umber,o r if they request, the district will assign the child a nine (9) digit number designated by the department of education. 2. The parent,g uardian,o r other responsiblep erson shallp rovidet he districtw ith one (1) of the following documents indicating the child's age: a A. birth certificate\nb. A statement by the local registrar or a county recorder certifying the child's date of birth\nc. An attested baptismal certificate\nd. A passport\ne. An affidavit of the date and place ofbirth by the child's parent or guardian\n Previous school records\nor g. U.S military I..D. 3. The parent, guardian,o r other responsiblep erson shalli ndicateo n schoolr egistrationf ormsw hether the child has been expelled from school in any other school district or is a party to an expulsion proceeding. 4. The child shallb e age appropriatelyim munized,i rrespectiveo f grade,w ith at least three doseso f Diphtheria//TetanuAs/c ellularP ertussis( DTaP),D iphtheria/Tetanus/Pertuss(iDs TP), Diphtheria/Tetanu(sD T pediatric),o r Tetanus/Diphtheri(aT d Adult),a t least three doses of polio vaccine\nt wo doses ofRubeola (measles)v accine,o ne dose of Rubella (Germanm easles)v accinea nd one dose of Mumps vaccine. Additionallya, n appropriates erieso f HepatitisB vaccinea nd one dose ofV aricella( c hickenpox)v accine are requiredf or studentse nteringK indergarten.A n appropriate series of Hepatitis B is required for Transfer students (students not in your school district last school year) and students entering the seventh grade. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-201 (c) AC.A  6-18-207 AC.A 6-18-208 AC.A. 6-18-702 AC.A. 6-15-504 (f) Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.4---STUDENT TRANSFERS The North Little Rock School District shall review and accept or reject requests for transfers, both into and out of the District, on a case by case basis. Any student transferring from a school accredited by the Department of Education to a school in the District shall be placed into the same grade the student would have been in had the student remained at the former school. Any student transferring from home school or a school that is not accredited by the Department of Education to a District school shall be evaluated by District staff to determine the student's appropriate grade placement. The Board of Education reserves the right, after a hearing before the Board, not to allow any person who has been expelled from another district to emoll as a student until the time of the person's expulsion has expired. The responsibility for transportation of any nomesident student admitted to a school in this District shall be borne by the student or the student's parents. The District and the resident district may enter into a written agreement with the student or student's parents to provide transportation to or from the District, or both. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-316 AC.A. 6-18-510 AC.A. 6-15-504 (f) State Board of Education Standards of Accreditation VII (E) (l) Date Adopted: 6/30/87 Last Revised: 4.5-SCHOOL CHOICE The North Little Rock Board will consider all applications for School Choice postmarked not later than the July I preceding the fall semester the applicant would begin school in the District. The Board shall notify the parent or guardian and the student's resident district in writing of the Board's decision to accept or reject the application within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the application. The District shall advertisei n appropriatep 1inta nd broadcastm edia to inform students and parents in adjoining districts of the range of possible openings available under the School Choice Program. The public pronouncements shall state the application deadline and the requirements and procedure for participation in the progran1. Such pronouncements shall be made in the spring, but in no case later than June first. When considering applications, priority will be given to applications from siblings or stepsiblings residing in the same residence or household of students already attending the District through school choice. The District may reject a nonresident's application for admission if its acceptance would necessitate the addition of staff or classrooms\nexceed the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building\nor cause the District to provide educational services not currently provided in the affected school. The District shall reject applications that would cause it to be out of compliance witl1 applicable laws and regulations regarding desegregation. Letters of rejection shall state the reason(s) for the rejection. The Board of Directors reserves the right, after a hearing before the Board, not to allow any person who is currently under expulsion from another district to enroll in a District school. Students admitted under this policy shall be entitled to continued enrollment until they graduate or are not longer eligible for enrollment in the District's schools. Legal References: AC.A.  6-18-206 AC.A. 6-18-510 Date Adopted: 4.6-HOJYIE SCHOOLING Parents or legal guardians desiring to provide a home school for their children must give written notice to the Superintendent of their intent to do so and sign a waiver acknowledging that the State of Arkansas is not liable for the education of their children during the time the parents choose to home school. Notice shall be given: 1. At the beginning of each school year, but no later than August 15\n2. By December 15 for parents who decide to start home schooling at the beginning of the spring semester\nor 3. Fourteen (14) calendar days prior to withdrawing the child (provided the student is not currently under disciplinary action for violation of any written school policy, including, but not limited to, excessive tmexcused absences) and at the beginning of each school year thereafter. The parents or legal guardians shall deliverw ritten notice in person to the Superintendentt he :firstt ime such notice is given and the notice must include: 1. The name, date of birth, grade level, and the name and address of the school last attended, if any\n2. The location of the home school\n3. The basic core curriculum to be offered\n4. The proposed schedule of instruction\nand 5. The qualifications of the parent-teacher. To aid the District in providing a free and appropriate public education to students in need of special education services, the parents or legal guardians home-schooling their children shall provide information which might indicate the need for special education services. Legal References: AC.A 6-15-503 AC.A  6-41-206 Date Adopted: 6/23/87 Last Revised: 4.7-ABSENCES The Board believes that the fundamental right to attend public school places upon the student the accompanying responsibility to be regular in attendance. Regular attendance can be assumed to be essential for a student's successful progress in the instructional program. Students who are absent during all or part of a school day shall not participate in any school activity on that day or night unless permission is granted through the principal's office. Excused Absences Excused absences are those where a student was on official school business or when the absence was due to one of the following reasons and the student brings a written statement upon his/her return to school from the parent or legal guardian stating the date of the absence and such reason: 1. Illness or when attendance could jeopardize the health of other students\n2. Death or serious illness in the immediate family\n3. Other family situations which have received prior approval by the principal\n4. Observance of recognized holidays observed by his/her faith\nor 5. Attendance at a medical appointment or an appointment with a government agency. Unexcused Absences Absences not defined above or not having an accompanying note from the parent or legal guardian shall be considered unexcused absences. Make-up work for credit will not be allowed for unexcused absences. The Board does not recognize \"skip days\" or other similar days when students willfully miss school. Such absences shall be unexcused and no make-up work shall be allowed. Days missed due to expulsion or out-of-school suspension shall be unexcused absences. 1. PreK - 5-A student is not permitted more than six (6) unexcused absences during each semester. When a student has accumulated three (3) unexcused absences in a semester, the parent or guardian will be notified. When a student has accumulated more than six (6) unexcused absences in a semester, the school will notify the prosecuting authority and the parent or guardian will be subject to a civil penalty. When a student accumulates a total of twelve (12) absences, ( counting both excused and unexcused), the parent or guardian will be contacted for a conference concerning the student's work. 2. Grades 6- 8-A student who accumulates six (6) unexcused absences in a course during a semester shall not receive credit for that course. The principal may grant exceptions after consultation with teachers, counselors, and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. School principals shall notify parents or guardians when the student's unexcused absences total three (3). Notification shall be made by telephone ( on the same day) or by mail ( on the following day). Schools shall notify the prosecuting attorney's office when students unexcused absences exceed six (6). The prosecuting attorney can recommend that courts impose civil penalties on parents not to exceed $500 plus court costs and other fees assessed by the court. 3. Grades 9- 12-A student who accumulates four (4) unexcused absences in a course during a semester shall not receive credit for that course. The principal may grant exceptions after consultation with teachers, counselors, and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. School principals shall notify parents or guardians when the student's unexcused absences total two (2). Notification shall be made by telephone ( on the same day) or by mail ( on the following day). Schools shall notify the prosecuting attorney's office when students unexcused absences exceed four (4). The prosecuting attorney can recommend that courts impose civil penalties on parents not to exceed $500 plus court costs and other fees assessed by the court. Students who attend in-school suspensions shall not be counted absent on those days. The District shall notify the Department of Finance and Administration whenever a student fourteen (14) years of age or older is no longer in school. The Department of Finance and Administration is required to suspend the former student's operator's license unless he/she meets certain requirements specified in the code. Applicants for an instruction permit or for a driver's license by persons less than eighteen (18) years of age on October 1 of any year are required to provide proof of a high school diploma or enrollment and regular attendance in an adult education program or a public, private, or parochial school prior to receiving an instruction permit. To be issued a driver's license, a student enrolled in school shall present proof of a \"C\" average for the previous semester or similar equivalent grading period for which grades are reported as part of the student's permanent record. The North Little Rock School District has entered into a cooperative agreement with law enforcement officials to implement an Operation Stay in School Program. The North Little Rock Police Department will detain and question school-age children who are not in school on days and hours that the North Little Rock Schools are in session. Students who are found off school grounds without permission from the school will be transported to school and parents will be contacted. Absences for school business (athletics, college days, club activities, student performances, etc.) shall not be considered an absence from school. A student shall be allowed a maximum of six ( 6) absences per year in any one class. A student who has failed a course the previous nine weeks will not be allowed to miss that class for school business. The principal may grant exceptions after consultation with teachers, counselors, and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. Legal References: A.C.A.  6-18-209 A.C.A.  6-18-220 AC.A 6-18-222 A.CA 27-16-701 Date Adopted: 2/27/96 Date Revised: 4.8-MAKE-UP WORK A student who misses school due to an \"excused absence\" or for school business as outlines in Policy 4.7-ABSENCES shall be afforded the opportunity to submit make-up work. Following the absence, the teacher and student shall make arrangements for completion of the assignments. In order to receive credit, all work must be completed within the prescribed time. A student who misses school due to an \"unexcused absence\" shall not be afforded an opportunity to submit make-up work for credit. Date Adopted: 12/19/95 Last Revised: 4.9-TARDIES Promp1nesst o class is necessaryi n order to maximizel earningo pportunitiesf or all students.S tudentsa re therefore expected to be in class and ready for instruction at the appointed time. Principals shall implement suitable disciplinep rocedurest o encouragep romp1nessin class attendance. Date Adopted: 6/23/87 Last Revised: 4.10---CLOSED CAMPUS All schools in the District operate closed campuses. Students are required to stay on campus from their arrival until dismissal at the end of the regular school day. Students may be given permission to leave the campus by a school official and must sign out in the office upon their departure. All schools provide hot, well-balanced school lunches. Generally, students are expected to eat lunch at school. With written parental permission, a student who lives within five blocks of the school may go home for lunch. Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.11-EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY No student in the North Little Rock School District shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilityb e excludedf rom participationi n, or deniedt he benefitso f, or subjectedt o discriminationu nder any educationalp rogramo r activitys ponsoredb y the District. Date Adopted: 9/22/92 Last Revised: 4.12-STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS/EQUAL ACCESS N oncurriculum-relateds econdarys chool student organizationsw ishingt o conductm eetings on school premises duringn oninstructionalt ime shall not be denied equal access on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings. Such meetings must meet the following criteria. 1. The meeting is to be voltmtary and student initiated\n2. There is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees\n3. The meeting must occur during noninstructionatli me\n4. Employees or agents of the school are present at religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capacity\n5. The meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school\nand 6. Nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups. All meetings held on school premisesm ust be scheduled and approvedb y the p1incipal.T he school, its agents, and employees retain the authority to maintain order and discipline, to protect the well being of students and faculty, and to assure that attendance of students at meetings is voluntary. Fraternities, sororities, and secret societies are forbidden in the District's schools. Membership to student organizations shall not be by a vote of the organization's members, nor be restricted by the student's race, religion, sex, national origin, or other arbitrary criteria. Legal References: AC.A.  6-21-204 20 U.S.C. 4071 Equal Access Act Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) AC.A.  6-18-601 et seq. Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.13 FORM-OBJECTION TO PUBLICATION OF DIRECTORY INFORMATION (Not to be filed if the parent/student has no objection) I, the undersigned, being a parent of a student, or a student eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby note my objection to the disclosure or publication by the North Little Rock School District of directory info1mation,a s defined in Policy 4.13-PRIV ACY OF STIJDENT'S RECORDS, concerningt he student named below. Directory information includes, but is not limited to, a student's name, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, photograph, date and place of birth, classes, placement on the honor roll (or receipt of other types of honors), as well as his/her participation in school clubs and extracurricular activities, among others. I understandt hat the paiticipationb y the below-nameds tudent in any interscholastica ctivity,i ncluding athletics and school clubs, may make the publication of some directory infonnation unavoidable, and the publication of such information in other forms, such as telephone directories, church directories, etc., is not within the control of the District. I understand that this form must be filed with the office of the appropriate building principal within ten ( I 0) school days from the beginning of the current school year in order for the District to be bound by this objection. Failure to file this form within that time is a specific grant of permission to publish such information. Name of student (Printed) Signature of parent ( or student, if 18 or older) Date form was filed (To be filled in by office personnel) 4.13---PRIVA CY OF STUDENTS'R ECORDS/D IRECTORYI NFORMATION All students' educational records are available for inspection and copying by the parents of any student who is under the age of eighteen (18). At the age of eighteen (18), the right to inspect and copy a student's records transfers to the student. For purposes of this policy, the North Little Rock School District does not distinguish between a custodial and noncustodial parent with respect to gaining access to a student's records. The fact of a person's status as parent or guardian, alone, enables that parent or guardian to review and copy his child's records. If there exists a court order which directs that a parent not have access to a student or his records, the parent or guardian must present a file-marked copy of such order to the building principal and the Superintendent. The school will make good-faith efforts to act in accordance with such court order, but the failure to do so does not impose legal liability upon the school. The actual responsibility for enforcement of such court orders rests with the parents or guardians, their attorneys and the court which issued the order. A parent or guardian does not have the right to remove any material from a student's records, but such parent or guardian may challenge the accuracy of a record. The right to challenge the accuracy of a record does not include the right to dispute a grade, which must be done only through the appropriate teacher and/or administrator,t he decisiono f whom is final. A challenget o the accuracyo f material contained in a student file must be initiated with the building principal, with an appeal available to the Superintendent or his designee. Any appeal above that level will be to an independent hearing officer and must be consistent with the purposes of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Unless the parent or guardian of a student ( or student, if above the age of eighteen [18]) objects, directory information about a student may be made available to the public, military recruiters, post secondary educational institutions, prospective employers of those students, as well as school publications such as annual yearbooks and graduation announcements. \"Directory information\" includes, but is not limited to, a student's name, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, photograph, date and place of birth, classes in which he/she is enrolled, his/her placement on the honor roll ( or the receipt of other types of honors), as well as his/her participation in school clubs and extracurricular activities, among others. If the student participates in inherently public activities (for example, basketball,f ootball,o r other interscholastica ctivities),t he publicationo f such informationw ill be beyond the control of the District. A student's name when associated with their physical address, e-mail address, telephone number, or photograph will only be displayed on the District or school's web page after receiving the written permission of the student's parent or student if over the age of 18. The form for objecting to making directory information available is located in the back of the student handbook and must be completed and signed by the parent or age-eligible student and filed with the building principal' s office no later than ten (10) school days after the beginning of each school year. Failure to file an objection by that time is considered a specific grant of permission. Legal Reference: 20 U.S.C.  1232g 20 U.S.C.  7908 (NCLB Section 9528) 34 CFR99.3 Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.14-STUDENT PUBLICATIONS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE Student Publications All publications that are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities, or are produced in conjunctionw ith a class shall be considereds chool-sponsoredp ublications. School publications do not provide a forum for public expression. Such publications, as well as the content of student expression in school-sponsored activities, shall be subject to the editorial control of the District's administration whose actions shall be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns and adhere to the following limitations: 1. Advertising may be accepted for publications that does not condone or promote products that are inappropriate for the age and maturity of the audience or that endorse such things as tobacco, alcohol, or drugs\n2. Publications may be regulated to prohibit writings which are, in the opinion of the appropriate teacher and/or administrator,t mgrarnmatical,p oorly written, inadequatelyr esearched,b iased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences\n3. Publications may be regulated to refuse to publish material which might reasonably be perceived to advocate dtug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order, or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy\nand 4. Prohibited publications include: a. Those that are obscene as to minors\nb. Those that are libelous or slanderous, including material containing defamatory falsehoods about public figures or governmental officials, which are made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of the truth\nc. Those that constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy as defined by state law, d. Publications that suggest or urge the commission of unlawful acts on the school premises\ne. Publications which suggest or urge the violation oflawful school regulations\nf Hate literature that scurrilously attacks ethnic, religious, or racial groups. Student Publications on School Web Pages Student publications displayed on school web pages shall follow the same guidelines as listed. In addition, these publications shall: 1. Not contain any non-educational advertisements\n2. Not contain any personally identifying information, as defined by \"Directory Information\" in Policy 4 .13-PRN ACY OF STIJDENT RECORDS, without the written permission of the parent of the student or the student if over eighteen (18)\nand 3. State that the views expressed are not necessarily those of the School Board or the employees of the District. Nonschool Publications The Superintendent shall review nonschool publications prior to their distribution and will bar from distribution those materials that are obscene, libelous, pervasively indecent, or advertise unlawful products or services. Material may also be barred from distribution if there is evidence that reasonably supports a forecast that disruption will likely result from the distribution. Distribution of Literature The school principal or designee shall establish reasonable regulations governing the time, place, and manner of student distribution of literature. The regulations shall: 1. Be narrowly drawn to promote orderly administration of school activities by preventing disruption and may not be designed to stifle expression\n2. Be uniformly applied to all forms ofliterature\n3. Allow no interference with classes or school activities\n4. Specify times and places where distribution may and may not occur\nand 5. Not inhibit a person's right to accept or reject any literature distributed in accordance with the regulations. The Superintendent, along with the student publications advisors, shall develop administrative regulations for the implementation of this policy. The regulations shall include definitions of tenns and timelines for the review of materials. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-1202, 1203, \u0026amp; 1204 Tinkerv. Des Moines ISD, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.15--CONTACT WITII STUDENTS WHILE AT SCHOOL Parents wishing to visit their children during the school day shall register first with the office. If there is any question concerning the legal custody of the student, the parent shall present documentation to the principal or his/her designee establishing the parent's custody of the student or legal right of visitation. It shall be the responsibility of the custodial parent to make any visitation restrictions regarding the noncustodial parent known to the principal by presenting a copy of a file-marked court order. Estranged parents may visit their child during school hours with the consent of the custodial parent. Questioning of students by non-school personnel shall be granted only with a court order directing such questioning, with permission of the parents of a student ( or the student if above eighteen [18] years of age), or in response to a subpoena or arrest warrant. If the District makes a report to any law enforcement agency concerning student misconduct or if access to a student is granted to a law enforcement agency due to a court order, the principal or the principal's designee shall make a good faith effort to contact the student's parent, legal guardian, or other person having lawful control by court order, or person acting in loco parentis on student enrollment forms. Principals must release a student to either a police officer who presents a subpoena for the student, or a warrant for arrest, or to an agent of the social services with a court order signed by a judge. Upon release of the student, the principal or designee shall give the student's parent, legal guardian, or other person having lawful control by court order, or person acting in loco parentis notice that the student has been taken into custody by law enforcement personnel or a social services agency. If the principal or designee is unable to reach the parent, he or she shall make a reasonable, good faith effort to get a message to the parent to call the principal or designee, and leave both a day and an after hours telephone number. Legal Reference: A. C.A.  6-18-51 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.16-STUDENT VISITORS Student visitors in the classroom can be disruptive to the educational process. Student visitation is strongly discouraged. Any visitation to the classroom shall be allowed only with the permission of the school principal. Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: ) 4.17-STUDENT DISCIPLINE The North Little Rock School DistrictB oard of Educationh as a responsibilityt o protect the health, safety, and welfare of the District's students and employees. To help maintain a safe environment conducive to high student achievement, the Board establishes policies necessary to regulate student behavior to promote an orderly school environment that is respectful of the rights of others and ensures the uniform enforcement of student discipline. Students are responsible for their conduct that occurs: at any time on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored function, activity, or event\ngoing to and from school or a school activity. The District's administrators may also take disciplinary action against a student for off-campus conduct occurring at any time that would have a detrimental impact on school discipline, the educational environment, or the welfare of the students and/or staff. A student who has committed a criminal act while off campus and whose presence on campus could cause a substantial disruption to school or endanger the welfare of other students or staff is subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Such acts could include, but are not limited to a felony or an act that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, an assault or battery, drug law violations, or sexual misconduct of a serious nature. Any disciplinary action pursued by the District shall be in accordance with the student's appropriate due process rights. The District's personnel policies committee shall review the student discipline policies annually and may recommend changes in the policies to the North Little Rock School District School Board. The Board shall approve any changes to student discipline policies. The District's student discipline policies, printed in the student handbooks, shall be distributed to each student during the first week of school each year and to new students upon their enrollment. Each student's parent or legal guardian shall sign and return to the school the acknowledgement form in the back of the handbook documenting that they have received the policies. It is required by law that the principal or the person in charge report to the police any incidents where a person has committed or threatened to commit an act of violence or any crime involving a deadly weapon on school property or while under school supervision. Legal Reference: AC.A 6-18-502 AC.A 6-17-113 Date Adopted: Last Revised: 4.18-PROHIBITED CONDUCT Students and staff require a safe and orderly learning environment that is conducive to high student achievement. Certain student behaviors are unacceptable in such an environment and are hereby prohibited by the Board. Prohibited behaviors include, but shall not be limited to the following. 1. Disrespect for school employees and failing to comply with their reasonable directions or otherwise demonstrating insubordination\n2. Disruptive behavior that interferes with orderly school operations\n3. Willfully and intentionally assaulting or threatening to assault or physically abusing any student or school employee\n4. Possession of any weapon that can reasonably be considered capable of causing bodily harm to another individual\nS. Possession or use of tobacco in any form on any property owned or leased by any public school\n6. Willfully or intentionally damaging, destroying, or stealing school property\n7. Possession of any paging device, beeper, or similar electronic communication device on the school campus during normal school hours unless specifically exempted by the administration for healih or other compelling reasons\n8. Possession, selling, distributing, or being under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any illegal drug, or the inappropriate use or sharing of prescription or over the counter drugs, or other intoxicants, or anything represented to be a drug\n9. Inappropriate public displays of affection\n10. Cheating, copying, or claiming another person's work to be his/her own\n11. Gambling\n12. Inappropriate student dress\n13. Use of vulgar, profane, or obscene language or gestures\n14. Truancy\n15. Excessive tardiness\n16. Engaging in behavior designed to taunt, degrade, or ridicule another person on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or disability\n17. Hazing or aiding in the hazing of another student\n18. Gangs or gang-related activities, including belonging to secret societies of any kind, are forbidden on school property. Gang insignias, clothing, \"throwing sign \" or other gestures associated with gangs are prohibited\n19. Sexual harassment\nand 20. Bullying. The Board directs each school in the District to develop implementation regulations for prohibited student conduct consistent with applicable Board policy, State and Federal laws, and judicial decisions. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-502 AC.A. 6-15-1005 AC.A 6-21-609 AC.A. 6-18-506 AC.A.  6-18-222 AC.A.  6-5-201 Act 681 of 2003 Cross-References: Prohibited Conduct #I-Policy# 3.17 Prohibited Conduct #2- Policy# 4 .20 Prohibited Conduct #3-Policy # 4.21, 4.26 Prohibited Conduct #4- Policy# 4.22 Prohibited Conduct #5- Policy# 4.23 Prohibited Conduct #8- Policy# 4.24 Prohibited Conduct #12- Policy# 4.25 Prohibited Conduct #14-Policy # 4.7 Prohibited Conduct# 15- Policy# 4.9 Prohibited Conduct# 18- Policy# 4 .26 Prohibited Conduct #19- Policy# 4.27 Prohibited Conduct #20-Policy #4.21A Date Adopted: 12/19/95 Last Revised: 4.19-CONDUCT TO AND FROM SCHOOL Students are subject to the same rules of conduct while traveling to and from school as they are while on school grounds. Appropriate disciplinary actions may be taken against commuting students who violate student code of conduct rules. The preceding paragraph also applies to student conduct while on school buses. The driver of a school bus shall not operate the school bus until every passenger is seated. Disciplinary measures for problems related to bus behavior shall include suspension or expulsion from school, or suspending or terminating the student's transportationp rivileges.T ransportings tudentst o and from school who have lost their transportationp rivilegess hallb ecome the responsibilityo f the student's parent or legal guardian. Legal Reference: A. C.A.  6-19-119 (b) Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.20-DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL No students hall by the use of violence,f orce,n oise,c oercion,t hreat,i ntimidationf, ear,p assive resistanceo, r any other conduct,i ntentionallyc auset he disruptiono f any lawfulm ission,p rocess,o r functiono f the school,o r engagei n any such conductf or the purposeo f causingd isruptiono r obstruction of any lawful mission, process, or function. Nor shall any student encourage any other student to engage in such activities. Disorderlya ctivitiesb y any studento r group of studentst hat adverselya ffectt he school's orderly educationale nvironments hall not be tolerateda t any time of schoolg rounds.T eachersm ay remove from class and send to the office of the principal or principal's designee a student whose behavior is so unruly, disruptiveo, r abusivet hat it seriouslyi nterferesw ith the teacher's abilityt o teach the students,t he class, or with the ability of the student's classmates to learn. Students who refuse to leave the classroom voluntarilyw ill be escortedf rom the classroomb y the schoola dministration. Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-18-511 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.21-STUDENT ASSAULT OR BATTERY A student shall not threaten, physically abuse, or attempt to physically abuse, or behave in such a way as to be perceived to threaten bodily harm to any other person (student, school employee, or school visitor). Any gestures, vulgar, abusive or insulting language, taunting, threatening, harassing, or intimidating remarks by a student toward another person that threatens their well-being is strictly forbidden. This includes, but is not limited to, fighting, racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual slurs. Furthermore, it is unlawful, during regular school hours, and in a place where a public school employee is required to be in the course of his/her duties, for any person to address a public school employee using language which, in its common understanding, is calculated to: a) cause a breach of the peace\nb) materiallya nd substantiallyi nterferew ith the operationo f the school\nc ) arouse the person to whom it is addressed to anger, to the extent likely to cause imminent retaliation. Students guilty of such an offense may be subject to legal proceedings in addition to student disciplinary measures. Legal Reference: AC.A 6-17-106 (a) Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgmi, BB gun, rifle, pellet gmi, razor, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, numchucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentally brought a weapon to school including a weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a firearm shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendation for a student on a case-by-case basis. Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understand said laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. The parents or legal guardians shall sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: A.CA 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) A.C.A.6-17-113 20 uses  8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.23-TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS Smoking or use of tobacco or products containing tobacco in any form (including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and snuff) in or on any property owned or leased by a District school, including school buses, is prohibited. Students who violate this policy may be subject to legal proceedingsi n additiont o studentd isciplinarym easures. Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-21-609 Date Adopted: 7 /24/90 Last Revised: 4.24-DRUGS AND ALCOHOL The North Little Rock School District recognizes that student alcohol and other drug use is illegal and harmful and can seriously impair capacity to learn and to function effectively in our schools Therefore, the North Little Rock School District prohibits the possession, use, distribution or sale of such substances. Further, the North Little Rock School District supports a comprehensive program approach which includes, prevention, early identification/referral, intervention, and support/after-care to prevent or disrupt the use of alcohol and other drugs. The services of a certified drug/alcohol counselor are available at no cost to District students and parents. This policy applies to any student who is on school property, who is in attendance at school or at a school-sponsored activity (including any student who has left the campus for any reason and who returns to the campus), or whose conduct at any time or in any place interferes with or obstructs the mission or operation of the school district. It shall be a violation of policy for any student: 1. To sell, supply or give, or attempt to sell, supply, or give to any person any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance listed in this policy. Sell includes the following: Having more than one ounce or any amount packaged in separate bags/containers of any substance listed in this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance listed in this policy. 2. To posses, procure or purchase, to attempt to possess, procure or purchase, to be under the influence of (legal intoxication not required), or to use or consume or attempt to use or consume, the substances listed in this policy or what is represented to the student to be any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student believes to be any of the substances listed in this pol icy. Prohibited substances shall include, but not be limited to: alcohol or any alcoholic beverage\nmarijuana\nany narcotic drug\nany hallucinogen\nany stimulant\nany depressant\nany other controlled (illegal) substance\nany substance, legal or illegal, that alters the student's ability to act, think, or respond\nany other substance that the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy\nor any substance manufactured to look like a substance prohibited by this policy. Any student engaging in any of the activities with any of the prohibited substances listed above shall be subject to the following penalties: A. Use or possession of any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. 1. First violation: The student shall be suspended to the Argenta In School Suspension Class (ASA() for a minimum of ten (10) school days. The police may be called. Proof of professional help is required when the student returns to school, and a parental conference is required prior to readmission. 2. Second violation: The student shalt be expelled for the remainder of the school year. B. Selling or buying on school property any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. 1. The police will be summoned. 2. The student will be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Any student suspended or expelled in accordance with this policy shall be required to seek professional counseling prior to readmission to school. The student must receive full counseling through District approved professional counseling services at his/her own expense. Upon readmission, continued enrollment shalt be contingent upon completion of the alcohol/ drug counseling program. Failure to complete the alcohol/drug counseling may be grounds for expulsion. Page 2 of 2 4.25---STUDENTD RESSA ND GROOMlNG The North Little Rock Board of Education recognizes that dress can be a matter of personal taste and preference. At the same time, the Districth as a responsibilityt o promotea n environmentc onducivet o student learning. This requires limitations to student dress and grooming that could be disruptive to the educational process because they are immodest, disruptive, unsanitary, unsafe, could cause property damage, or are offensive to common standards of decency. The Superintendent shall establish student dress codes for the District's schools that are consistent with the above criteria and are included in the student handbook. Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.26-GANGS AND GANG ACTIVITY The Board is committed to ensuring a safe school environment conducive to promoting a learning environment where students and staff can excel. An orderly environment cannot exist where unlawful acts occur causing fear, intimidation, or physical harm to students or school staff. Gangs and their activitiesc reate such an a1mospherea nd shall not be allowed on school groundso r at school functions. The following actions are prohibited by students on school property or at school functions: I. Wearing or possessing any clothing, bandanas,jewelry, symbol, or other sign associated with membership in, or representative of, any gang\n2. Engaging in any verbal or nonverbal act such as throwing signs, gestures, or handshakes representative of membership in any gang\n3. Recruiting, soliciting, or encouraging any person through duress or intimidation to become or remain a member of any gang\nand/or 4. Extorting payment from any individual in return for protection from harm from any gang. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Students arrested for gang related activities occurring off school grounds shall be subject to the same disciplinary actions as if they had occurred on school grounds. Date Adopted: 4.27-STUDENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT The North Little Rock School District is committed to having an academic environment in which all students are treated with respect and dignity. Student achievement is best attained in an atmosphere of equal educationalo pportunityt hat is free of discriminationS. exualh arassmenti s a form of discrimination that undermines the integrity of the educational environment and will not be tolerated. Believing that prevention is the best policy, the District will periodically inform students and employees about the nature of sexual harassment, the procedures for registering a complaint, and the possible redress that is available. The information will stress that the District does not tolerate sexual harassment and that students can report inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature without fear of adverse consequences. The information will take into account and be appropriate to the age of the students. It shall be a violation of this policy for any student to be subjected to, or to subject another person to, sexual harassment as defined in this policy. Any student found, after an investigation, to have engaged in sexual harassment will be subject to disciplinary action up to, and including, expulsion. Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other personally offensive verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature made by someone under any of the following conditions: 1. Submission to the conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual's education\n2. Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for academic decisions affecting that individual\nand/or 3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantiallyi nterferingw ith an individual's academic performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive academic environment. The terms \"intimidating,\" \"hostile,\" and \"offensive\" include conduct of a sexual nature which has the effect of humiliation or embarrassment and is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it limits the student's ability to participate in, or benefit from, an educational program or activity. Actionable sexual harassment is generally established when an individual is exposed to a pattern of objectionable behaviors or when a single, serious act is committed. What is, or is not, sexual harassment will depend upon all of the surroundingc ircumstances.D ependingu pon such circumstances,e xamples of sexual harassment include, but are not limited to: unwelcome touching\ncrude jokes or pictures\ndiscussions of sexual experiences\npressure for sexual activity\nintimidation by words, actions, insults, or name calling\nt easing relatedt o sexual characteristics\na nd spreadingr umors related to a person's alleged sexual activities. Students who believe they have been subjected to sexual harassment, or parents of a student who believes their child has been subjected to sexual harassment, are encouraged to file a complaint by contacting a counselor,t eacher, Title IX coordinator,o r administratorw ho will assistt hem in the complaintp rocess. Under no circumstances shall a student be required to first report allegations of sexual harassment to a school contact person if that person is the individual who is accused of the harassment. To the extent possible, complaintsw ill be treatedi n a confidentialm anner.L imited disclosurem ay be necessary in order to completea thoroughi nvestigation.S tudentsw ho file a complainto f sexual harassment will not be subject to retaliation or reprisal in any form. Students who knowingly fabricate allegations of sexual harassment shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Individuals who withhold information, purposely provide inaccurate facts, or otherwise hinder an investigationo f sexual harassments hall be subjectt o disciplinarya ctionu p to and includinge xpulsion. Legal References: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 USC 1681, et seq. A.C.A.  6-15-1005 (b) (1) Date Adopted: 8/24/93 Last Revised: 4.28-LASER POINTERS Students shall not possess any hand held laser pointer while in school\non or about school property, before or after school\nin attendance at school or any school-sponsored activity\nen route to or from school or any school-sponsored activity\noff the school grounds at any school bus stop or at any school-sponsored activity or event. School personnel shall seize any laser pointer from the student possessing it and the parent may reclaim it at the close of the school year, or when the student is no longer enrolled in the District 4.28-A-CELL PHONES AND COMMUNICATION DEVICES Students shall not possess any paging device, beeper, telephone, or similar electronic communication device on the school campus during the school day. Students may possess electronic communication devices on a school campus after normal school hours and during extra curricular activities. 4.29 FORM-STUDENT INTERNET USE AGREEMENT Student's Name (Please Print) _______________ Grade Level __ _ School ________________________ Date ___ _ The North Little Rock School District agrees to allow the student identified above to use the District's technology to access the Internet under the following terms and conditions: 1. Conditional Privilege: The student's use of the District's access to the Internet is a privilege conditioned on the student's abiding to this agreement. No student may use the District's access to the Internet unless the student and his/her parent or guardian have read and signed this agreement. 2. Acceptable Use: The student agrees that he/she will use the District's Internet access for educational purposes only. 1n using the Internet, the student agrees to obey all federal and state laws and regulations. The student also agrees to abide by any Internet use rules instituted at the student's school or class, whether those rules are written or oral. 3. Penalties for Improper Use: If the student violates this agreement and misuses the Internet, he/she shall be subject to disciplinary action. 4. \"Misuse of the District's access to the Internet\" includes, but is not limited to, the following: a.. Using the Internet for other than educational purposes\nb. Gaining intentional access or maintaining access to materials which are \"harmful to minors\" as defined by Arkansas law\nc. Using the Internet for any illegal activity, including computer hacking and copyright or intellectual property law violations\nd. Making unauthorized copies of computer software\ne. Accessing \"chat lines\" unless authorized by the instructor for a class activity directly supervised by a staff member\nf. Using abusive or profane language in private messages on the system, or using the system to harass, insult or verbally attach others\ng. Posting anonymous messages on the system\nh. Using encryption software\n1. Wasting the limited resources provided by the school, including paper\nJ. Causing congestion of the network through lengthy downloads of files\nk. Vandalizing data of another user\nI. Obtaining or sending information which could be used to make destructive devices such as guns, weapons, bombs, explosives or fireworks\nm. Gaining or attempting to gain unauthorized access to resources or files\nn. Identifying oneself with another person's name or password or using an account or password of another user without proper authorization\no. Invading the privacy of individuals\np. Divulging personally identifying information about himself7herselfo r anyone else either on the Internet or in an e-mail. Personally identifying information includes full names, address, and phone number\nq. Using the network for financial or commercial gain without District permission\nr. Stealing or vandalizingo f data, equipment,o r intellectualp roperty\ns. Attempting to gain access or gaining access to student records, grades, or files\nt. Introducing a virus to, or otherwise improperly tampering with the system\nu. Degrading or disrupting equipment or system performance\nv. Creating a web page or associating a web page with the school or District without proper authorization\nw. Providing access to the District's Internet Access to unauthorized individuals\nx. Failing to obey school or classroom Internet use rules\nor y. Taking part in any activity related to Internet use which creates a clear and present danger of the substantial disrnption of the orderly operation of the District or any of its chools. 5. Liability for debts: Students and their cosigners shall be liable for any and all costs (debts) incurred through the student's use of the computers or the Internet including penalties for copyright violations. 6. No Expectation of Privacy: The student and parent/guardian signing below agree that if the student uses the Internet through the District's access, that the he/she waives any right to privacy the student may have for such use. The student and the parent/guardian agree that the District may monitor the student's use of the District's Internet Access and may also examine all system activities the student participates in, including but not limited to e-mail, voice, and video transmissions, to ensure proper use of the system. The District may share such transmissions with the student's parents/guardians. 7. No Guarantees: The District will make good faith efforts to protect children from improper or harmful matter which may be on the Internet. At the same time, in signing this agreement, the parent and student recognize that the District makes no guarantees about preventing improper access to such materials on the part of the student. 8. Signatures: We, the persons who have signed below, have read this agreement and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement. Student's Signature: -----------------------'Date _____ _ Parent/Legal Guardian Signature: _______________ Date ___ _ 4.29-COMPUTER USE POLICY The North Little Rock School District makes computers and/or computer Internet access available to students, to permit students to perform research and to allow students to learn how to use computer technology.U se of Districtc omputersi s for educationala nd/or instructionalp urposes only. It is the policy of this Districtt o equip each computerw ith Internetf ilte1ings oftware designedt o prevent users from accessing material that is hannful to minors. No student will be granted Internet access until and unless a computer-use agreement, signed by both the student and the parent or legal guardian (if the student is under the age of eighteen [18]) is on file. The current version of the computer use agreement form is incorporated by reference into board policy and is considered part of the student handbook. Students are advised that they enjoy no expectation of privacy in any aspect of their computer use, including e-mail, and that monitoring of student computer use is continuous. Students who misuse District-owned computers or Internet access in any way, including using computers except as directed or assigned by staff or teachers, using computers to violate any other policy or contrary to the computer use agreement, attempting to defeat or bypass Internet filtering software, or using the computers to access or create sexually explicit or pornographic text or graphics, will face disciplinary action, as specified in the student handbook and/or computer use agreement. Legal References: 20 USC 6801 et seq. (Children's Internet Protection Act\nPL 106-554) AC.A 6-21-107 AC.A 6-21-111 Date Adopted: 4.30-SUSPENSION FROM SCHOOL Students not present at school cannot benefit from the educational opportunities the school environment affords. Administrators,t herefore,s hall strivet o find ways to keep studentsi n school as participantsi n the educational process. There are instances, however, when the needs of the other students or the interests of the orderly learning environment require the removal of a student from school. The Board authorizes school principals or their designees to suspend students for disciplinary reasons for a period of time not to exceed ten (10) school days, including the day upon which the suspension is imposed. The suspension may be in school or out of school. Students are responsible for their conduct that occurs at any time on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school-sponsored function, activity, or event\nand/or going to and from school or a school activity. A student may be suspended for behavior including, but not limited to that which: 1. Is in violation of school policies, rules, or regulations\n2. Substantially interferes with the safe and orderly educational environment\n3. School administrators believe will result in the substantial interference with the safe and orderly educational environment\nand/or 4. Is insubordinate, incorrigible, violent, or involves moral turpitude. The school principal or designee shall proceed as follows in deciding whether or not to suspend a student: 1. The student shall be given written notice or advised orally of the charges against him/her\n2. If the student denies the charges, he/she shall be given an explanation of the evidence against him/her and be allowed to present his/her version of the facts\n3. If the principal finds the student guilty of the misconduct, he/ she may be suspended\nand 4. The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of the student shall have the right to appeal a building level decision as outlined in the student handbook. When possible, notice of the suspension, its duration, and any stipulations for the student's readrnittance to class will be given to the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) prior to the suspension. Such notice shall be handed to the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) or mailed to the last address reflected in the records of the District. Generally, notice and hearing should precede the student's removal from school, but if prior notice and hearing are not feasible, as where the student's presence endangers persons or property or threatens disruption of the academic process, thus justifying immediate removal from school, the necessary notice and hearing should follow as soon as practicable. Out-of-school suspensions shall be treated as unexcused absences and during the period of suspension students shall not be permitted on campus exceptt o attend a student/parent/administratocro nference. In-school suspension shall be treated as if the student was present at school. If a student is assigned to Student Assignment Classes (SAC) three times during a school year, any subsequent serious misbehavior will result in the student being suspended off campus for a maximum of ten days. The student shall not attend any school-sponsoreda ctivitiesd uring the imposed suspensionn or shall the student participatei n any school-sponsoreda ctivities.W hile under suspensions tudents shall not be eligible to participate in, practice for, or attend any student activity whether during or after the school day. These activities include both Vespers and graduation. Suspensions initiated by the principal or his/her designee may be appealed to the Superintendent, but not to the Board. Suspensionsi nitiatedb y the Superintendentm ay be appealedt o the Board. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-507 Goss v Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.31-EXPULSION The Board of Education may expel a student for a period longer than ten (10) school days for violation of the District's written discipline policies. The Superintendent may make a recommendation of expulsion to the Board of Education for student conduct deemed to be of such gravity that suspension would be inappropriate, or where the student's continued attendance at school would disrupt the orderly learning environment or would pose an unreasonable danger to the welfare of other students or staff. The Superintendent or his/her designee shall give written notice, sent by registered or certified mail, to the parents or legal guardians (mailed to the address reflected on the District's records) that he/she will recommend to the Board of Education that the student be expelled for the specified length of time and state the reasons for the recommendation to expel. The notice shall give the date, hour, and place where the Board of Education will consider and dispose of the recommendation. The hearing shall be conducted not less than three (3) calendar days not more than seven (7) calendar days following the date of the notice, except that representatives of the Board and student may agree in writing to a date not conforming to this limitation. The President of the Board, Hearing Officer, or other designated Board member shall preside at the hearing. The student may choose to be represented by legal counsel. The hearing shall be conducted in open session of the Board unless the parent requests that the hearing be conducted in executive session. Any action taken by the Board shall be in open session. During the hearing, the Superintendent will present evidence, including the calling of witnesses that gave rise to the recommendation of expulsion. The student, or his/her representative, may then present evidence including statements from persons with personal knowledge of the events or circumstances relevant to the charges against the student. Formal cross-examination will not be permitted. However, any member of the Board, the Superintendent, or designee, the student, or his/her representative may question anyone making a statement and/or the student. The presiding officer shall decide questions concerning the appropriateness or relevance of any questions asked during the hearing. The Superintendent shall recommend the expulsion of any student for a period of not less than one (I) year for possession of any firearm or other weapon prohibited on school campus by law. The Superintendent shall, however, have the discretion to modify the expulsion recommendation for a student on a case-by-case basis. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. The parents or legal guardians shall sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. The Superintendent and the Board of Education shall complete the expulsion process of any student that was initiated because the student possessed a firearm or other prohibited weapon on school property regardless of the enrollment status of the student. Legal Reference: AC.A  6-18-507 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.32-SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND INTERROGATIONS The District respects the rights of its students against arbitrary intrusion of their person and property. At the same time, it is the responsibility of school officials to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all students emolled in the District in order to promote an environment conducive to student learning. The Superintendent, principals, and their designees have the right to inspect and search school property and equipment. They may also search students and their personal property in which the student has a reasonable expectation of privacy, when there is reasonable suspicion to believe such student or property contains illegal items or other items in violation of Board policy or dangerous to the school community. School authorities may seize evidence found in the search and disciplinary action may be taken. Evidence found which appears to be in violation of the law shall be reported to the appropriate authority. School property shall include, but not be limited to, lockers, desks, and parking lots, as well as personal effects left there by students. When possible, prior notice will be given and the student will be allowed to be present along with an adult witness, however, searches may be done at any time with or without notice or the student's consent. A personal search must not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Such personal searches shall be conducted by a school official of the same sex as the student being searched with an adult witness of the same sex present. Pat-down searches may be conducted upon reasonable suspicion, as may metal detector searches. Items of clothing, other than such outer garments as overcoats, jackets, sport coats, shoes and socks, may not be requested to be removed. The Superintendent, principals, and their designees may request the assistance oflaw enforcement officials to help conduct searches. Such searches may include the use of specially trained dogs. Questioning of students by non-school personnel shall be granted only with a court order directing such questioning, with permission of the parents of a student ( or the student if above eighteen (18] years of age), or in response to a subpoena or arrest warrant. If the District makes a report to any law enforcement agency concerning student misconduct or if access to a student is granted to a law enforcement agency due to a court order, the principal or the principal's designee shall make a good faith effort to contact the student's parent, legal guardian, or other person having lawful control by court order, or person acting in loco parentis on student enrollment forms. Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-18-513 Date Adopted: 8/27 /96 Last Revised: 4.33-STUDENTS' VEHICLES Students who have presented a valid driver's license and proof of insurance to the appropriate office personnel, may drive their vehicle to school. Vehicles driven to school shall be parked in the area designated for student parking. Students are not permitted to loiter in parking areas and are not to return to their vehicles for any reason unless given permission to do so by school personnel. It is understood that there is no expectation of privacy in vehicles in parking areas. Drivers of vehicles parked on a school campus will be held accountable for illegal substances or any other item prohibited by District policy found in their vehicle. Students in grades seven and eight are permitted to ride motorcycles to school but are not allowed to drive cars. The school cannot be responsible for stolen property or damage to vehicles. Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 4.34-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND PARASITES Students with communicable diseases or with parasites shall demonstrate respect for other students by not attending school while they are contagious. In some instances, a letter from a health care provider may be required prior to the student being readmitted to the school. The parents or legal guardians of students found to have live lice or nits will be asked to pick their child up at school. The parents or legal guardians will be given information concerning the eradication and control of head lice. Before students may be readmitted following an absence due to head lice, the school nurse or designee shall examine the student to make sure they are free of any lice or nits. Each school may conduct screenings of students for head lice as needed. The screenings shall be conducted in a manner that respects the confidentialityo f each student. Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.34A-HIV, AIDS General Principles Recognizing the increasing incidence ofHN positive, AIDS, and other blood borne pathogen cases in Arkansas, the North Little Rock School District affirms it's belief in education as a major tool in combating the spreading of such infections. The critical lack of knowledge about these infections, and the discrimination against victims of these diseases require the District to provide age-appropriate, accurate, and current information to all North Little Rock School District staff and students. HN is not spread by casual, everyday contact. Therefore, unless the student or employee has a serious secondary infection that may be transmitted to others or has a significant health problem that will permanently restrict his/her ability to attend class or to work, infected students or employees shall attend the school and classroom or retain the position to which they would be assigned as if they were not infected. Nothing in this policy implies or mandates disclosure ofHN/AIDS status of students or staff. They are entitled to all rights, privileges, and services accorded to other students/employees. Decisions about any changes in the education program of an infected student or the job assignment of an infected employee shall be made on a caseby- case basis, relying on the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. There shall be no discrimination in employment based on having an HN infection or AIDS. No school employee shall be terminated, non-renewed, demoted, suspended, transferred, or subjected to adverse action based solely on the fact that he/she is infected with HN ( or is perceived to be infected). School employees who are unable to perform their duties due to an illness, such as those related to HN, shall retain eligibility for all benefits that are provided for other school employees with long-term diseases or disabling conditions. The District shall administer a program of on-going education about HN for students and all school employees, including full-time, part-time, and temporary professional and support staff to ensure that all are informed in a consistent manner about the nature ofHN infection, including how it is and is not transmitted according to current scientific evidence, District policies and procedures related to employees and students with diseases such as HN infection, resources within the District and elsewhere for obtaining additional information or assistance, and procedures to prevent the spread of all communicable diseases at school. Evaluating Students and School Staff Members Who Are Infected with HIV HIV infection is not transmitted casually\ntherefore, it is not in itself, a reason to remove a student or staff member from school the Superintendent who has been notified that a student or staff member is infected with HN shall ensure the safety of persons in the school setting and to plan to support the person with the illness. In the case of HIV, the Superintendent shall determine whether the person who is infected with HIV has a secondary infection, such as tuberculosis, that constitutes a recognized risk of transmission in the school setting. This is a medical question, and the Superintendent shall answer it by consulting with the infected person's physician, a qualified public health official who is responsible for such determinations, and the infected person and a student's parent or guardian. This group shall also discuss ways that the school may help anticipate and meet the needs of the student or staff member infected with HIV. If there is no secondary infection that constitutes a medically recognized risk of transmission in the school setting, the Superintendent shall not alter the education program or job assignment of the infected person. However, the Superintendent or his/her designee shall periodically review the case with the infected person (and student's parent or guardian) and the medical advisors described above. If there is a secondary infection that constitutes a medically recognized risk of transmission in the school setting, the Superintendent shall consult with the physician, public health official, and the infected person (and student's parent or guardian). If necessary, they will develop an individually tailored plan for the student or staff member. Additional persons may be consulted, if this is essential for gaining additional information, but the infected staff member, or the parents or guardian of a student, must approve of the notification of any additional persons who would know the identity of the infected person. The Superintendent should consult with the school attorney to make sure that any official action is consistent with federal and state law. When the Superintendent makes a decision about the case, there shall be a fair and confidential process for appealing the decision. If an individually tailored plan is necessary, it shall have minimal impact on either education or employment. It must be medically, legally, educationally, and ethically sound. The Superintendent shall establish guidelines for periodic review of the case and shall oversee implementation of the plan in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, including due process and appeal. Confidentiality The people who shall know the identity of a student or school staff member who is infected with HIV are those who will, with the infected person and a student's parent or guardian, determine whether the person who is infected with HIV has a secondary infection that constitutes a medically recognized risk of transmission in the school setting. They are as follows: 1. The Superintendent, or a person designated by the Superintendent to be responsible for the decision, and 2. The personal physician of the infected person. Notification of Additional Persons The decisionmakers listed above and the person infected with HN ( and a student's parent or guardian) will determine whether additional persons need to know that an infected person attends or works at a specific school. The additional persons will not know the name of the infected person without the consent of the infected person and student's parent or guardian. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the following persons may know about the person who is infected with HN, but do not know his/her identity: 1. The school nurse, and 2. The school principal or designee. Additional persons may be notified if the Superintendent and personal physician of the infected person feel that this is essential to protect the health of the infected student or staff member, or if additional persons are needed to periodically evaluate or monitor the situation. Consent for notifying these additional persons must be given by the infected person (and a student's parent or guardian). Confidentiality All persons shall treat all information as highly confidential. No information shall be divulged, directly or indirectly, to any other individuals or groups. All medical information and written documentation of discussions, telephone conversations, proceedings, and meetings shall be kept by the Superintendent in a locked file. Access to this file shall be granted only to those persons who have the written consent of the infected staff member or the infected student's parent or guardian. To further protect confidentiality, names will not be used in documents except when this is essential. Any document containing the name, or any other information that would reveal the identity of the infected person, will not be shared with any person, not even for the purposes of word processing or reproduction. Any school staff member who violates confidentiality will be disciplined according to policy and procedures. Testing Mandatory screening for communicable diseases that are not spread by casual, everyday contact, such as HN infection, shall not be a condition for school entry or attendance, or for employment or continued employment. Infection Control The District shall follow the most current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) \"Universal Precautions for Prevention of Transmission of Human hnmunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Other Bloodbome Pathogens in Health-Care Settings.\" As prescribed by CDC guidelines, training about techniques for preventing the spread of infectious diseases shall be comprehensive and shall be provided for students and staff. The Superintendent shall be responsible for the effective implementation of these training programs and procedures which shall be developed in collaboration with local or state health agencies and be a part of the District's safety program. The facility shall be cleaned and decontaminated after any incident involving blood or other potentially infectious materials. All equipment and contaminated work surfaces shall be decontaminated immediately or as soon as feasible after any spill of blood or other potentially infectious materials. Contaminated sharps, such as needles, broken glass, knives, etc., shall be placed in a sharps container for disposal. Date Adopted: 8/27 /96 4.35-STUDENt MEDICATIONS Prior to the administration of any medication to any student under the age of eighteen (18), written parental consent is required. The consent form shall include authorization to administer the medication and relieve the Board and its employees of civil liability for damages or injuries resulting from the administration of medication to students in accordance with this policy. Unless authorized to self-administer, students are not allowed to carry any medications while at school. The parent or legal guardian shall bring the student's medication to the nurse, or in the absence of a nurse, to the principal' s office. The student may bring the medication if accompanied by a written authorization from the parent or legal guardian. Medications, including those for self-medication, must be in the original container and be properly labeled with the student's name, the ordering provider's name, the name of the medication, the dosage, frequency, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Additional information accompanying the medication shall state the purpose for the medication, its possible side effects, and any other pertinent instructions (such as special storage requirements) or warnings. Non prescriptive medications may be given to students upon the decision of the principal or the nurse. Such medications must be in the original container, clearly labeled and accompanied by a written authorization form signed by the parents or legal guardians that includes the student's name, the name of the medication, the dosage, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Non prescriptive medications will not be given for more than one week without a written doctor's order. All medications must be administered in the school office or other designated area. The student must swallow the oral medication in the presence of the adult administering the medication. Inhalers must be used in the presence of an adult. The school is not responsible for any reactions caused by medications which are properly administered. If questions arise a medication, school personnel have the right to call the doctor/pharmacist regarding the medication. The school shall not keep outdated medications or any medications past the end of the school year. Parents shall be notified ten (10) days in advance of the school's intention to dispose of any medication. Medications not picked up by the parents or legal guardians within the ten (10) day period shall be destroyed by the nurse with a witness present. Reference: Arkansas State Board of Nursing: School Nurse Roles and Responsibilities Date Adopted: 12/19/95 4.35 FORM-MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION CONSENT FORM Student's Name (Please Print) ----------------------- Medications, including those for self-medication, must be in the original container and be properly labeled with the student's name, the ordering provider's name, the name of the medication, the dosage, frequency, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Additional information accompanying the medication shall state the purpose for the medication, its possible side effects, and any other pertinent instructions (such as special storage requirements) or warnings. I hereby authorize the school nurse or his/her designee to administer the following medications to my child. Name(s) of medication(s) ______________________ _ Name of physician or dentist (if applicable) ________________ _ Dosage ______________________________ _ Instructions for administering the medication ----------------- Other instructions --------------------------- I acknowledge that the District, its Board of Directors, and its employees shall be immune from civil liability for damages resulting from the administration of medications in accordance with this consent form. Parent or legal guardian signature --------------------- Date ------- 4.36-STIJDENT ILLNESS/ ACCIDENT If a student becomes too ill to remain in class and/or could be contagious to other students, the principal or designee will attempt to notify the student's parent or legal guardian. The student will remain in the school's health room or a place where he/she can be supervised until the end of the school day or until the parent/legal guardian can check the student out of school. If a student becomes seriously ill or is injured while at school and the parent/legal guardian cannot be contacted, the failure to make such contact shall not unreasonably delay the school's expeditious transport of the studentt o an approp1iatem edical care facility.T he school assumes no responsibilityf or treatment of the student. When available, current, and applicable, the student's emergency contact numbers and medical information will be utilized. Parents are strongly encouraged to keep this information up to date. A written report shall be made of all injuries requiring medical attention. One copy shall be sent to the Director of Student Affairs and one retained by the school. Date Adopted: I 1/18/99 Last Revised: 4.37-EMERGENCY DRILLS All schools in the District shall conduct fire drills at least monthly. Tornado drills shall also be conducted at least annually. Other types of emergency drills may also be conducted. These may include, but are not limited to: 1. Earthquake\n2. Act of terrorism\n3. Chemical spill\nand/or 4. Airplane crash. Legal Reference: AC.A. 12-13-109 Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Date Revised: 4.38-PERMANENT RECORDS Permanent school records, as required by the Arkansas Department of Education, shall be maintained for each student emolled in the District until the student graduates or is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance. A copy of the student's permanent record shall be provided to the receiving school district upon the transfer of the student to another district. Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.39-CORPORAL PUNISHMENT The North Little Rock School Board prohibits the use of corporal punishment by any employee of the District against any student. Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-18-505 (c)(l) Date Adopted: '2/1/91 Last Revised: 4.40-HOMELESS STUDENTS The North Little Rock School District will afford the same services and educational opportunities to homeless children as are afforded to non-homeless children. The Superintendent or his/her designee shall appoint an appropriate staff person to be the local educational liaison for homeless children and youth whose responsibilities shall include coordinating with the state educational liaison for homeless children and youth to ensure that homeless children are not stigmatized or segregated on the basis of their status as homeless and such other duties as are prescribed by law and this policy. Notwithstanding Policy 4.1-RESIDENCE REQUIRMENTS, homeless students living in the District are entitled to enroll in the District's school that non-homeless students who live in the same attendance area are eligible to attend. If there is a question concerning the enrollment of a homeless child due to a conflict with Policy 4.1 or 4.2-ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS, the child shall be immediately admitted to the school in which enrollment is sought pending resolution of the dispute. It is the responsibility of the District's local educational liaison for homeless children and youth to carry out the dispute resolution process. The District shall act, according to the best interests of a homeless child and to the extent feasible do one of the following: 1. Continue educating the child who became homeless between academic years or during an academic year in their school of origin for the duration of their homelessness\n2. Continue educating the child in his/her school of origin who became permanently housed during an academic year for the remainder of the academic year\nor 3. Enroll the homeless child in the school appropriate for the attendance zone where the child lives. For the purposes of this policy \"school of origin\" means the school the child attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child was last enrolled. If the District elects to enroll a homeless child in a school other than his/her school of origin and such action is against the wishes of the child's parent or guardian, the District shall provide the parent or guardian with a written explanation of their reason for so doing which shall include a statement of the parent/guardian's right to appeal. In any instance where the child is unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, the District's local educational liaison for homeless children and youth shall assist the child in determining his/her place of enrollment. The liaison shall provide the child with a notice of his/her right to appeal the enrollment decision. The District shall be responsible for providing transportation for a homeless child, at the request of the parent or guardian ( or in the case of an unaccompanied youth, the liaison), to and from the child's school of origin. For the purposes of this policy, students shall be considered homeless if they lack a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence or one of the following: 1. Sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason\nliving in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations\nliving in emergency or transitional shelters\nabandoned in hospitals\nor are awaiting foster care placement\n2. Having a primary night-time residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings\n3. Living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings\nor 4. Are migratory children who are living in circumstances described in 1 through 3. Legal References: 42 U.S.C.  11431 et seq. 42 U.S.C.  11431 (2) Date Adopted: 42 U.S.C.  11432(g)(l)(H)(I) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(l)(J)(i), (ii), (iii), (iii)(I), (iii)(ll) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(3)(A), (A)(i), (A)(i)(I), (A)(i)(II), (A)(ii) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(3)(B)(i), (ii), (iii) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(3)(C)(i), (ii), (iii) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(3)(E)(i), (ii), (iii) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)(3)(G) 42 U.S.C.  11432 (g)( 4) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) 42 U.S.C.  11434a 4.41 FORM-OBJECTION TO PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OR SCREENINGS I, the undersigned, being a parent or guardian of a student, or a student eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby note my objection to the physical examination or screening of the student named below. Physical examination or screening being objected to: Vision test __ Hearing test Scoliosis test __ Other, please specify _________________________ _ __ Non-emergency, invasive physical examination as defined in Policy 4 .41 Comments: Name of student (Printed) Signature of parent ( or student, if 18 or older) Date form was filed (To be filled in by office personnel) 4.41-PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS OR SCREENINGS The North Little Rock School District may provide from time to time for the administration of physical exams or screenings of its students. The intent of the exams or screenings shall be to detect contagious or infectious diseases or defects in hearing, vision, or other elements of health that would adversely affect the student's ability to achieve to their full potential. The District shall notify parents, at least annually, of the specific or approximate dates of any nonemergency, invasive physical examination or screening that is: 1. Required as a condition of attendance\n2. Administered by the school and scheduled by the school in advance\nand 3. Not necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of the student, or of other students. For the purposes ohhis policy, \"Invasive Physical Examination\" is defined as any medical examination that involves the exposure of private body parts, or any act during such examination that includes incision, insertion, or injection into the body, but does not include a hearing, vision, or scoliosis screening. Except in instances where a student is suspected of having a contagious or infectious disease, parents shall have the right to opt their student out of the exams or screenings by using form 4.41 FORM or by providing certification from a physician that he/she has recently examined the student. A student may be required to pass a physical exam before being allowed to participate in certain extracurricular activities to help ensure they are physically capable of withstanding the rigors of the activity. If a student so desires, he/she may use the family physician for this examination, but the expense shall be borne by the parents. It is understood that students who refuse to take such an exam will not be allowed to participate in the desired activity. The rights provided to parents under this policy transfer to the student when he/she turns 18 years old. Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-18-702 (b), (c), (f) 20 USC 1232h (c) [NCLB Act of 2001, Part F, Section 1061 (c) (l)(D), (2)(A)(i)(ii)(B)(C)(iii)(I)(II)(III()4, )(B)(ii),( S)(B), (6)(B)(C)] Date Adopted: 6/26/86 Last Revised: 4.42-STUDENT HANDBOOK It shall be the policy of the North Little Rock School District that the most recently adopted version of the student handbook be incorporated by reference into the policies of this District. In the event that there is a conflict between the student handbook and a general board policy or policies, and the student handbook is more recently adopted than the general board policy, the student handbook will be considered binding and controlling on the matter. Date Adopted: .. 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environm\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_952","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/952"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["16 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS of R SEP2 1999 Off\\C0 ~ITTO noI G DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level 1998-99 Francical J. Jackson Director of Student Affairs 3f: DIS03Z ::ite: 6/02/99 ime: 15:13:07 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------- -----NBM----- -----NBF------ # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ... r.- STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S. A. C. 1801 5.3. 91/, 662 25.8% 547 16. 4~'. 132 .3 .. 9Y. 3:342 666 410 278 94 144.8 0 HOME SUSP. 511 67.9% 125 16.6% 104 13.8% 13 1. 7\"/4. 753 269 78 67 10 424 1 BOYS CLUB 515 65.8% 148 18. 91/. 112 14. 3\n. 8 1. or. 783 278 92 73 6 449 2 E. I. C. 0  1)% 0 . 0% 0 . or. 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 6 54. 51. 5 45.5% 0 . 01/. 0 . 01. 11 6 5 0 0 11 -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S. A. C. 1450 52. 41/. 719 26. 0'1/. 460 16. 61/. 138 5, 01/. 2767 604 356 257 95 1312 (I HOME SUSP. 574 65.2% 150 17.0:t~ 135 1 S. 3i~ 22 2. Si~ 881 Z Q ':l ' ~ 90 71 14 468 1 BOYS CLUB 363 58. 5'1/. 148 23. 8'1/. 88 14. Z'l. 22 3. 5'1/. 621 207 97 68 16 382 2 E. I. C. 216 50.5% 106 29. 71/. 29 8. 1 '1/. 6 1 ~ 7~~ ':le\n'-, ._.w I 118 52 24 6 2(\n(i 7 EXPULSION 7 63. 6'1/. 2 18. 2i'. l 9. 1 'l. 1 9 ~ l i'. 11 7 2 1 1 11 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(~/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 351- 1s. 5-1. 143- 16.6-% 87- 15.9-1/. 6 4.5 \n. 575- 62- 54- 21- 1 136- 0 HOME SUSP. 63 12.3 1. 25 20.0 1/, 31 2S.B ., ,. 9 0 Cl ._, % 12.8 24 12 4 4 44 1 BOYS CLUB 152- 29.5-'I. 0 . o 1./ 2.4- 21.4-'I. 14 17'3.0 1. 162- 71- 5 5- 10 61- 2 E. I. C. 216 21600. 0 \"1: 106 lOEOO.O % 29 2900.0 '!. E, 600.0 1/. ~57 118 52 2.4 E z.oc 7 EXPULSION l 16.7 '1/. 3- 6 0. IJ-1/. l 100.0 '!. 1 100.0 '!. 0 1 3- l 1 0 tef: DIS032 Jate: 6/02/99 'ime: 15: 13: 25 Analysis of D1scipl1nary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Throu2h JUNE 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ,9 S. A. C. 0 HOME SUSP. 1 BOYS CLUB _,,.,_ E. I.C. .7 EXPULSION )9 S.A.C. .0 HOME SUSP. .1 BOYS CLUB 2 E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 737 50. 5:,~ 397 2 7 6 2i~ 273 190 111 63. 4'1/, 3 , ~ 1 7. 7'1/. 43 14 221 7 2. o~-~ '\"\"\\\"'7 ..:, ( l ~ 1 ~I. 124 29 0 . Oi'. 0 . (Ii'. a (I l 16.7'1/, 5 83.31/. l 5 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 665 50. 6~1 265 91 65. 0% 47 122 58.4% 87 0 . 0% 0 C,J, 7 l. 4'/, C' J -----BF------ # REF PCTtTOT # STU 347 26. 4'/. 163 17 12. 1 1. 11 41 19. 6i'~ -,~ - ~ 0 . 01. C, l 14. '.ii~ 1 267 18. 3~-~ 58 4. o:-~ 131 44 2B 16. (I'/, r.:. ., 2. 9o/. 17 ,,., _ 48 15. 6 .,,. l . ,.:.,., .,. /,\n, 36 l 0 .. (!j~ (I . (1'1/. 0 0 0 . 0% (I ~ Oi~ (I 0 -----NBM----- -----NEF----# REF F~T/TOT # REF PCT/T0T # STU # STU 2.15 16. 2:'\"io 88 E,. 7'/. 115 ,\no 29 20. n. - L.. 1 ~/~ 14. 1 34 16. 3% 12 C 7 ., - . ,. 31 11 0 . (1 :'. I) . o,~ I) 0 l 14. 3,: 0 . Oi~ l 0 1458 S ..,,. .:,o ~75 7S 307 1 sc, (I 0 E, E, 1315 603 140 73 209 2.1:2: . 0 0 7 ., ( --------------------------------------------------------------------------===== COMPARISON ==------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCTc~,-l # STU # STU # STU # STU ===----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 S. A. C. 0 HOME SUSP. l BOYS CLUE .2 E.I.C. . 7 EXPULSION 72- 8- .20- 4 99- 37- (i (I 4 4 o o_., ... . ..... t, 44. 8-'-~ 400. 0 ,. 0- 7- 4- 3- 4 0 (I 4- 4- 10. B i .. . 0 i'. 52- 16- 1 14- 0 (I l l 3. S\n. 30 15 1- 11 10 ,:, C 144- 1100. (1 if: DIS032 ,te: 6/02./99 . me: 15: 13: 19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU S.A.C. 985 55. 01. 455 25.4% 279 1s.s1. 72 4. o,. 1791 358 211 146 48 763 HOME SUSP. 101 64.3% 36 2 2. 91. 17 1 o. a1. 3 1 . 91. 157 46 19 9 3 77 L BOYS CLUB 294 61.8% 111 z3_31. 64 13.4% 7 1. 5/. 476 154 63 37 C, J 259 E. I. C. 0 . oo,~ 0 . 01. 0 .O 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 EXPULSION 5 100. O\"/. 0 . O'f. 0 .0% 0 . O'f. 5 5 0 0 I) 5 l 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 749 54. 3i'. 354 25. 7i'. 226 16. 4% 50 3.6% 1379 316 180 130 35 661 0 HOME SUSP. 100 64. 5i'. .2 3 14. 8i'. 29 18.7i'. 3 1. 9:1, 155 43 10 12. 1 66 l BOYS CLUB Z41 58. 5i'. 107 Z6.0'l. 54 13. li', 10 z. 4 ~,. 412 120 64 37 5 226 2 E. I. C. 0 . o~~ (I . Oi', 0 . Oi'. 0 .O'I. 0 0 0 0 0 (I 7 EXPULSION 2 50. Oi', 1 25.0% 0 . Oi'. 1 zs. o~~ 4 z l 0 l 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-----------------------==---=----------------------------------------------~= 9 S.A.C. 236- '2.4. 0-'I. 101.- 22. 2-'f. 53- 19.0-% 22.- 30. 6-'/, 412- 42- 31- 16- 1. 3- 102- 0 HOME SUSP. 1.- 1.0-% 13- 26. 1-'I. 12 70.6 % 0 . ( \"I. i- 3- 9- 3 2- 11- 1 BOYS CLUB 53- 18. 0-i'. 4- 3. 6-\"/. 10- 15. 6-% 3 42.9 % E4- 34- l I) I) 33- 2 E. I. C. 0 . o , . 0 . 0 % 0 .0 \"I. 0 . (, i'. 0 0 0 0 0 I) 7 EXPULSION 3- 60.0-% l 100.0 i'~ !) .0 'I. 1 100.0 1/. 1- 3- 1 0 1 1- ef: DIS032 ate: 6/02/99 i me: 1 S: 13: 11 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SlJSP. l BOYS CLUB 2 E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION Analysie of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 79 85.9% 10 10. 9'/. l 1.1% 2 2. 2.. /.. 35 9 l 2 299 7L 0% 58 13. a\n. 59 14.0-/. C' .J 1 ') , .... ~\n... /-o 1-80 4 \".J' 41 5 0 . er,~ 0 . 0% 0 .0% t) . I)'/  0 (, 0 0 0 . O'!. 0 . O\"/ 0 .0% 0 . O~r. 0 0 0 0 0 . 01. 0 . 01/. 0 . O'!. 0 . O'I. 0 0 0 0 J. 9 9 8 - 9 9 s 2. 4.7 421 ,1_. .,.I ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/T0T # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S. A. C. 36 49. 3 i', 18 24. 7'1/. 19 26. Oi'. (I (-)\" ,. 73 24 13 1::: 0 49 0 HOME SUSP. 381 6 S. 2i~ 110 18. 8 ., 77 13.2% 16 ,. -, 70,~ 584 ,:_. 202 69 45 l ') ~ 32B 1 BOYS CLUB -0 0% 0 Oi~ 0 . 0~'. 0 . o:,. 0 (I 0 0 (\n- (l 2 E. I. C. 216 60. 5i'. 106 29. 7i'. 29 8. ,., ~ ,. 6 l. '-:\"I l 1,,. 357 118 52 24 6 2(10 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . r 1111 \\.. 0 . O\", . 0 ( .... I ' (! 0 0 0 (I (I COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NEM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # ~EF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTI+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 4 3-- 54.4-% 8 80. 0 1/. 18 1800.0 '/. 2- 100. \\~-/.. l ':-- 11- 4 11 2- ::. I) HOME SUS?. 82 27. 4 .,. 52 8'3. 7 \"\nI. 18 30.5 1. 11 220.0 ,. .i.. b.: 22 24 4 7 cc-, 'JI 1 BOYS CLUE I) . 0 % 0 . o i' ,,-,. .o ''J. 0  (_1 'I, I) 0 0 0 0 C 2 E. I. C. 216 21600. 0 ~I., 106 106-00.0 '!. 23 : 90!: . 0 'I. 6 00. : ., .... c: - ' :} ..,. I 118 52 - ~A E '--,:,c 7 EXPULSION 0 . I) % 0 . I) .. C, . ( .. ,. 0 ,, I, ., ,. 'J I) I) 1) 0 0 - ef: DIS032.S ate: 6/02/99 1me: 15: 13: 31 chool: 012 Analysts of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCTITOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ 9 S.A.C. 153 49.8% 92 30.0o/ .. 47 15. 3i~ 15 4. 9~-~ 307 99 64 38 15 21S 0 HOME SUSP. 6 6 0 ~ C:i~ 3 30.0% l 1 0. O~-'. 0 . o.,.~ 10 2 2 l (I 5 1 BOYS CLUB 44 a 3 .. o~~ 5 9.4~'- 4 7. 5/~ ,-, ,_,  (l~t, 53 33 5 4 (I 42 -~ -\u0026lt;-, E. LC. (I . 0~1\n. 0 .0% (I . O?. (I . 0% (i 0 (I 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi~- 0 I o:/. 0 . Oi'. 0 0 (I 0 (I 0 l 9 5 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REf PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S.A.C. 139 49. E'I. E6 23.7% 63 22. 6% 11 - . 9.,, . 279 9Z 49 42. 10 193 0 HOME SUSP. 4 36. c~ 3 21. n 4 %. 4% 0 . O'/. 11 4 2 4 0 10 l BOYS CLUe ?3 58. 9' 1 13 2 3. 21. 9 l!:. 1-,,., 1 1. 8 ,, \" !3 6 2. 4 11 9 1 4': L\". E. I.C I) . c:\no!I 0 . Oo/, 0 . O\"l. 0 0~.' I) 0 0 0 I) C 7 EXPULSION 1 SO. Ci~ I) .0% l :: (). 01. I) . 01/. 2 l IJ l (I 2 COMPARISON ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ -----EM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NDF ----- # REF PCTC+/-1 # REF PCTl+/-1 # fiEF PCT1+/-) # REF PCT(+l-l # STU # STU # STU ~ ST~ ==-------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. l BOYS CLUB 2 E. I.(: .. 7 EXPULSION 14- 7- 2 11- 9- 0 0 1 l 3 3. 3 -i~ 26- 15- 0 (l 8 6 (I (! Cl 0 16 4 3 3 (, (\nl l 34. 0\n'., 300.C % l 0(!. (: ',-~ 4- 5- (I (I l 1 0 c, (1 r_, .1..COIi) .... ~ef: D!S032S )ate: 6/02/99 rime: 1 S : .t 3: 4 .t ,chool: 013 Analysis of D1scipl1nary Actions by Sclrnol From AUGUST Throuih JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 583 SO. Si~ 307 26. 61/ .. 220 19~1~-~ ~4 3. 8~1 J.154 175 129 93 3 (I Jt --,~ .i.-:.:.., ,' LO HOME SUSP. 3 75. O~,~ 0 . Oi'o 1 25. O~.t: 0 . 01/. 4 3 (I l 0 4 ll BOYS CLUB 177 6 9. 7i~ 32 12. 6~\n44 17. 3'1/. L' ~ 4 \",: 254 !.l. ' 24 32 1 148 l2 E. I. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O~\"o (I # o~~ 0 .0% 0 0 0 (I 0 0 .7 EXPULSION l 16, 7% 5 83.3'.I. 0 .O 0 . (Ii~ E: l 5 0 0 6 ==------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- : _________________1 _9_ _9_ e_ _-__9 _s_ ____________________________________ ________________ -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT.tTOT # STU -----NEF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ==------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 S.A.C. 506 5 0. !?'I. 272 27~31/. 140 1 -,,1.. l'i, 7. - I 7. 71/. 995 166 112 67 51 396 0 HOME SIJSP. 4 100.01. 0 . 01/. 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 2 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLUB 89 58. 2:~ 28 18. 'l .. , J ,. c...,.\".\n:6. 3% l.t 7. z..,,. 153 64 22 22 10 112 2 E. I.C 0 . t)/. I) . 01. 0 . 01. 0 . o-\n. ( 0 I} 0 I) c, 7 EXPULSION 3 75. 1)1/. 1 2.5. 01. (j . (11 ~ (~ 0 . 01o 4 3 l 0 0 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=-====- COMPARISON ===--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCTC~/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF ?CTC+/-l # REF PCT+.-\u0026gt; # STU  STU # STU # STU ====----------------=--==========================-==--=---------------~======== 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSF. l BOYS CLUB 2. E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION 77- 9- 1 J.- 88- 27- 0 (i .0 20(. Cl :~ 17- (1 (I 4- 2.- (! c, 4- 4- B0- 26- 1- 1- 1 ?- 10- I) 0 (J (' ., ~ ...:\n.. ,-:..,.,. - ,,, 33 ::.1 (I (I (\n( (: (' 1 .-,_. ,.'. . ..- 3C- ef: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ate: 6/02/99 by School ime: 15: 13: 45 From AUGUST Through JUNE ChQol: 020 ARGENTA ACADEMY 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0  O\"/, 0 . 01. 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 l 0 HOME SUSP. 186 64.1% 57 19.7\"!\n40 13.8% 7 2,. 4~~ 290 70 2 5 21 4 120 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% I) .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . 01. 0 . O'/. 0 . 01. 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION I) .0% 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 I) 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l 9 9 8 - B 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S.A.C. 48 60. 0'1/. 14 l 7. 5i'. 18 22. 5'1/. 0 . 01/. 80 25 9 ll 0 45 0 HOME SUSF. 177 65. li~ 35 12.9% 54 19. 91. 6 2.. 2% 272 79 17 22 2 120 l BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 .0% 0 . Oi~ (l 0 0 0 (I (I 2 E.I.C 0 . 0'1/. (I .0% 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 0 0 (I 0 0 (I 7 EXPULSION l 100. o:-~ (I . o,~ 0 ,, o,~ (I . Oi'. l l 0 0 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCTl+/-) # REF FCTC+/-) # REF PCTl+t-l # REF FCTI+/-) # STU # STU # STU  STU 9 S.A.C. 47 4700.0 ., 14 1400.0 1. 18 1800.0 ., ,. ,. 0 .0 1/. 7S 24 9 ll 0 44 0 HOME SUS?. 9- 4.8-% 2. 2.- 38.6-1/. 14 3!:. 0 1/. 1- 14.3-i~ 18- 9 8- .'. . 2- 0 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 .o 1/, 0 .0 % I) ' I) i'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0 1/. 0 . I. .,, . 0  lj '/. 0 .c % 0 0 0 I) I) 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0 1. 0 .0 ,~ 0 .0 % 0 . (\n., ,. l Ill 1 0 0 0 1 ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99  i me: 15 : 1 3 : 5 2 chool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throuih JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. 1 BOYS CLUB 2 E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 416 55.tn 125 4 40. O\"/, 4 124 62. E'I. 62 0 . o\n, 0 2 100.0% 2 ------BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 209 27. E- 80 3 o\no. o,: 3 41 2.0. 7% 28 I) . Oi', 0 0 ~ O. ,.~. 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCTITG1 # STU # STU 82 12. 2% 35 5.2% 43 2~ 2 20. 01. 1 1 :: .. 01o 2 l 29 14.6% 4 2. Gi. 16 2 0 . 0% 0 . 0~1. 0 0 0 . 0/. 0 ,. Oi~ 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 756 271 10 lG 1se 108 0 !) 2 2 ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 19 s. A. C. 229 56. 81/. 108 26. 8.% 5\n14. 1., I ? L ~ 2~-~ 403 98 ~6 35 8 197 0 HOME SUSP. 3 75. O~l. 1 2s ~ o,~ l) .0% (l 0% 4 .3 1 0 0 4 1 BOYS CLUB 122 63. Si\n46 24. 0 ., /, l? c., Qt - \" .... ' 5 2. ~ 6 ~~ 192 54 28 15 3 100 2 E. I.C 0 Oo/. 0 Oi~ 0 Oi~ (I . o\n: (! 0 0 0 f) (! 7 EXPULSION -. 66. 7.,, 1 33. 3i 1  .:. ,. 0 O'I. 0 . Oi~ \"' 2 1 (I (I '\n/ COMPARISON ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- 19 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. 1 BOY:3 CLUB 2 E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT\\+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(~/-) h REF FCT\\, -I # STU # STU ~ STU ~ ST~ 187- 45. o-,~ 101- 27- 2:4- 1- 25. 0-i~ 2.- 1- .:.- 2.- 1. 6-i'. 5 8- 0 0 t) \"I. 0 0 0 0 . (' ,. 1 0 1 48. 3-1: E.1\n. 7-% l 2:. 2 'I. .0 -\n. 100.0 ,~ 35-- 32. 0-i', 8- 2.-- 100.0-% 1- (: I) 0 0 30- 1.- l . ,, .!. 1. ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 ime: 15:13:55 chool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL l S 9 7 - 9 8 Thrc,u2h JUNE -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ 9 S. A. C. 144 54.5% 74 28.0i', 40 15.2'1/. 6 2. .31)/,. 264 68 40 ,.,...,.. ,... ~\nC 141 0 HOME SUSP. 1 33. 3'1/. 1 33. 3% l 33., 3o/o (l . o~-~ 3 1 1 1 0 3 l BOYS CLUB 41 67. 21/. 16 26.2% 4 6. 6,~ 0 Oi~ 61 2S 9 3 0 ~':l\",' z E. I. C. 0 . O~I. 0 . 0~1 (I .0% 0 0% 0 0 0 (I 0 (I 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi{. 0 . Oo/. 0 .. Oi~ 0 . Oo/, 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S. A. C. 129 54. 0'/4 ,. ' OJ. 25.5% 27 11. 3\"t~ 22 9.2% 239 64 32 21 11 128 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100. Oo/, 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 01, 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 42 72.4% 16 27. s-..~ 0 '0% D '01/. 58 22 9 I) 0 31 2 E. I. C 0 . o,. !) .0% 0 . 01/~ 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi~ 0 .0% 0 . o,~ 0 . O\"',~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : _________________C_O_M_PA_R_IS_O_N_ ______________________________________ _________________ -----SM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTl+/-l # STU # STU # STU # STU :=------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 S.A.C. 15- 10. 4 .- .,, . 13- 17.6-% 13- 32 .. 5-~/I! 16 266. 7 ~/,. 25- 4- 8- 6- 5 13- .0 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 o/. 1- 100. 0-o/. 1- 100. 0-i~ 0 . 0 ,,, !. 0 2 1- 1- 0 (I 1 BOYS CLUB l 2.4 % Ci .0 1/. 4- 100. 0-o/. 0 0 '1/, 3- 3- 0 3- 0 ro - ') E. I. C. 0 . 0 ., 0 0 ~I., 0 0 ., '- 0 . 0 ~Ir. 0 ,. lo 0 (I 0 (I 0 .7 EXPULSION 0 .o '1/, 0 .0 % 0 0 % (! 0 ,, ,. (i 0 0 (! (I 0 ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 1me: 15: 13: 59 chool: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----N8M----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 154 52 .. 21/ir 75 ZS. 4,~ 49 16.6% 17 5.8% 295 66 42 30 11 l4S 0 HOME SUSP. 2 66. 7'/. l 33. 3'l. 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 2 1 0 0 ~ 1 BOYS CLUB 78 63. 9'/. 28 23. 0'i'. 13 10.7% 3 2.5% 1 ,, ., LL 40 19 10 3 72 2 E. I. C. 0 . 0'i'. 0 . Oo/. 0 . 01/  0 . 01/. 0 0 0 (I (I 0 7 EXPULSION 0 (1% (I . 0'i'. 0 . o~~ 0  (J~~ 0 (J 0 0 0 0 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----SM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 134 49. 4\"/. 73 26.9% 56 20.TI, 8 ? . o~,. 271 62 42 30 6 140 0 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0~1. 0 . 0% 0 .0% I) . o-\n. I) 0 0 I) 0 0 1 BOYS CLUB 54 43. 21. 38 30.4% 28 22.4'/. C.,. , 4. 01. 125 30 21 17 z 70 2 E. I. C 0 . I)'/. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 . I)'/, 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===----------------------------------------------------------------------====-= COMPARISON ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----# REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTl+/-l # REF FCT\u0026lt;~f-) # STU # STU  STU # STU ===---------------------=-=========-=======================------------======== 9 S.A.C. 20- 13.0-i: .::- 2. ~ 1 7 14. 3 ., 9- 52.9-,.c 24- I-,,, ,. 4- 0 (I 5- 9- 0 HOME SUSP. ., 100. 0-1/. 1- 100.0-i~ 0 ,C, ., .:.- 1, (! .. \\r. / 'I, ~ 2- l- 0 (! 3- l BOYS CLUB 24- 30. 8-i'. 10 35. 7 ., 15 115. 4 ., \" 66.7 ., ,., lo ,. .:. ,. 10- 2 \"i 1- 2- 2 E. I. C. 0 . o ., 0 .o i'. (i ~ 0 i 0 , . ., ,. . Ct '- ' 0 0 0 (\nC 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 ., 0 .0 ., (I . c, ., ,. ,. (! . C \" Cl I\n, 0 0 (I 0 0 II ef: DIS0-32S ate: 6/02/99 'ime: 15: 14: 08 ,chool: 030 ~nalysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu2h JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 S 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU .\n, \" STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT ,.r .. STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 S.A.C. 271 56. 9'l. 97 20 .. 41/o 98 20 ~ G'l. 10 2. 1 'l. 478 106 51 47 8 212 0 HOME SUSP. 10 83. 3% 2 16.7% 0 ,, 0~1. 0 . 0'1/. 12 '9 2 0 0 11 1 BOYS CLUB 51 53.7'l. 26 27. 4 .,, . 18 HJ. 9:-i: 0 . o,~ 95 3 (l 8 8 0 46 2 E. I. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 01/. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 (I 7 EXPULSION 3 100. 01/. 0 . 01/. () . O~~ (I . 01/. 3 3 0 (I (l 3 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l9 S.A.C. 229 53. 61/. 107 25. 1% 80 18.7% 11 .., \"- 6\"/ 427 88 so 42 10 190 .0 HOME SUSP. 0 .01/. l 100.01/. 0 . 1)1/. 0 . Oi~ 1 0 1 0 0 l 1 BOYS CLUB 23 62.Zi~ 7 18.9% 7 18. 9~'. 0 . 01/. 37 ,, 16 7 s 0 28 ... E. I.C 0 . O'l. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/  0 . o\n. 0 0 0 0 I) I) .7 EXPULSION 0 01/. 0 . O'l. I) . o-a:~ l 100. O'l. l 0 0 0 1 l =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ==------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===----------------------------------------------------------------------------- j9 S. A. C. 42- 15. 5-i~ 10 10.3 ~I. .18- 18. 4-,'. 1 10.C /~ Q_ 18- 1- s- 2 2- LO HOME SUSP. 10- .100.0-i'. 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 .,\n, 0 .o .\n., l- 9- 1- (I 0 0- L1 BOYS CLUB 2.8- 5 4. 9-i'. 19- 7 3. 1-i'. 11- 61. 1-i'. 0 . (1 ., ' 8- . 14- l- 3- (! 8- .., E. I. C. 0 .o ., 0 . 0 '1/. 0 . 0 ., 0 .c ., '\"\" ,. 0 I :. 0 0 0 0 0 l7 EXPULSION 3- 100.0-i'. (I . (I .,,. 0 .o o/. 1 100.0  ,- I 3- 0 (I 1 2.- ,f: DIS032.S ,te: 6/02/99 lme: 15: 14: 11 ::hool: 031 Analysis of Disclpl1nary Act Lons by School From AUGUST Thrcuih JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 ~ Oo/. 0 ~ Oi: (I . O'.,~ 0 . (!~/0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 :J HOME SUSP4 33 68. 8i'. 5 l O. 4i~ 10 20#8~ .~. C , o:,~ d.\nV\n18 5 7 0 30 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . Oi~ 0 . Oi~ 0 . O~I. 0 . o:-: 0 0 0 0 0 (! 2 E. I.C. 0 ~ ()~~ 0 # o/o (I . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 0 (I (I 0 (i 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi~ 0 . o~~ 0 . o:,. (I . Oi'. 0 0 (I (I 0 (I 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----N5M----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF FCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 01/. Ct . !)\"/  ,j I) I) 0 (: (1 0 HOME SUSP. 31 8 ,:: '-' 1 '!. 3 8. 31/. .2. 5. E:1/. 0 . Oi'. ?f 16 3 2 0 21 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . O\"/. 0 .0% I) . Oi'. rj , Oi~ 0 l) 0 0 0 L 2 E. I.C 0 . O'I. I) . I)% 0 . I)'/. 0 '04,', 0 I) 0 I) 0 !~ 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi. I) . O'/. 0 . Oi1 .. (\n. o., 0 l) 0 0 I) c, ===----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ==--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- -----BM------ -----2F------ -----NSM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF Per,~,-, REF PCT(T,-1 # STU ~ STU # STU # STU ==------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 9 r A. C. 0 0 i', 0 r ., (I (J ..\n) 0 . _,\n, 0 0 C, (\n0 0 HOME SUSF. ,, L.- 6. 1 -,.., -... - 40. 0-i'. 8- 80. 0-!~ 0 ~ (! Jr ..!.2 - .-:.-. -. 5- c, ~ 9- l BOYS CLUB (I (I .. (I (! ~I,. 0 0 ., C, I ,. 0 0 (! C 2 E. I. C. 0 Cl ,, .,. 0 ') ~,. c, - ,'. 0 (I 0 (I (I C 7 EXPULSION (I 0 i'. 0 0 ..,. . [! (I ~,. C, (I (I 0 C - ef: DIS032S 6/02/99 15:14:11 ate: ime: chool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----Bi:\n------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT ft. REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU F. STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------R-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .O 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUS?. 6 85. 71. I) . O'I. 1 14.3% 0 . 01/. 7 s 0 1 0 6 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01/, 0 . O'!  0 ~ Oi~ 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . O'I. 0 .. 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT \",, REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .O'I. 0  (J~I 0 . Ct% 0 Oi'. 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 HOME SUSP. 3 42~9r~ 0 . (lo/. 4 57. 1 .,,, 0 .0% 7 2 0 l 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 . Oi~ 0 . Oi', 0 . Oi: (I 0 (I 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 01/, 0 . (11/. 0 (Ii'. 0 CI\" 0 0 0 0 (I 0 7 EXPULSION 0 0 .,, . 0 01/. (I 0% 0 . O'I. 0 0 0 0 (I (I =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NEM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . o '!  0 .0 'I. I) . 0 1/. 0 .0 ,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3- S0.0-'/. 0 .0 1. - 300.0 % 0 .0 '/. 0 _\n)- 0 I) n 3- 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % I) .0 'I. 0 . I) ~1. 0 . 0 ~,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .o 1/, 0 . I) % 0 .0 1. 0 . 0 % I) 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . !) '/ . 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'I. 0 .0 1/, 0 0 0 I) I) 0 ~ef: DIS0.32S \u0026gt;ate: 6/02/99 1me: 15:14:14 :chool: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NB~----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------- ,9 S.A.C. 79 s s. e1. 8 9.0% 35 7 0 HOME SUSP. 46 76.7% 12 20.0% 24 6 1 BOYS CLUB 0 ' 0'/4 0 . O'\u0026lt;/ ,, 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 . o~~ 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 9 S. A. C. 3 60.01/. 1 20. Oo/. 3 1 0 HOME SUSP. 107 8 ,, L., ~,1\u0026gt;1 ~ l11 21 16. 2% 57 12 l BOYS CLUB 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oo./ 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 . 0~1. 0 . Oi', 0 (I 7 EXPULSION (I .0% 0 ~ o:.~ 0 0 1 1. n. 1 2 :3 .. 3~/4, 2 0 ,. 0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 . O\"/... 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1 20. Cl'.!. l 0 ~ O~J,, 0 0 . Oi~ (I (I . Oi~ 0 0 . 01. 0 1 1. l\"!., 1 0 ~ Oi~ 0 0 . 01. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 .O I) -----NBF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% (i ,, 1 t=/ !. .l ., ,.\n/0 1 0 ,0% 0 0 . 01~ 0 0 .0% 0 89 44 60 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 130 70 (I (i 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------~----------------------------------------- COMPARISON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 76- 96.2-% 7- 87,5-% 0 . 0 1/ 1- 100. 0-% 84- 32- 6 0 1- 39- 0 HOME SlJSP. 61 132.6 '/4 9 75.0 % 2- 100.0-% 2 200.0 'l. 70 33 6 2- 1 3 8 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . !)  !) . 0 % 0 .0 o/. I) .0 % 0 0 0 I) 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0 i~ 0 .0 ./4 0 . 0 \"/. I) .0 ~~ I) 0 0 I) 0 I) 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % I) .0 4/~ 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 I) 0 0 0 0 ef: D!S032S ate: 6/02/99 1me: 15:14:16 c::hool: 035 Analysis of D1scipl1nary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu~h JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------~------------------------------------------ l 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # .STU ,_,.,,. STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S. A. C. 0 . 0i', 0 . 01. 0 . 0i', 0 . 0i', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 81. 5i', 3 11.l'l. 2 7. 41/. 0 . O'l. 27 16 3 1 0 20 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . o.,~ 0 .0'I. 0 ,. o~~ 0 .. o:/ .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. (I ~ o~~ 0 . Oi'. 0 .. o~J .. 0 . (Ii'. 0 0 0 (I 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . Qj~ 0 . Oi', 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. (I 0 0 0 0 0 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ l 9 9 6 - 9 9 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF FCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT -U REF FCT/TOT TT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 1 100.0'I. 0 . o,~ 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 1 1 I) I) 0 1 0 HOME StJSP. 23 65. 71. 12 34.3'1. 0 .O'I. 0 .0% 35 13 11 0 0 24 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . o:~ 0 . O'l. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 I) 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 116 57. 7'1. 82 40.6'1. 3 1. 5,~ 0 . 0% 201 51 33 '3 0 87 7 EXPULSION I) . 0'1. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 . 0'I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==---------------------------------------------------------------------====-==- COMPARISON =----------------------------------------------------------------------------== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # fi:EF FCT\u0026lt;+J-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;~,-\u0026gt; # STU\n. STU # STU # STU ==-============================================================================ 9 S.A.C. 1 100.0 1/. 0 .0 i'. 0 0 ., ,. 0 . c 1/ 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 HOME SUSP. 1 4. 5 ., 9 300.0 ,. .,,. z- 100. 0-i~ 0 (I .,... s 3- 8 1- (l 4 l SOYS CLUB 0 0 i', 0 ,o % 0 0 ., ' 0 (, 1/. (l (l 0 C, 0 0 2 E. I. C. 116 0 '1/. 82 .o ., 3 (! ., 0 . 0 ., i, 201 ,. ,. 116 82 3 0 S7 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0 t. 0 .o ., (I .0 ., ,. ,. (I 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 (i   ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 ime: 15:14:19 chool: 037 Analysis of Disc1pl1nary Actions by Sr.:hool From AUGUST Throuih JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 O\",~ 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 26 74. 3% 7 20.0% 1 2.9% 1 2. 91. 35 19 7 1 1 28 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . O'l. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 .. o~~ 0 . 1)% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Oi'. 0 .0% 0 Oi', 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S.A.C. -0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. Cl .0% 0 . Oi'  (I 0 (I 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 36 80. (Ii~ 6 13. 3~~ 2 4. 4% 1 2  2~o 45 27 5 2 l 35 l BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 . Oi~ (I . 01/. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E.I.C 64 72. 71/. 15 l 7. Oi~ 5 5.7\"1. 4 4 . 51/. 88 39 11 5 4 59 7 EXPULSION 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01. 0 . Oi~ (I (J (J (I (I (I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 .0  I) .0 % 0 .0  I) . l) 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 HOME SUSP. 10 38.5  1- 14.3- l 100.0 'I. 0 .0 1. 10 8 2- 1 I) 7 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'I, 0 .0 1. 0 . 0 1./ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 64 .o i'. 15 .0 1. 5 . 0 1/ 4 . ~) '!. 88 64 15 5 4 59 .7 EXPULSION I) .o i'. 0 . 0 \"!. 0 .0 ., ,. 0 .0 '/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~  D1S032S Analysis of Discipllnary Actions 6/02/99 by School 15:14:20 From AUGUST ThrOUQh JUNE 040 MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.A.C. HOME SIJSP. 1 BOYS CLUB E. I. C. EXPULSION 9 S.A.C. (I HOME SUSP. l BOYS CLUB 2 E.I.C 7 EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 . 01. 0 . O'I. 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 40 8 0. 01/. 2 4. o\n. 7 14.0% 1 2.0% 13 2 5 1 0 . 01. 0 . o\n. 0 . OJ~ 0 .. o,~ 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 . 0\"/4 I) .0% 0 . 0 i'. 0 0 0 0 0 . O'I. 0 . o\n. I) . 01/. I) . 01/. 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF--~-- -----NBM----- -----NPF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi', 0 . Oi'. 0 . O~~ 0 0 0 (I 47 73.4i~ 6 9. 4'/. 5 7. 8'1\nE, S.4% 23 6 -4 3 0 . Oi~ 0 .0% 0 . Oi~ 0 .0% 0 (I 0 (\n0 . o:: 0 . Oi'. 0 . o~.1. 0 . (lj~ 0 0 (I 0 0 . Oi', 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi'. (I (\u0026lt;'/ 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT\\+/-) # REF PCTl+/-) # REF PCTl+/-1 # REF PCTl+/-l # STU # STU # STU # STU I) 0 50 21 0 0 0 G 0 0 (i 0 E, 4 3b 0 (i (\n0 (! (I =--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . I) 1. 0 .0 '/. I' .0 'I. 0 .0 'I. 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 7 17. 5 1/. 4 200.0 % 2- 2 8. E,-'. 1 5 ::oo.i:,. '.I. 14 10 4 1- 2 15 1 BOYS CLUB 0 ~ 0 .. ,. 0 . I) 1. 1)  (! % 0 ) 1/, I) 0 0 I) I) I} 2 E. I. C. 0 .0 ., I) . I) 1/. 0 . o .. ,. ,. I) % t) 0 I) 0 lj \\} 7 EXPULSION I) . I) 1/. I) .0 % 0 . (! .,,. 0 '1:, ,, C l) I) 0 (' .. ,.\nif\nDIS032S 1te: 6/02/99 . me: 15: 14: 21 :hool: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throu2h JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ~ S.A.C. I) .0% I) .0% 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) HOME SlJSP. ~r -.\u0026gt;o 69. 2.41. 0 .0% 14 2 6. 91. 2 3.8% 52 23 0 8 2 33 1 BOYS CLUB 0 , 04/ .. 0 . I)'/. 0 . Cl!. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . 01/. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 I) 0 0 I) 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----N8M----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU .,..u STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . o~~ 0 .0% 0 . Oi', 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 28 50. Oi'. 2 3. 6i', 25 44. Si'. l l. 8% 56 16 2 18 l 37 l BOYS CLUB 0 .O (I . O\"' 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C 10 35. 71/. 3 10. n. 14 SO. Oi', l 3. 6i'. 2B 9 2 10 l ..,.., .:...\u0026lt;.. 7 EXPULSION 0 . Oi'o 0 .0% 0 . o~~ 0 . Oi~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCTC+/-) # REP PCTl+/-1 # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .o 'I. 0 .o 1. 0 0 0 I) I) 0 0 HOME S1JSP. 8- 22. 2-'/. 2 200.0 1/. 11 78.6 '/. 1- 50. 0-i'. 4 7- 2 10 1- 4 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/, 0 .0 '/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 l) 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 10 .0 1. 3 . 0 '/. 14 .0 % 1 .o '.I. 2.8 10 3 14 1 , , ~'- 7 EXPULSION I) . 0 1/, 0 .0 '!. 0 .0 % 0 .o 1/. 0 0 I) I) 0 0  ef: DIS032S s.te: 6/02/99 ime: 15: 14: 21 chool: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throush JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NSM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # P.EF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT /TOT # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01. 0 .O 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 J HOME SUSP. 15 57.7 7 26.9% 4 15. 41/. 0 .O 26 11 7 2 0 20 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .O !) . o,~ 0 . O\"/. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . Oi'. 0 .O 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . I) 0 . 0~'. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 0 . O'l. (I 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 67.6i'. 7 20. 6i', 2 5. o, -. 5. 9 ., - /o .:,, ,. 34 16 5 2 ,-,. Z:3 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . Oi', 0 . Oi', 0 . 0'1/. 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. r.c 0 . O'l. 0 . Oi'. (I . Oi'. 0 0'1. 0 0 0 0 0 (I 7 EXPULSION 0 .Oi'. (I . Oi'. (I .O'I. 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--------------------------=-----=------------------------=====--============ COMPARISON ===--------------------------------------------------------------------======-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-1 # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTC~/-1 # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-------------------------------------------------=-=-=--------------========= 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 \"I. 0 . I) 'I. 0 . I) \"I  0 . I) 1/. 0 0 0 I) 0 ,-. 0 HOME SIJSP. 8 53.3 1/. 0 .o 1/. 2- 50. 0-1/. 2 200.0 ., ,. 8 5 2- 0 2 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0  0 .0 \"/. 0 . 0 1/. I) . C .,,. C 0 0 0 0 I) 2. E. I. C. 0 .o 'I. 0 .0 % I)  '  0 . 0 1. 0 I) I) 0 0 I) 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 'I. I) .o 1/. 0 . I) 1. I) . I) 1/. 0 0 I) I) 0 0 ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 1me: 15:14:22 chool: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Throuih JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S.A.C. 0 . 01. 0 .. 01o 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 33 54. 1% 12 19.7% 15 24.6% 1 Le 61 25 6 12 1 44 l BOYS CLUB 0 . O'I. 0 .0% 0 . ot. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .O'I. 0 . 0% 0 . 01. I) .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S. A. C. (I . Oi~ 0 . O'l, 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'l. (I 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 52 41. 3'1/. 40 31. 7i~ 3 (I 23~8o/. 4 3. 2'1/. 1.2 6 24 15 12 4 c\nc v..J l BOYS CLUB 0 . (1'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 ,, O~,~ 0 . o~~ 0 (I 0 (I (I (! 2 E. I.C 21 50. Oi~ 6 l 7. l '1/. 7 20.0'I. 1 2. 9'1/, 35 15 5 6 1 28 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. (I . 0'1/. (I . 0'1/ 0 0 0 (I 0 0 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NEM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU . rf STU ==--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . I) % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 1. 0 . I) % I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUS?. 19 57.6 1/. 28 233.3 % 15 100.0 % 3 300.0 1/. 65 1- 9 0 3 11 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 !) \"I  0 0 0 0 0 I) 2 E. I. C. 21 . I) '1/ 6 . I) 1/. 7 . l) % 1 .0 .,,. ~ c_\n)~ 21 6 7 l 28 .7 EXPULSION 0 .o t. 0 .0 '/4 0 . I) 1. 0 .o 1/, n 0 0 !) 0 0 II ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 i me: 15: 14: 2 3 chool: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- #. , REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT rr STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 .0% I) . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 11 84.6% 1 7.7% 1 7.7% 0 .0% 13 9 1 1 0 11 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 .0% I) .0% 0 . O\"/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. c. 0 .0% 0 . O'I. 0 .0% 0 . 01/  0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT ,-,#. REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 . o:~ 0 . 01/  0 . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 HOME SUSP. 17 7 3. 9'1/. ,, 8. 7~~ 4 17.4% 0 . 01/. 23 L., 12 z 2 (I Hi 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'I. 0 . o~~ 0 .0% 0 . 01/, 0 (I 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 4 100.01/. 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 . o~~ 4 4 0 0 0 4 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 , O~~ 0 . Oi', 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCTC+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------= 9 S.A.C. I) .0 % 0 .0 1/, 0 .0 % 0 .0 'I. 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 HOME SIJSP. G 54.5 1/. 1 100.0 'I. 3 300.0 'I. 0 .0 '/, 10 3 1 1 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . I) % 0 .0 % 0 .c % C, 0 I) 0 0 C 2. E. I. C. 4 . 0 1/. 0 . 0 ,~ 0 .0 'I. 0 . 0 1/ 4 4 0 0 0 4 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0 1/. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 'I. 0 0 0 I) 0 0  Ill H: DIS032S ,te: 6/02/99 ,me: 15:14:23 :hool: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCTITOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 . I)'/. 0 , O'/. I) .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) HOME SUSP. s 83 ~ 3:.,~ 1 16.7% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 6 4 1 0 I) 5 l BOYS CLUB 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .. 04\n~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . 01. 0 . O'I. 0 . 0% 0 . OY  0 I) 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 01/. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 9 S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. (I . Oi1  0 .0% (I . 01. ( (I 0 0 0 C 0 HOME SUSP. 4 44. 4i~ 4 4 4. 4\n~ l 11. li~ 0 . (I'\n? l ., l (I 4 .. 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01/. 0 . o:/: 0 . Oi'. 0 .. Oi\"\" r, () (I (I (I (i 2 E. r.c 0 . 01/. (I . o~~ 0 . (1% (! ~ o~~ 0 (I (I (l 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . o~-~ 0 r1tt/  \\.J\u0026amp;, (I . Oi~ 0 .. (,/, 0 i) (I 0 0 I) COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCTl+/-) # REF FCTl+/-l # REF FCTl+/-1 # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'I. 0 . I) % 0 .c \"I. 0 0 I) I) 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1- 20. 0-'l. 3 300.0 1/~ l lOO.O 'I. 0 .(! /. 3 3- l - 0 1- 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . I) .. I) .0 1/ lj .0 ., 0 : ., ,, ,. C lo 0 0 I) 0 ) 2. E. I. C. C . I) 'l, I) .C ~-'~ 0 .0 ., 0 I} ., ,. ,. (I 0 I) t) 0 C, 7 El{PULSION 0  I) ., ,. 0 ,o .,, , C . {: ~'- 0 0 'I. :) 0 I) 0 0 !)   ef: DIS032S ate: 6/02/99 ime: 15: 14: 23 chool: 046 Analysis of D1sc1plinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 B ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -----BM------- -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NB!:\u0026lt;----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /T')T # REF PCT/TOT r.ur REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU .,, STU # STU ff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 s. A. C. 0 HOME SUSP. 1 BOYS CLUB 2 E. I. C. 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 0 . 0~'. 0 . o,. I) 0 0 0 9 81.8% 2 18. 21. 0 \" ()~I. 0 .0% 6 2 0 0 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 .. Oi~ 0 . 01. 0 0 I) 0 0 . O'l. 0 .0% 0 . 0'I. 0 .0% I) 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 ~ o~/. 0 . (j'/, 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----EM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 I) 11 8 0 0 0 () 0 I) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 s. A. C. 0 Oi'. 0 ( . ,., .. , 0 010 0 Oi~ 0 0 0 0 0 G (I HOME SUSP. 3 60. o~. 2 40. 0 ., ,. 0 o~~ (1 O'\nC., ., 3 z 0 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Q~/0 (I 0 .,,. 0 0~1. (I (I~-~ 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 2 E. I.C 0 01. 0 0i', 0 0 .,,. 0 01/, 0 (J 0 0 (I 7 EXPULSION 0 Oi'. 0 o~~ (I Oi'. 0 (lo/. C (I (I 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT,+1-1 # REF PCTl~/-l  ~EF PCTI+/-) R REF PCT1~1-) # STU # STU # STU # STU )9 s. A.C. 0 0 % I) . 0 'l. !j I} \n. 0 . I) ., I, I) 0 0 (i 0 r: .0 HOME SUSP. 6- 6 6. 7--/. 0 . 0 \"I. (, . i) 1 () .,,, 6- 3- 0 0 () ,_ .1 BOYS CLUB 0 .o ,\n0  I) % 0 .'J ., ,. () ( o/. C 0 0 . ) 0 I) .2 E. I.C. 0 C ~-. 0 . I) \" i: :) ., 0 ,- ., ,. ,. ,.- ,, i) 0 I) 0 C ,.,, .7 EXPULSION 0 .o % 0 .0 o/, (i 0 ,. G !:i 'l.\n) I) 0 ::, 0 tj ,f: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 1te: 6/02/99 by School .me: 15:14:24 From AUGUST Through JUNE\nhool: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 3 S.A.C. I) .0% 0 . 01. 0 0 ) HOME SUS?. 17 68.0% 6 24. O\"/. 12 6 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% I) 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 l 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----EF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU I) . o/4 0 2 8.0% 2 0 .0% 0 0 . 01. 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----- .u REF PCT/TOT \" # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 . 01. 0 0 .0% I) 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S. A. C. 32 47. 8% 17 25.41. 18 26~9% Cl . Oi'. 67 21 12 11 (I 44 0 HOME SUSP. 7 50. 0~1 5 35. 7 .,,. 2 14. 3i'. 0 . O'l. 14 5 4 2 0 11 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . O~-~ 0 . O~t. 0 . (11/, 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 1. 100. Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 0 . Oi'. 1 J. 0 (I 0 l 7 EXPULSION 0 O~I. 0 . Oi'. 0 0 .,. ., 0 .0% (I 0 0 0 0 0 ==----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 S.A.C. 32 3200.0 \"I. 17 1700.0 % 18 1\u0026amp;00.0 \"I. 0 .0 % S7 21 12 11 0 44 .0 HOME SUSP. 10- 58.8-% 1- 16.7-'I. G . I) 1/, 0 .o % 11- 7- 2- I) 0 9- .1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 i'. I) .0 % I) .o ,~ 0 . I) ,. 0 0 0 I) 0 I) .2 E. I. C. 1 .0 1/. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'I. 0 .0 'l. l 1 0 0 0 1 L7 EXPULSION C, . 0 1. 0 . 0 1. I) .0 % l) .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ II  lf: DIS03ZS ite: 6/02/99 tme: 15:14:25 :hool: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4---------- 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NEM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 S.A.C. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 u HOME SUSP. 0 . 0% 0 O'I. 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 I) 0 1 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'I. 0 . 01. 0 . 01. 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% I) . 01. I) . I)'!. 0 . o\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT ,-rU STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 ,. ., 0 . Oi~ 0 . 01/. (I (I 0 0 (I (I 0 HOME SUSP. 2 100. 01/. 0 , 01/. 0 .0% (I 0'1/. 2 2 0 0 0 .., ,:. 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 o,~ (I .0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 . 01/. 0 0.,, . (I . o~~ 0 , o,: 0 0 0 (I (I 0 7 EXPULSION 0 . 01/. 0 . Oi'. 0 . 01/, 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-1 # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-------------------------==============================--=-------=--========= 9 S.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % I) .o % 0 0 0 I) 0 I) 0 HOME SUSP. 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o 'I. I) .0 % 2 2 0 0 I) 2. 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .o % 0 .0 % i) .0 % 0 .0 ., ,. 0 0 I) I) l) 0 2 E. I. C. 0 . o 1/, 0 .0 '!. I) .0 % 0 .0 1/ 0 0 0 0 0 I) 7 EXPULSION I) .0 % 0 . t) % 0 .0 % 0 .0 ,~ I) 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public School,s Analysis of Disciplinary Actions SchooIYear1998-1999 GRAPHS         ii North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: S.A.C. BM BF NBM NBF -- --- ----- -- -- Ill 97-98 1801 862 547 132 --- --- ---- l'i'.l9 8-99 1450 719 460 138 Action 11: Boys Club II 97-98 fZl 98-99 600 ~------------~ 500 300 200 100 0 - - - BM -- 515 - 363 BF NBM NBF - -- 148 112 8 ------- 148 88 22 Action 10: Home Suspension 700 ~--------------, 600 1------------------, 500 400 300 200 100 - 0 II 97-98 [\\\\1 98-99 BM BF NBM NBF 511 125 104 13 574 150 135 22 Action 12: Alt School Susp (K-5) 250 ~------------~ 200 II 97-98 ii\nzJ9 8-99 50 0 BM 0 216 BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 106 29 6 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 8 7 - 6 5 4 3 - 2 1 0 E97-98 I BM -I 6 98-99 7 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High School Level Action 09: S.A.C. 800 .-------------~ 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  97-98 Bl 98-99  97-98 D 98-99 BM 737 665 BM 221 122 BF NBM - . NBF - 397 267 58 - 347 215 88 Action 11: Boys Club BF NBM NBF - - 37 48 1 - 41 34 12 Action 10: Home Suspension 120 ~-------------~ 100  97-98 ~ 98-99 60 20 0 BM BF NBM NSF -- - 111 31 28 5 91 17 29 3 Action 12: Alt School Susp (K-5) 0.8 1-----------------\u0026lt; 0.6 1---------------- 0.4 1------------------j 0.2 1------------------j 0\u0026gt;----------------' North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High School Level  97-98 1!391 8-99 Action 17: Expulsion 6 ~---------~ 5 ,-__.....,.,....-- 4 3 0 BM 1 5 BF 5 1 NBM NBF - 0 0 1 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle School Level Action 09: S.A.C. 1200 ,--------------~ 1000 800  00 200 0  97-98 Im 98-99 BM r 985 l 749 BF - NBM N--BF 455 279 72 - --- 354 226 50 Action 11: Boys Club 350 ,--------------~  97-98 m 98-99 300 250 200 150 50 0 I J I BM I 294 i 241 ! BF NBM NBF - 111 64 7 107 54 10 -- Action 10: Home Suspension 120 ,---------------, 100 80 60 20 0 - BM BF -- NBM NBF I--- --- C-~  97-98 101 36 17 3 I~ 98-99 100 23 29 3 Action 12: Alt School Susp (K-5) 0.8 1---------------1 0.6 1---------------1 o.  1---------------1 0.2 1--------------- 0 '---------------- BM BF NBM NBF - - - - -  97-98 0 0 0 0 ~ ---- ---- 1198-99 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle School Level  97-98 - ~- 98-99 Action 17: Expulsion 6 ~---------~ 5 4 3 2 0 BM 5 2 -- BF - 0 1 NBM NBF - - 0 - 0 - 0 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary Level  97-98 flJ 98-99  97-98 Ill 98-99 Action 09: S.A.C. ! BM BF NBM NBF I - -- 79 10 1 2 - --- ! 36 18 19 0 Action 11: Boys Club 0.8 -----------------! 0.6 ,-----------------\u0026lt; 0.4 0.2 t-------------- 0 '----------------' l BM i BF NBM NSF I - - I 0 0 0 0 I - I 0 0 0 0 Action 10: Home Suspension 500 ~------------~ 400 t-----===--------------1 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF - --- -- --  97-98 299 58 59 5 I! 98-99 381 110 77 16 Action 12: Alt School Susp (K-5) 250 ,------------------, 200 \u0026gt;------is., Tf-------------j 100 ---  97-98 0 98-99 50 1--j':q :c1:i---1,.:-,,\n,.iq---------1 0 1-----\"-=\"-----\"-'--\"'\"\"\"---\"-\"'\"-'=-~==-' BM BF NBM NBF - -- - - -- - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - ------- 216 106 29 6 - North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary Level  97-98 m 98-99 Action 17: Expulsion 0.8 1--------------J 0.6 1-------------1 0.4 1-------------l 0.2 1---------------l o,____ _________ ___, i BM BF - NBM II NBF- 0 0 0 0 ~ - r- - i 0 0 0 I 0 Nort.hL ittlieR ock Pub.UcS chools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions SchooIYear1998-1999 Six Year Comparison         North Little Rock Public Schools Disciplinary Actions 6 Year Comparison Action 09: Student Assignment Class (S.A.C.) C  2000 .::it:. rn I- 1500 (/) C 1000 0 - +-' 0 \u0026lt;( 500 - 4-- 0 0 :it: Ethnic Group/Gender BM - - - BF - - - -- NBM I NSF -- -  93-94 977 - 529 449 I 156 - --- - -- ---- - --- -- 11:!194-95 869 460 411 I 126 D 95-96 1052 - - 446 - - :\n~ - 4-- ~~ ----  96-97 1264 - -- 55 m 97-98 1801 - - -862 - - -- -547 -----1-- -- 132 ____  98-99 1450 - - - 719 -- --- 460 -1----138 ---- North Little Rock Public chools DisciplinaryA ctions 6 Year Comparison  93-94 IEI 94-95 D 95-96  96-97 111917 -98  98-99 Action 10: Home Suspensions C 700 ~------------------------, ~ 600 I-----.=--------------------, ~ 500 ---,~S:I~ ~ 400 f---t',!\u0026gt;ll:I .!: 300 1-------1\n}_ 200 - o 100 =t:t: 0 BM 231 236 162 591 511 574 Ethnic Group/Gender II North Little Rock Public Schools Disciplinary Actions 6 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club C 600 ~ 500 l---------lT7\"ll------------------------, ro ._.. 400 (/) 5 300 l----1 Ethnic Group/Gender BM - BF - _, ____ NBM ____ NBF ___  93-94 119 - 39 - - 39 9 +-- ----- ----- 11!:91 4-95 133 - - 44 - 31 8 -t-- --- -- ---- D 95-96 334 - - 82 - 72 ---- 12  96-97 357 -- 146 - 85 20 ~ ------ 1197-98 -- 515 - 148 - 112 8 - --- ---- --~ - .. - -----  98-99 363 148 88 22 North Little Rock Public Schools DisciplinaryA ctions 6 Year Comparison Action 12: Alt School Suspension (K-5)  93-94 In 94-95 D 95-96  96-97 fl 97-98  98-99 C 2000 r-------------------------, Q) .Y ~ 1500 1----------~ en  1000 1----- ......, u ~ 500 1-----, 4- 0 =it - -- BM 168 178 - 1563 -- 154 - 0 216 Ethnic Group/Gender -- --- BF -- NBM NSF 54 45 8 - - 68 58 5 - --- 492 510 --- 71 - - - -- 30 32 3 ------0 0 0 -- 106 29 6   Iii ii ii ii North Little Rock Public Schools DiscipHnaryA ctions 6 Year Cornpariso,n Action 17: C 8 0) ..:ii::'. ro 6 - I-en C 4 0 ~ 0 \u0026lt;l'.'. 2 4- 0 =tt 0 Expulsions Ethnic Group/Gender BM BF NBM --- ---- -  93-94 ------- 6 4 3 lilil9 4-95 ----- 7 0 1 D-- 95---9- 6 -- 2 1 0 ----- ----- --- ill 96-97 -------- 3 7 0 I-'l-l- 9--7-98 --------- --- 6 5 0  98-99 7 2 1 NBF 0 0 2 0 0 1\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_435","title":"Equitable allocation of resources","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Equitable allocation of resources"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/435"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nAll Levels Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO ST A. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students 1.000 -.325* -.376** .120 -.183 .274 -.257 .122 -.085 -.404** .269 -.137 .024 .008 .417 .213 .059 .078 .408 .565 .004 .065 .352 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.325* -.376** .120 -.183 .274 -.257 1.000 .826** -.554** .826** 1.000 -.455** -.554** -.455** 1.000 .468** .407** -.252 -.285* -.365* .241 .135 .453* .170 .468** .407** -.252 1.000 -.131 .020 -.285* .135 -.265 -.522** -.071 -.152 -.497** -.365* .453** -.226 -.561** -.135 -.239 -.552** .241 .170 .135 .281 -.056 .066 .435** -.131 .020 -.158 -.282 -.017 -.190 -.036 1.000 -.068 -.197 .149 -.061 .258 -.047 -.068 1.000 .088 -.091 -.133 -.222 -.038 .024 .008 .000 .417 .213 .059 .078 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .004 .083 .049 .011 .099 .359 .001 .248 .001 .004 .083 .376 .892 .049 .359 .069 .000 .630 .302 .000 .011 .001 .122 .000 .362 .103 .000 .099 .248 .361 .053 .706 .657 .002 .376 .892 .284 .052 .909 .197 .806 .644 .180 .311 .682 .077 .751 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .644 .553 .536 .368 .129 .798 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 6All Levels Correlations COMPUTER EXPEND IT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % T eachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .122 -.085 -.404** .269 -.137 -.265 -.226 .135 -.158 -.197 .088 1.000 .429** .175 -.046 .498** .408 .069 .122 .361 .284 .180 .553 .002 .235 .758 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.522** -.561** .281 -.282 .149 -.091 .429** 1.000 .512 .195 .726** .565 .000 .000 .053 .052 .311 .536 .002 .000 .185 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.071 -.135 -.056 -.017 -.061 -.133 .175 .512** 1.000 .020 .502** .004 .630 .362 .706 .909 .682 .368 .235 .000 .894 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.152 -.239 .066 -.190 .258 -.222 -.046 .195 .020 1.000 .228 .065 .302 .103 .657 .197 .077 .129 .758 .185 .894 .118 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.497* -.552* .435*' -.036 -.047 -.038 .498* .726* .502* .228 1.000 .352 .000 .000 .002 .806 .751 .798 .000 .000 .000 .118 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 7High School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students 1.000 -.541 -.548 -.249 -.735 .270 -.439 .538 -.560 .755 -.582 -.664 .346 .339 .686 .157 .661 .460 .350 .326 .140 .303 .222 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -.541 -.548 -.249 -.735 .270 -.439 1.000 .996** -.564 .996** 1.000 -.593 -.564 -.593 1.000 .402 .347 .487 -.221 -.177 .004 .924* .942* -.599 .402 .347 .487 1.000 -.463 .190 -.221 .924* -.380 .045 .030 .054 -.159 -.177 .942* -.330 .058 -.014 .078 -.179 .004 -.599 -.449 .168 -.494 .508 .749 -.463 .190 -.845 .295 -.311 .362 .682 1.000 .164 -.035 -.716 -.135 .561 -.508 .164 1.000 -.350 -.208 -.032 .256 -.368 .346 .000 .322 .502 .721 .025 .528 .942 .962 .931 .799 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .339 .686 .157 .661 .460 .000 .292 .567 .776 .017 .588 .927 .983 .901 .774 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .322 .292 .502 .567 .405 .721 .776 .995 .025 .017 .286 .405 .995 .286 .448 .787 .397 .382 .145 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .432 .759 .432 .759 .071 .629 .611 .550 .205 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .793 .793 .956 .174 .829 1326 .383 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .563 .737 .959 .677 .542 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 2High School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? % African American Students TE.RATIO STA. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? .538 -.560 .755 -.582 -.664 -.380 -.330 -.449 -.845 -.035 -.350 1.000 .226 .205 -.598 -.328 .350 .528 .588 .448 .071 .956 .563 .714 .741 .287 .590 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .045 .058 .168 .295 -.716 -.208 .226 1.000 -.511 -.122 .743 .326 .942 .927 .787 .629 .174 .737 .714 .379 .845 .151 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .030 -.014 -.494 -.311 -.135 -.032 .205 -.511 1.000 -.766 -.665 .140 .962 .983 .397 .611 .829 .959 .741 .379 .131 .221 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .054 .078 .508 .362 .561 .256 -.598 -.122 -.766 1.000 .320 .303 .931 .901 .382 .550 .326 .677 .287 .845 .131 .599 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -.159 -.179 .749 .682 -.508 -.368 -.328 .743 -.665 .320 1.000 .222 .799 .774 .145 .205 .383 .542 .590 .151 .221 .599 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 3Junior High School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO ST A. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students 1.000 -.550 -.615 .531 -.641 -.726* -.704 .418 -.488 -.722* -.372 -.479 .158 .104 .176 .087 .042 .051 .303 .220 .043 .365 .230 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.550 -.615 .531 -.641 -.726* -.704 1.000 .978** -.113 .978** 1.000 -.182 -.113 -.182 1.000 .403 .439 .108 .117 .170 -.148 .816* .868*' -.330 .403 .439 .108 1.000 .527 .548 .117 .816* -.144 .423 .481 -.030 .325 .170 .868** -.210 .438 .536 .134 .318 -.148 -.330 .250 .153 -.074 -.631 .093 .527 .548 -.170 .579 .634 -.151 .524 1.000 .155 -.431 .174 .390 .309 .266 .155 1.000 .059 .654 .700 .271 .621 .158 .000 .790 .323 .782 .013 .734 .296 .228 .944 .432 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .104 .000 .667 .277 .687 .005 .617 .278 .171 .752 .443 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .176 .790 .667 .798 .726 .424 .550 .717 .861 .093 .828 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .087 .323 .277 .798 .180 .159 .687 .133 .091 .722 .182 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .042 .782 .687 .726 .180 .714 .287 .680 .340 7457 .524 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .051 .013 .005 .424 .159 .714 .890 .078 .053 .516 .100 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Page 2Junior High School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .418 -.144 -.210 .250 -.170 -.431 .059 1.000 .123 -.198 -.097 .400 .303 .734 .617 .550 .687 .287 .890 .772 .638 .819 .327 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 -.488 .423 .438 .153 .579 .174 .654 .123 1.000 .932** -.133 .909** .220 .296 .278 .717 .133 .680 .078 .772 .001 .753 .002 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.722* -.372 -.479 .481 .536 -.074 -.030 .134 -.631 .325 .318 .093 .634 -.151 .524 .390 .700 -.198 .932* 1.000 .056 .792* .309 .271 -.097 -.133 .056 1.000 -.030 .266 .621 .400 .909* .792* -.030 1.000 .043 .365 .230 .228 .171 .861 .091 .340 .053 .638 .001 .895 .019 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I .944 .752 .093 .722 .457 .516 .819 .753 .895 .943 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .432 .443 .828 .182 .524 .100 .327 .002 .019 .943 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Page 3- Elementary School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students 1.000 -.294 -.369* .114 -.120 .380* -.499* -.294 -.369* .114 -.120 .380* -.499** .015 .019 -.399* .358* -.050 .086 .029 .514 .494 .025 .002 .932 .915 .017 .034 .775 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 1.000 .927** -.642** .452** -.326 .335* -.289 -.714** -.187 -.238 -.688** .086 .000 .000 .006 .056 .049 .092 .000 .282 .168 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .927' 1.000 -.683 1** .448** -.426* .379* -.281 -.678** -.131 -.223 -.649** .029 .000 .000 .007 .011 .025 .102 .000 .452 .199 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.642** -.683** 1.000 .452** .448** -.402* -.326 -.426* .278 .335* .379* -.315 -.402* 1.000 -.178 -.063 .278 -.315 .098 .395* .077 .181 .525** -.178 -.063 -.169 -.415* -.085 -.241 -.165 1.000 -.342* -.221 .183 -.089 .265 -.071 -.342* 1.000 .079 -.073 .034 -.283 -.005 .514 .494 .025 .002 .000 .000 .017 .106 .065 .577 .019 .658 .299 .001 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .006 .007 .017 .307 .721 .331 .013 .628 .163 .342 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .056 .011 .106 .049 .025 .065 .307 .044 .202 .294 .610 .124 .683 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .721 .044 .652 .677 .847 .100 .976 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Page 2Elementary School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .015 .019 -.399* .358* -.050 -.289 -.281 .098 -.169 -.221 .079 1.000 .537** .301 -.009 .629** .932 .092 .102 .577 .331 .202 .652 .001 .079 .959 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.714** -.678** .395* -.415* .183 -.073 .537** 1.000 .482** .195 .706** .915 .000 .000 .019 .013 .294 .677 .001 .003 .261 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.187 -.131 .077 -.085 -.089 .034 .301 .482** 1.000 -.036 .494** .017 .282 .452 .658 .628 .610 .847 .079 .003 .836 .003 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.238 -.223 .181 -.241 .265 -.283 -.009 .195 -.036 1.000 .212 .034 .168 .199 .299 .163 .124 .100 .959 .261 .836 .221 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.688* -.649* .525*' -.165 -.071 -.005 .629* .706*' .494* .212 1.000 .775 .000 .000 .001 .342 .683 .976 .000 .000 .003 .221 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Page 3File Information List of variables on the working file Name Position SCHOOL School Print Format: F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 1 Value Label 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 Central J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Junior High Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff TE.RATIO / 2 Print Format\nF8.2 Write Format: F8.2 Page 1school 1 1.00 2 2.00 3 3.00 4 4.00 5 5.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te. ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 18.52 14.23 12.60 14.19 15.34 12.54 143.84 52.00 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 6 6.00 13.88 9.73 131.67 29.00 7 7.00 15.80 10.98 128.92 44.00 8 8.00 12.63 8.77 108.47 42.00 9 9.00 13.58 9.41 142.56 35.00 10 10.00 12.08 8.25 122.60 29.00 11 11.00 14.72 10.48 131.72 48.00 12 12.00 13.62 9.99 95.46 37.00 13 13.00 12.03 8.50 162.68 42.00 14 14.00 13.20 7.14 100.45 46.00 1-1turnover 1 15.00 2 12.00 3 18.00 4 14.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer ex pendit donation 1855.00 757.00 790.00 935.00 .04 .07 .09 .30 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 5 10.00 911.00 .11 262.20 3.79 6 4.00 622.00 .04 39.58 .00 7 16.00 771.00 .04 74.56 .00 8 10.00 648.00 .08 54.05 .00 9 7.00 724.00 .24 114.14 1.52 10 14.00 506.00 .07 54.98 1.81 11 14.00 858.00 .05 278.19 .87 12 15.00 767.00 .04 52.40 10.26 13 14.00 510.00 .05 54.47 .12 14 19.00 233,00 i 1-2 .01 68.07 .001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 equity2 37.00 39.00 40.00 36.00 45.00 30.00 35.00 34.00 39.00 35.00 43.00 34.00 33.00 31.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 59.00 81.00 71.00 84.00 51.00 89.00 57.00 70.00 86.00 75.00 52.00 57.00 84.00 92.00 i free 19.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 10.00 58.00 35.00 45.00 42.00 26.00 25.00 26.00 63.00 79.00 1-3school 15 15.00 16 16.00 17 17.00 18 18.00 19 19.00 20 20.00 21 21.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te.ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 \\ 92.89 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 55.00 53.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 49.00 22 22.00 12.95 7.47 208.54 47.00 23 23.00 15.25 7.85 116.40 63.00 24 24.00 18.70 11.32 74.22 44.00 25 25.00 10.74 5.30 147.63 26.00 26 26.00 17.19 9.54 135.14 48.00 27 27.00 11.61 5.35 142.55 17.00 28 28.00 16.73 8.26 132.22 53.00 2-1turnover 15 21.00 16 39.00 17 10.00 18 8.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 362.00 323.00 597.00 372.00 .10 .01 .07 .11 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 19 11.00 596.00 .06 243.28 .00 20 8.00 537.00 .28 107.68 3.98 21 9.00 512.00 .08 69.35 .00 22 .00 224.00 .06 66.18 .00 23 20.00 248.00 .00 82.12 1.01 24 5.00 430.00 .05 59.90 24.98 25 5.00 464.00 .16 252.18 16.38 26 6.00 495.00 .03 62.30 .11 27 20.00 271.00 .04 245.87 .37 28 17.00 316.00 .08 84.64 1 5.34 2-215 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 equityZ 41.00 37.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 29.00 43.00 35.00 37.00 48.00 39.00 37.00 41.00 i C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 73.00 83.00 52.00 63.00 52.00 69.00 92.00 65.00 76.00 76.00 92.00 48.00 93.00 75.00 free 65.00 84.00 36.00 45.00 31.00 71.00 77.00 67.00 65.00 34.00 79.00 32.00 90.00 66.00 2-3 /29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 school 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te.ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.70 18.12 18.20 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 7.47 10.83 10.26 119.73 84.88 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 125.54 151.12 159.41 129.01 88.67 100.25 40.00 68.00 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 47.00 39.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 71.00 3-1turnover 29 4.00 30 9.00 31 9.00 32 7.00 33 15.00 34 12.00 35 31.00 36 4.00 37 11.00 38 13.00 39 18.00 40 14.00 41 6.00 42 11.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 311.00 513.00 658.00 407.00 477.00 332.00 242.00 328.00 464.00 249.00 405.00 328.00 511.00 373.00 3-2 .26 .05 .00 .10 .03 .01 .07 .02 .08 .12 .25 .04 .02 .01 294.14 62.29 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 200.61 57.21 58.73 1.61 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 9.56 .00 8.8129 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 equity 2 49.00 36.00 38.00 36.00 33.00 33.00 42.00 36.00 32.00 50.00 50.00 44.00 31.00 34.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 52.00 44.00 54.00 73.00 57.00 79.00 92.00 46.00 55.00 94.00 59.00 63.00 46.00 86.00 I I i free 33.00 37.00 43.00 71.00 41.00 73.00 92.00 35.00 43.00 76.00 59.00 45.00 28.00 75.00 3-3 I43 44 45 46 47 48 school 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te. ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 13.03 17.64 18.42 15.40 14.89 14.04 4-1 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00turnover 43 7.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 660.00 .06 92.63 1.12 44 13.00 493.00 .15 77.43 2.55 45 .00 315.00 .10 67.20 .00 46 11.00 479.00 .09 237.38 .00 47 4.00 362.00 .09 60.03 3.57 48 27.00 284.00 .02 85.65 .00 4-243 44 45 46 47 48 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav equity2 42.00 37.00 31.00 41.00 41.00 32.00 black 53.00 89.00 70.00 52.00 82.00 71.00 free 54.00 75.00 54.00 19.00 71.00 60.00 4-3f  Descriptives sqTT Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Statistic 125.0756 Std. Error 4.4905 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range % Students free lunch Skewness Kurtosis________ Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis__ Weighted SOTT Average(Definition % 1) Tukey's Hinges Students free lunch SQ.FT Lower Bound Lipper Bound 1 16.0419 134.1094 124.3022 125.1900 967.909 31.1112 64.64 208.54 143.90 41.4500 .419 .315 50.7500 .343 .674 3.1096 Lower Bound Upper Bound 44.4942 57.0058 50.5509 45.0000 464.149 21.5441 10.00 92.00 82.00 38.7500 .127 -1.161 .343 .674 Percentiles 5 69.1325 19.0000 10 88.2910 25.9000 25 101.1075 32.2500 101.5450 Percentiles 50 125.1900 75 142.5575 90 163.8870 95 188.2950 45.0000 71.0000 79.0000 87.3000 125.1900 142.5550 Page 2Extreme Values Highest 1 2 3 4 5 Case Number 22 3 5 2 13 Lowest 1 2 3 45 21 24 % Students free lunch Highest Lowest 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ( 30 41 35 27 16 14 25 5 46 1 11 10 School Dodd Hall Parkview J.A. Fair Southwe st Western Hills Cloverd ale Element ary Forest Park Jefferson Terry Mitchell Garland Baseline Badgett Franklin Parkview Williams Magnet Central Mann Magnet Mabelva Ie Junior High Value 208.54 192.84 182.74 174.75 162.68 64.64 64.97 74.22 84.88 88.67 92.00 90.00 84.00 79.00 79.00 10.00 19.00 19.00 25.00 a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 26 are shown in the table of lower extremes. Page 3Equitable Allocation Worksheet School Score 1. Pupil/Teacher Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/StafT Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) 3. (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 (19.00) (25.90) (32.25) (45.00) (71.00) (79.00) (87.30) 4. Square Feet per Pupil 7 5 6 3 4 2 1 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 5. Percent of Staff with a Masters Degree, plus, Nine Years of Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (28.7) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 6. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 2 1 4 3 5 6 1 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 7. School Size / ! High School 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (773) (911) (1395) 8. Middle School 2 (506) Elementary (231) (246) (538) (686) 5 (770) (315) (373) (495) 6 (596) 7 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 9. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34)10. Volunteer Hours per Pupil 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 11. Donations per Pupil 1 (.00) 7 6 5 4 3 2 (.00) (.0275) (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)High School Middle School Elementary School 42- McClellan 43 44- Central 45- J. A. Fair 46- Hall 47 48 49 50 51 52- Parkview 34- Cloverdale 35 36 37- Southwest 38- Forest Heights 39 40- Dunbar, Pulaski Heights 41- Mabelvale 42 43 44- Henderson 45 46 47 48 49 50- Mann 32- Cloverdale 33 34- Badgett 35-Western Hills 36- Meadowcliff, Woodruff 37- Pulaski Heights, Terry, Wakefield 38- McDermott 39- Baseline, Fair Park, Garland, Mabelvale 40- Watson 41- Jefferson, Otter Creek 42- Forest Park 43- King, Mitchell 44- Brady, Wilson 45- Bale, Fulbright, Geyer Springs 46- Washington 47- Booker, Chicot, Dodd 48- Carver, Romine, Williams 49 50 51-Franklin 52 53- Rightsell 54- Gibbs, Rockefeller1. Pupil/Tcacher Ratio Equitable Allocation Worksheet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/StafT Ratio 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) 3. Square Feet per Pupil 6 7 5 3 4 2 1 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 4. Percent of Staff with a Masten Degree, plus, Nine Yean of Experience 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (28.7) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 5. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 6. School Size High School 7 5 6 4 3 1 2 {713) (911) (1395) 7. Middle School 2 (506) Elementary (231) (246) (538) (686) (770) (315) (373) (495) 6 (596) 7 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34) 9, Volunteer Houn per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 10. Donations per Pupil 1 (.00) 7 6 5 4 3 2 (.00) (.0275) (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)High School Middle School Elementary School 36- McClellan 37- Central 38 39- J. A. Fair 40- Hall 41 42 43 44 45- Parkview 30- Cloverdale 31 32 33- Southwest 29- Cloverdale 30 31- Badgett, Terry, Western Hills 32- Pulaski Heights, Woodruff 34- Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights 33- McDermott, MeadowclifT 35- Dunbar, Mabelvale 36 37 38 39- Henderson 40 41 42 43- Mann 34- Wakefield 35-Fair Park 36- Jefferson, Mabelvale, Otter Creek 37- Baseline, Forest park. Garland, Watson 38- King 39- Fulbright 40- Brady 41- Bale, Geyer Springs, Williams, Wilson 42- Booker, Carver, Mitchell, Washington 43-Dodd 44- Chicot, Romine 45 46 47 48- Franklin 49- Gibbs 50- Rightsell, Rockefeller 36-1 37-1 38 39-1 40-1 41 42 43 44 45-1 30-1 31 32 33-1 34-n 35-n 36 37 38 39-1 40 41 42 43-n 29-1 30 31-ni 32-n 33-n 34-1 35-1 36- HI 37- nil 38-1 39-1 40-1 41-nil 42- nil 43-1 44-n 45 46 47 48-1 49-1 50-1110/05/1998 14:59 5013240504 LRSD PAGE 02 Memo To\nFrom\nEquitable Allocation Workgroup Dr. Ed Williams, P. R, \u0026amp; E. RE. Total score correlation While I will provide you with the correlation matrices at the meeting tomorrow, I felt you would benefit from some data peeking. I correlated the percent of African American students in each school to total score and to each of the ten variables (c.g., turnover, donation, teacher/student ratio, etc.). For all levels combined and individually (i.e., high school, junior high, and elemeittary schools) there was no significant correlation between scores on the Equitable Allocation Worksheet and the percent of African American students. In addition to the correlation matrices, I will provide you with school scores on the EAW, and the data sheets.received MAY 2 6 1998 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING May 22, 1998 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear TVnn: One of the elements of the \"Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" is that within 60 days of its approval. the LRSD will develop process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. This letter is to ask you or members of your staff to attend a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 1998, in the LRSD Board room for the purpose of discussing that process. Skip and Gene were very helpful when we discussed this issue in the development of the revised plan. Mr. Walker has been invited to attend, also. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Director of Labor Relations Leslie Gamine Clay Pendley 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 cc: aOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 27, 1998 To: Brady Gadberry From: Ann Bro Re: Invitation to Discuss LRSD Equitable Allocation of Resources Thanks for your invitation to participate in a discussion of the process the LRSD will use for assessing the equitable allocation of its resources. Ill plan on being there, along with my one or two of my associates, on June 3, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. I look forward to seeing you then.  - - -^06/05/98 15:11 Q FRIDAY LAW FIRM @002 FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL M. FRIDAY {ISJS-liSA) WILLIAM M. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W, MOORE BYRON M. EI8CMAN. JR.. P-A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. UR8CRY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. SORAS. F.A. A. WYCKLIFP M18ET, JR.. P.*- JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. R.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND professional associations attorneys at law 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock. ARKANSAS 7220,-343 TELEPHONE 601-37-2011 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 scon J LAHCASTtft. I M GAYLt CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR . P A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A, J, SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P-A. WALTER A. PAULSON It. P.A. BARRY E COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST. JR., P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL UI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P-A. VIA TELECOPY NO. 374-4187 Mr. John W. Walker June 5, 1998 J LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C. BAKER. JR  P * marry a light. P SCOTT M. TUCKER. P.* JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH i A QUY ALTON WADE. P A PRICE C. GARDNER, P A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A, DAVID D. WILSON, P A JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER. P A. OAVlO M. GRAf. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINhOUR. P.A JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR . P.A ALLISON GRAVES WARNER. P a JONANN C. ROOSEVELT K. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY I WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RANO JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN SUSAN N. CHILDERS 0* COWM(l WILLIAM J. SMITH BS CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELER6. P A. VIA TELECOPY NO. 371-01011 Ms. Ann Brown  n.Tia-t OIRiC T MO. 16011 370-3323 VIA TELECOPY NO. 324-2146 Mr. Brady Gadberry RE: Equitable Allocation of Resources Dear Ms. Brown and Gentlemen: draft Notice of Process for Assessing Attached please find a the Equitable Allocation for is^an^roJ District court's approval ot Paragraph 2 of the Notice we would propose be a the final report within 180 days of the Revised Plan as provided in Ecc_2 Section 2.92. We would appreciate your file the Notice on June 9, you. comments and suggestions before we 1998. we look forward to hearing from We Sincerely, 3hn CV Pendley, Jr. John Pendley JCFjr/jcg Enclosure-06/05/98 15:12  FRIDAY LAW FIRM  003 u IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1H NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESgING__ EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan\") provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. UiSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), shall. (a) Identify the resources to be considered in assessing the equitable allocation of resources\nf:\\hom6\\fisoiiey196/05/98 15:13 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @004 (b) Develop standard or standards for assessing whether those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis\n(c) Assess the current allocation of resources based on the a standard or standards developed\nand, (d) Report the results of the assessment. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as provided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182 r:MKMMeslby\\lnd'dB*-P\u0026lt;d.001 2 .06/05/98 15:13 FRIDAY LAW FIRM Q  005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing following people by depositing a copy of same *  T^'***** lyyo  mail on this Sth day of June, Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ftMuDvXfeatbyUndklM-pU.OOl has been served on the in the United States Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 3Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nJune 8, 1998 BY FAX To: Clay Fendley From: Ann Brow Re\nProposed Process for Assessing Resources Thank you for faxing me your draft of the proposed Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources. Here are my observations and suggestions: 1. Correct the omission of the word Joshua in the fourth line of the first paragraph. 2. Item a: In the interest of clarity and accuracy, reword this sentence by eliminating the passive voice and one of the three verbs that cloud the meaning. What we really mean is: Identify the resources the district will assess for equitable allocation. (I trust this will include all resources, including human resources, since equitable personnel allocation is stressed elsewhere in the desegregation plan.) J. Item b: Again for clarity, change whether to read the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis. 4. Item c: This sentence designates current resources for equity assessment, yet the language of the new plan implies ongoing assessment of resource allocation. This filing should do the same. 5. Item d: Report the results of the assessment to whom? The superintendent? The board? The parties? The court? The public? Who are the audience(s) who will receive the report? cc: John Walker RECEIV^n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 9 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states\n1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan) provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. LRSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM), shall: (a) Identify the resources the District will assess for equitable allocation\n(b) Develop a standard or standards for assessing the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis\n(c) Assess the allocation of resources based on the standard or standards developed\nand, (d) Report the results of the assessment to ODM and Joshua. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as provided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. 4. In the above process, LRSD shall consult with the one or both of the desegregation experts retained by LRSD in compliance with Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Joshua has approved LRSD's retention of Terrance Roberts, one of the original \"Little Rock Nine,\" and Steven Ross, a professor at the University of Memphis, to assist LRSD in development of the programs. policies and procedures required by the Revised Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Hell John C. Pendley, r. w92182 f:\\home\\fendley\\lred\\des-pld.001 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of June, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell^^ John C. Fendley, Jr. f:^facme\\feDdley\\lnd^de-ptd.001 3CP Little Rock School District JUL 8 jggg July 'll 1998 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you very much for your assistance and OfflCEOf that of your staff when we met about the equitable allocation of resources. This letter is to ask you or members of your staff to continue to meet with us as we prepare to meet the additional requirements associated with the equitable distribution of resources. We are scheduling a weekly meeting for each Thursday morning at 9:30. The meetings will start on August 6, 1998. Mr. Walker is being invited to attend, also. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Director of Labor Relations cc: Leslie Carnine Clay Fendley 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 pjl. Little Rock School District September 21,1998 RECS''^D SEP 2 2 1983 John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CmCEOF DESEGREGATION MCNJTORIHQ Dear Mr. Walker\nThis letter is to remind you that you and/or members of your staff are invited to meet with the committee working on the equitable distribution of resources as we prepare to meet those plan requirements. We are continuing to meet each Thursday morning at 9:30 at the administration building. Ann Brown, Skip Marshall, and Gene Jones from ODM have been meeting with us on a regular basis and have been very helpful in helping us explore issues of equity. We have tried to examine models from other school districts that could give us some guidance in this project, and we have examined sample school board policies from the National School Boards Association. We have discovered that we are in relatively uncharted waters. I am enclosing some of the information that we have been using to try to gain some ideas about dealing with this complex issue. We are leaning toward the development of a matrix that shows how each school fares on a series of factors that have an impact on the equitable distribution of resources. However, please let me emphasize that nothing has been finalized. We have discussed a matrix and have begun the developmental process with a few initial drafts. We have not finalized the indicators that will appear on the matrix. Even after the matrix is developed, this is only an initial facet of the process. Before we can adequately decide what should be done to offset any imbalances that could have deleterious impact on students, we must thoroughly assess where we currently stand. The next phase will address the results of the assessment. If we find that we have problems that would necessitate a redistribution of resources or compensation of some sort to offset the inability to acquire resources, the next phase would address those issues. 810 West Markham Street Little RocR, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000The efforts of this group have been concentrated on those resources that are not covered by conunitments in other provisions of the plan, commitments are being and/or will be addressed, too. Obviously, those Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Special Assistant to the Superintendent cc: Leslie Gamine Ann Brownd Clay FendleyI * *' received OCT 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OTlKOF.- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I ' 7 P)' i\n- I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT U.^ BY. Cl c CH I- A, L - PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS REPORT OF LRSDS ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Report of LRSDs Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan) requires that LRSD assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district and report the results of this assessment within 180 days of the district courts approval of the Revised Plan. Revised Plan  2.9.2. The district court approved the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998. Docket No. 3144. Accordingly, LRSDs report of the assessment of the allocation of resources was to be completed on or before October 7, 1998. LRSD files this report in compliance with the Revised Plan. 2. LRSD assessed the allocation of its resources by way of a committee composed of district administrators and staff persons and representatives of the Office of DesegregationI Monitoring (ODM).* The committee first worked to determine what resources should be assessed. In this regard, the committee looked to available research in the area of school resources. Based on the available research and the committees collective education and experience, the committee decided to assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district by examination of ten factors: (1) pupil/teacher ratio\n(2) pupil/staflf ratio\n(3) square feet per pupil\n(4) percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience\n(5) the turnover rate of certified staff\n(6) school size\n(7) the computer/pupil ratio\n(8) per pupil expenditure\n(9) volunteer hours per pupil\nand, (10) donations per pupil. 3. Pupil/Teacher Ratio. Research indicates that smaller class sizes (15 or less to 1) may improve achievement of minority students. See, e.g.. Nye, B.A., Achilles, C.M., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., Wallenhorst, M.P., Small Is Far Better, Paper presented at Mid-South Educ. Res. Assn, Knoxville, Tenn. (Nov. 13, 1992). The committee measured its pupil/teacher ratio using October 1, 1997 enrollment and certified staff at the school excluding administrators. counselors and librarians. The committee decided to exclude four-year-old classes, which have a smaller pupil/teacher ratio, because not all LRSD schools have four-year-old classes. 4. Pupil/Staff Ratio. The committee also wanted to include a measure which would recognize the importance of school administrators and other support staff at a school. In addition to certified teachers, this factor includes all other school based personnel with the exception of 1' The committee members were as follows: Dr. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services\nJunious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services\nSadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services\nMark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services\nBrady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent\nDr. Ed Williams, Research Specialist and Statistician\nAnn Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor\nSkip Marshall, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor\nand. Gene Jones, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor. 2federal and food service employees. As with teachers, a lower pupil/staF ratio is considered more favorable with the goal being equity in the staflBng formula. 5. Square Feet Per Pupil. The committee found that the school overcrowding can have a negative impact on student achievement. The Council of Education Facility Planning standards recommends 90 sq. ft. per pupil for elementary schools, 120 sq. ft. per pupil for middle schools and 145 sq. ft. per pupil for high schools. Using 3D Internationals 1995 Facilities Master Plan Study, the committee assessed schools based on the number of square feet per pupil with the assumption that the more space the better. Students in schools below the standard may not have adequate instructional space. 6. Percentage of staflT with a masters degree plus and nine. In a 1990 study. researchers found that Afiican-American student performance improved when teachers had strong language skills, nine or more years of experience and a masters degree or higher. Ferguson, R., Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement and learning, In Challenge: A Journal of Research on Black Men (1990). Based on this study, the committee decided to measure the allocation of quality teachers by considering the percentage of teachers at a school with at least a masters degree plus nine years of experience. A higher percentage of being more favorable. 7. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff. Low turnover among certified staff plays an important role in building a strong and committed teaching staff and a strong base of parental and community support. High turnover, on the other hand, often results in an inexperienced teaching staff. See, e.g.. Newmann, F.M. and Wehlage, G.G., Successful School Restructuring (1995). The committee calculated the turnover rate by comparing the number of new teachers at a school 3( (both new hires and transfers) to the total number of teachers at a school. The schools were then ranked based on the percentage of new teachers with the assumption that low turnover was most favorable. 8. School size. Recent studies indicate that school size, like class size, may impact student achievement. See, e.g.. Howley, C.B., Synthesis of the effects of school and district size, What research says about achievement in small school and school districts, 41 Journal of Rural and Small Schools 2 (1989). Small schools promote better personal relationships between staff. students, parents and the community. Student morale tends to be higher because of a feeling of belonging. Teachers communicate better with each other and know students better allowing them to teach in a more individualized way. In assessing school size, the committee simply looked at the each schools enrollment and ranked the schools under the assumption that smaller was better. 9. Computer/Pupil Ratio. The committee developed the computer/pupil ratio as a proxy for assessing technological resources as provided for in the Revised Plan. LRSD has already begun implementation of its technology plan designed to bring the district in line with state and national technology standards. The ratio includes only network compatible computers in schools by September 22, 1998. A higher computer/student ratio was considered more favorable. 10. Per Pupil Expenditure. Pouring money into a school provides no guarantee of improving improved achievement. Even so, per pupil expenditure is perhaps the most commonly used factor for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. The committee calculated each schools per pupil expenditures based on the schools discretionary funds. This excluded expenditures for salaries, benefits, utilities and federal funding provided under Title I and for food 4service. To prevent outliers based on extraordinary expenditures, the committee used a three year moving average for expenditures. 11. Volunteer Hours Per Pupil. Volunteer hours per pupil indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Authorities recognize the importance of parental and community involvement in school success. See, e.e.. Graue, M.E., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H.J., School Based Home Reinforcement Programs: A Quantitative Synthesis, 16 Journal Educ. Res. 351 (1983). Volunteer hours by school were obtained from the LRSD VIPS department. 12. Donations Per Pupil. Like volunteer hours, donations indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Donations may also fill in gaps left due to inadequate discretionary funding provided to a school by the district. Only donations accepted by the LRSD Board of Directors were considered. 13. Exhibit 1 contains the results of the committees assessment of each of these factors for each school in the district. 14. The committee also undertook to determine whether any relationship existed between the resources allocated to a school and the percentage of African-American students attending a school. The committee enlisted Dr. Ed Williams of LRSDs Planning, Research and Evaluation Department to determine if such a relationship existed. Using statistical measures. Dr. Williams combined the ten factors in order to assign each school a composite score. See Exhibit 2, Equitable Allocation Worksheet and Composite School Scores. Dr. Williams then compared each schools composite score to the schools percentage of Afiican-American students. See Exhibit 2, Correlations. Dr. Williams concluded that there was no significant 5relationship between the racial makeup of a school and the amount of resources allocated to the school. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\ne. istopher Heller (#81083) n C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 7th day of October, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 7 CD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 EQUITY INDICATORS 1. Pupil / Teacher Ratio Less Than 15 2. Pupil / Staff Ratio Less Than 9 3. Sq. Ft. / Pupil\nElem 90, Jr 120, Sr 145 4. 5. % of Staff w/ 9 yrs \u0026amp; Masters Degree Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 6. School Size 7. Computer / Pupil Ratio 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 9. Volunteer Hours / Pupil 10. Donations / Pupil X UI f H '\"Mtoi-jraNM ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 HIGHSCHOOLS ...... CENTRAL\" ....................... hall\" FAIR ...................................... McClellan \" ' '  ..... PARKVIEW TOTAL .................. .......... JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS......... DUNBAR  ................... FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON'\"........................ CLOVERDALE MABELVALE - . - MANN fOTAL .......  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BALE - ..... BRADY ............ BADGETT ....................................... McDermott baseline........................... FAIR park .............. forest PARK ...................... CHICOT .................. WESTERN HILLS ............. P/K K 34 7 0 0 35 is 31 35 36 35 41 0 OCTOBER 1,1997 ENROLLMENT 1-12 TOT TOT-P/K BL WH OTH TOT % BL % WH % OTH TOTAL F.T.E. TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K I STAFF PUP-P/K /teach 1821 783 '2935 911 '5207 771 648 767 510 72^ 622 506 858 5406 1855 \"790 '7F\u0026gt;1 \"935 '911 5248 1855 790 757 \"935 911 5248 1101 '561 612 790 464 3528 705 179 137 49 50 8 ' 121 \"24 403 1545 44 175 1855 '790 757 935 911 5248 59% 71% 81% 84% 51% 67% 38% 23% 18% 13% 44% 29% 3% 6% i% '3% 5% 3% 147.94 94.90 '82.50' '98.10 89.20 512.64 100.14 62.70 53.20 65.90 59.40 341.34 12.54 8.32 9.18 ' 9.53 10.21 10.24 18.52 12.60 14.23 14.19 15 34 15.37 JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD\" MEADOWCLIFF KING GEYER SPRINGS 36 I 71 I 35 51 \"56 39' 54 54 \"36 57 '59 '39 58 72 24 \"40 92 40 276 298 '163 423 2234 176 '373 443 76 55 04 00 92 95 241 771 648 '767 5i\"6 \"'724\" 622 506 '858 5406 648 \"'767 '510 724 622 '506 858 5406 442 \"452 437 426 624 552 380 \"446 759 282 178 315 ....65 .....83 36 119 '375 1453 47 18 15 \"l9 17 34 7 37 194 771 648 \"'767 ''510 724 622 506 858 5406 84% 86% 89% 75% '52% 70/ 57% 27% '41% 13% 11% 6% 24% '44% 27% 6% 3% 2% 4% 2% 15% 'l% '4% 4% 70.20 73.90 \"76.80 60.00 '76.90 63.90 61.30 81.90 564.90 48.80 51.30 56.30 42.40 '53.30 44.80 ''41.90 58.30 397.10 .10.98 8.77 9.99 8.50 9.41 9.73 8.25 10.48 9.57 15.80 12.63 13.62 12.03 13.58 13.88 12.08 14.72 13.61 362 372 233 '477 323 248 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 658 316 '354 \"202 \"477 288 212 '430 \"502 '315 513 476 224 332 587 281 265 235 214 267 188 205 370 222 227 469 145 263 354 237 71 \"\"94 ..19 181 \" 38 50 219 \"121 91 279 30 74 57 279 66 26 43 23 18 10 6 46 2 7 13 5 12 25 13 362 372 233 aH 323 248 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 658 316 73% \"63% 92% 57% 83% 76% 48% 69% 70% 44% 92% 65% 79% 54% 75% 20% 25% 8% 38% \"12% 20% 51% 23% 29% 54% 6% 33% 17% I 42% I 21%! 7% i2% \"6% 5% 6% 4'% 1% \"9% 1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% I '2:20 36.2_O '28.30 43.30 36.90 27.00 38.00 59.'2'0 29.30 44.00 41.10 30.66 32.60 70.22 34.00 23.30 20.30 15.30 26.90 18 70 13.90 23.00 29.40 17.10 27.10 24.30 17.30 18.50 40.00 16.80 7.75 9 78 7.14 11.02 '7.80 ' 7.85 11.32 8.48 10.75 11.66 11.58 7.47 10.18 8.36 8.26 14.03 \"17.44 13.20 17.73 15.40 15.25 18.70 17.07 18.42 18.93 19.59 12.95 17^95 14.68 16.73. l'ttle rock school district allocation of resources 10-07-90 PULASKI HEIGHTS ROMINE WASHINGTON WILSON .................. WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON franklin GARLAND MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER RIGHTSELL \" ' BOOKER CARVER GIBBS ........................ WILLIAMS TOTAL GRAND TOTAL ........ P/K 36 53 18 '34 '1'6 36 12 18 18 53 18 704 704 K 40 7'62 '83 ' \"54 46 54 7'5 69 '36 \"52 \" 73 ' \"34 ...'37 53 '39 '76 39 60 \u0026lt;884 OCTOBER 1,1997 ENROLLMENT 1-12 424 230 524 '290 '210 337 \"436 426 '292 '321 '384 315 j87 '299 TOT 464 7328 7660 3'62 284 192 _\"'521 536  \"419 11583 407 '\"511 495 ....328 \"'373 493 271 '_^'242 '465 '249 ''597 ' 596 '311 479 14171 TOT-P/K 464 292 \"607 344 ....... 250 7 391 .......5'11 495 ^328 373 Z_^^57  392 253 '224 352 -1231 597 .....' 596 ' .......3i'l ........479 '13467 BL 254 206 7352 237 201 299 235 240  151 322 44'1 7427 253 223 \"231 234 300 \"312 161 240 9335 WH 193 '213 \"53 75 92 243 246 167 32  4 0  24  3 ......9 138 ' 9 7261 259 'Y33 214 4151 OTH 17 ' 44 95 12 8 16 33 9 10 19  12 ...13 15 io 30 6 28 25 17 ' 17 685 TOT 464 ' 328 660 362 .....284 407 \"\"511 495 328 373 ' 493 464 \"271 \"242 405 249 ....597 596 311 479 14171 % BL 55% 63% '53% 82% 71% ' 73% 46% 48% 46% 86% 89% 92% 93% 92% 59% 94% 52% 52% 52% 52% 66% % WH 42% '24% '32% 7 15% '26% \"23% \"'48% ' 50% 51% '79% '8% \"5% \"4% \"34% '4% 44% 43% 43%  45% '29%  % OTH 4% __i3% 14% \"3% 3% 4% 6% 2/o 3% 5% 2% 3% 6% 4% 7% 2% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 1925 221'96 24825 _^21 16622 7149 1054 24825 67% 29% 4% TOTAL F.T.E. 39.20 39.10 TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K / \"oo.io  38.30 7' 32.40 .......40.60 ''47:26 51.90 30.10 7 36:37 4'3.75 73.90 .....47.30 44.20 79.90 39.50 63.70 63.90 40.30 52.30 1,576.34' 2653.88 22.90 23.00 46.60 23.10 17.80 7'23.90 28.20 28.80 16.60 20.50 '25.90 36.50 21.80 21.90 32.90 21.00 44.50 39.20 25.30 31.10 883.40 STAFF 11.84 7.A7 7.66 8.98 '7.72 9:63 10.83 9.54 .10.90 10.26 10.45 '5.30 '5.35 \"5.07 4.41 5.85 9.37 9.33 7.72 9.16 8.54 PUP-P/K /TEACH 20.26  12.70 13.03 14.89 14.04 16.36 18.12 17.19 19.76 18.20 17.64 10.74 11 61 10.23 10.70 11.00 13.42 15.20 12.29 15.40 15 24 1621.04 9.09 14.07 II ... L'TJLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . _ 10-07-90 ar'ea high schools-------- CENTRAL ---- ------------ haLl 7------------- FAIR  _ mcclella'n 7 PARKVfEW TOTAL ------------------------ Junior high'schools DUNBAR............. forest HEI'g'HTS  --------- PULASki hei'ghts ^UTHWEST HENDERSON cl_overdaLe_'..... mabeLvale_ MANN ...-------------- enroll 10-1-97 SQUARE footage SITE ACREAGE SQ FT/ ENROLL 1,055 '790 \"'7'57' ...935 ...911 5'240 266,023 152,346..... 132,266  129,606 7166,477  047,000  16.50 1^31.16 50.00 '\"2'9.'6'6 36.06 157.26 _ 143.04 '7 192764 _717'4.75\" 102.7'7 ''i6\"i740 ...... ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS bale --------------- BRADY'' ... BADGETT -------------------- McDERMotf baseline FqRjST_PARk CHICOT.......... wester'n'hills JEFFERSON'................................. CLOVERDALE bODb ------------------------- MEADOWCLiFF Ki^7..... ............. geye\u0026gt;'spr'ings PLiLAS'ki'H'EJGHTS .......... ROMINE.................. 77} '640 767 510 7 724 ' 622 \"566 050 '5,4O6 99.397 70,207 73,216 02,968 '' ld3.212* 01,097 '6'2,'63'6 113,013 606,020 5.00 rjs.oo 4.00 \"moo' ''4'6.'36\" 7 ^66 12.66 '12.29 1'43.65 120.92_ iO0'4Y '95'46 'l'6p'6_ '142756 131.67 122.60 131.72 '126.90 \"362 ~~'372 233  '^A77 ' 32'3  7'246   436  753'7' 315 '7' 513 ' 5'1'2 224 7332 '7650  '316  \"' 464 '' 320 33,626 7735.259 ' 23,404... 7'40.020 L30.455 ' 20,06'7  731,914 '\" ' 59,607 ' 7'10,911  _ 73 346  33,263 ' 46,712 736,931  75,000 ' 41,7'66 50,252 10.00 '6?26 'l'6?00 -'19 2.10 JO.'40 14.66 ^2^00 0.00 5.56 9.6O 4.56 4.'36 3'.o6 92.09  9747 16045 100^67 42.314 I 20.00 ___156.21 _ iio-^0 3'4.64 12 o^lpo -.._1 34.97 _200?54 ~ Hi.24 _ 1^3796 7 '13Z2'2 \"125.54 129761LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-90 ENROLL WASHINGTON..... VyiLSON _ ..... WbobRUFF mabelvale\"' terry'^ FULBRIGHT ....... OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD... ... WATSON franklin\"\"...... g'arland MitCHELL*-\" RbckEFELTER\"....' rightse'll ..... BookER.... CARVER ....... ' GIBBS.......................... WILLIAMS........... total ....... JO-1-97 \" 660 2^ 362 204 407 .......511 ...495 ' 320 373 493 .....464 -271 ~ 242 465 249 .....597 596 311 479 1'4 J 71 SQUARE FOOTAGE 09,000 37,075 30,66'0 55,568 .... .. I .^'O92 36,551 37,395 5'3,64'6 68,500 38,632 39,200 64,561 37,630 - ... ? 24,530 61,695 37,237 47,200 1.630,565 site\"' acreage' \" 5.96 zi'o 16.00  7 15.66 ' 13 00 8.90 y 2 ' ~ 0.20 '  \"IZ26 1060 22.7O  y 4.20 ........\"6.30 2.10 13 00 .. 1200 5.00  15.00 305'90 SQ FT/ 'enroll  i3'^06 72 102.42 2^ 133.00 2 J 0 ^5 3 00.67 \"'.135714 .7 iii 'i' ~_1O-25 109722  147.63 2142'.55_  lei.'g'o 7i 59^4'1  151'12 124.04 103.52 119.73 9054 '115^06 GRAND total 24,825 3,163,601 606.75 127.44 IHIGH SCHOOLS ...... CENTRAL...... ...... f'^r McClellan PARKVIEW total...................... JUNIOR 'HIGH SCHOOLS DUNBAR.......... forest'heTghts PULASKI'HEIGHTS....... southwest\" HENDERSON 2l?ver'dale ... MABELVALE MANN' ...... -T.P.'iAL ELEM EN'TA'rY'schools BALE b'rad'y BADGETT .... McDermott ba'selii^e fair park Fbj^ESf PARK ..' CHICOT......... weste'rn'hilTs JEFFl'RSbN' CLOVERDALE Do'bb............... ............. -----little rock school district  . ------Z^LLOCATION b'F RESOURCES  ------------------ 10-07-98 -------- 'enroll YO-1-^7\"' ...masters +'9 'teach 'F.tyE\n790' \"~757\" % 935 '\"911 \"5,'248' \"77? 64^- 707 ' 5'10 724 ...627 \"506 858 5\n4d6 I 362 2. 372 2'33 477 _ \"37\" J^a' 430 '\"315 51'3 \"224 ''512' 56 32 '^'30 '~29 '35 102 23 \" 23   J 22  '19 220 ' \"14 J \"id \"'30  \"16'4  ' 14 J 8 '9 'Ti 10 '11 14 'io 20 13 9 __l'07'i4 '66\n7d' \"2\"5'7.2j '7d\\'9O '365.34 52.80 54.30 '59.30 474'0 ''57.3 d 44.90' \"6Z3'0 424.10 25.30 '2Z30 '29.40 \"15.90 '25.dd 31.90 J9.'ld' 29.'6d' 27od 197o 1 -12% \" 41% '\"55% 50% 44% \"'47/\n7'7% 42% \"_''\"35% 2'9% ^24 8% ' 39% 2'55% ~07% ' '46%  SdJ/o '\"63/o '44% '44'% \"72% 68'% 49% \"47%I -___little rock school district ___....ALTOpATION OF RESOURCES....... ___________ 10-07-98 ............. _ ENROLL  ^masters + 9  TEACH MEADOWCLIFF\"... KING .---------------..  GEYER springs PULASKI HEIGHTS ROMINE -- WASHINGTON WILSON.....--------......... WOODRUFF MABELVALE terry FULBRrGHT ottercreek WAKEFIELD-----.......... WATSON franklin -- garland  -...- mitchell' R^_kef|ll|r rightsell BOOKER CARVER gib^s ---......... \\MLUAli^' TOTAL __grand TOTAL 10-1-97 332 658 316  464 328 eeo  362 284 467 ^sli 495 328  373   493'  ...464 _ 271  2 4 2  _2~'465   249  597* 596 2_'3il  479 147171 24.825 % 11 17 16 12 10 17 19 6 6 9 15 11 16 11 16 4 6 10 _ 23 18 l 1 2i 426 772 F.T.E. _2O75O' 43.00 _J878O 25.46  25.00 50.10 25.10 19780 25.90 30770 31.30 1860 \"22756 28740 38.50 2380 5'4% j40% ' 53% T7%  \"40% '34% 276% \" 36% '223%  29% 2223.90   342790  2^3.66 47756  ...42776  48% ....59%  71% ...39%  26% 2' 1'7%  25% 29% '39% 24'8%  42% -?,7-36  40% 33.50 962\n86 1,752.24 63% 44% 44%1997-98 SCHOOL CENTRAL HAL^ PARKVIEW ^ A. FaTr McClellan I .yTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ____OF RESOURCES __________ 10-67-98 .......\" ZE zrzEziz. --------jo.?dooas a % of total ... HENDERSON MANN .... d'unbar ....... rj??' PUEHGT^jr. SOUTHWEST mabelvaleJR. JR.' badcett ^^E^Z baseljne~ BRADY c^ver\" CHICOT ^lom^Rdale DODD ......... NEW Zl? jZ 7~ 10 M' 4 9 Zl 6 g' 'd' ~2 'd' 5? 4 \"e '9 5 2 5 T 2 d TOTAL 108 'ed 73 259 iT 382 58 66 5Z. 59 J 4 \"so\" 440 21 '28 '23 49 25 44 39\"' 23 '20 % \"15% 18% 10% 12% 14% 14% 7% '14% 16% \"Td%  15% ''l'4% 'ji% 14% 12% 19% 21%  '39% \" io%  \"8% 'm  ' 8%  9%  '0% ......little ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ... allocation OF RESOURCES ' '\"16-07-90 1997-98  Teachers now to school a i:z' as a \u0026gt; of total fair park FOREST PARK FRANKLIN-........ Fulbright\" GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS.............. KING............................ Jefferson'....... mabelvale MCDERMOTT .. MEAbowCLIFF mtchell .. otter CREEiT.... PUL. heights' .... rightsell ?P.77epeller ' ' ROMINE ..... terry .. WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON wa'tson ... wiTlLUs' WILUAMS wilso'n wdODRUpr'......... 4 -2  '5 4 ....1 \"4 2 3 0 .... '3 \"'3 -1 3 '\"3 Ji '''o~ 4 ... \"e 122 20 739 41 .7731 25\" ..... 23 20 45 . 33' 7 ~29 73 ....... 25 ' 77 26 \"23\" ..7 20 ' 24 -7739 * 21  32  27' 7'32' Z -. 35 ' 23' .....2^' ' ios'f 20% '5% \"......5% ......6% 20% \"\" 17% 4% 79% ........9% 7% \"'15% \"71'2% 31% \"\"4% 11% 13% ' '18% '14% \"6% \"'J1%  1% 13% 0% ..11% ' 4% '21% ' 12%.........SCHOOL DISTRICT ' ...._..ALLOCATIO'N of RESOURCiES ' HIGH SCHOOLS ........ CENTRAj. HALL 2. ........ ^^\"^1 1 McclelLan PARKVIEW......... total\" JUNIOR HIGH 'school^ DUNBAR forest HEiGHTS PULAS^kl HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE.......... mabeLvale ... MANN.............. ............... fOTAL....... en'rolL'  10-1-97 1,855 '790 P/K STUDENTS 757  _ _935 91 i 57248 elementary schools BALE.... BRADY ...... BADGETT ~2 McDermott ^aseline FAIR PARK.......... FORES'f PAI^k....... CHICOT........................... WESTERN HILLS......\" JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE ' DODD 10-07-98 ' adjusted' ''16-1 enrol'l  NETWORi^BLE  COMPUTERS.. PER/ 2 a'dj pupTl ' 1,855 _ 266 1 1\"  935\" 2\" gii 57248 75  ....2 56 2 1\"J77 99  578 2 6 03^' _676949 _0.296_3  071087 ....67iioi - 64^8 5^i6 '724 ''\"622 '566 'sse 5,406 11\\ ''648 767' \"516  7^24' 622 566' \"858 5,406 27 253 30 21 174 -22  35 414\" o.dsso'\" 6.0818 26-639i\" .. 6^0529 \"6.2463 26.0354 0.0692' _6\\O536' ^.oyeT ___362 372 233 2 47r\" 323 \" 35 is 'sT __2482 ~ 430 2 2_~537  1 513 2. 51'2 2~ 224 35 36 35 36 _ 221 -324 ' 2_2O2..... - ^2 288'  2 212 2'436 56'2 2 _ \"3i25' - '5l3' ' \" 47'6\" ' 224 33 \"6.1669 - 3 2 12  13  - -J 2 126 ' 139 \"  671162 2 0\"6l49j  2676252 6.6164  2 6.6047  6.646'5   672769 3i a6984 24 46 13 _O.'6468  0.0040'  0^0580 '........little rock school district .....allocation of resources *\" ENROLL  10-07-98 P/K MEADOWCLIFF KING ...............  GEYER SPRINGS ' '  PULASKI HEIGHTS....... ROMINE............... WASHINGTON ....... WILSON ...... .......... WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY ......... FULBRIGHT....... OTTER CREEK ....\" WAKEFIELD' ............ WATSON..... F_RAN'kLl'N7\"..... GARLAND ......... MITCHELL  ROCKEFELLER........' RIGHTSELL BOOKER T carver ' GIBBS'..... ................. WILLIAMS 2to't'al ........ ...... 22i 2ZZ. -Z^^NiyTOTAL ------------- _ _ fstUDENTS' T ADJUSfED _ 332 72 2858 316  7464* \"328  7 660 ' 7362  284  2 7467'  2 511  \"2'4os  \" '328'' 22 373'  _ 2?93'  2J84  y 271...... .....242 7 19.6 2'72'19 27597 7 596  _ 311 ' _ 3_9 '14,171' 24,825 JiEri/VdR'KABLE ' per/ - ----------------------rCR/ r-y?.?LL ___computers ADJ PUPir 71 35 36 53 '18 34 ie 36 \"ll \"\u0026lt;8 ' J 8  18   704* ....704 332 7 '587 _Z 26'l' 464 7 292 \"607  \"3\"44 2 \"25'6' ' ..391  .....'511  .....'495 '2_ 828 373   457 ' ' 392  7 \"253' ' 224 7 352 \" '231 \"'597 23'96  311' - 2 13'467 4 7' 2  23 ' .... 37  7  ' 12  .......''35  ..........5  .......38 2 '10 15 ' 7..5 3 67 61 ' 2 2 9 ' 15 7287 7 28 ' -3 2 2 \"34 \"'81... 2..43..... 1,048 _ 0.0120 6.0034  6.0'019 6.'67'97 0.0411 27o O5'77  7 6.0930\" \" o\"o2o6'  \"0.0972 276.6'196  \"2 2 6 0363  2_ 6 015'2 \" \" 0.0080' 2276 1^66 ' ' 0.1556 0.0356 0.0670 '6 2472 \"\"6.1212   '267673'7' \" 6.0576\" ' 7 6 2\"6\"O5 2 \"6.0898 '0.0778 \"24J2Y 2,040 0.0846 \".....LITT'-E rock school district -.-'^.kLOCATION OF RESOURCES.......... ' \"16-67-90........................ enroll Ei area high schools CENTRAL........ ........ HALL ......... FAIR McClellan .......... PARKVIEW total\" '  \" ~... id-i-'97 . JENROLL average ' 10-1-96 i6-i-95 expense '''97-90 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ~ '~ DUNBAR forest heights.......\" PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST   .... \" HENDERSON  ............ CLOVERDALE mabelvale ........ MANN .................- TOTAL ......- ELEMENTARY'sCHbOLS  bale'2' ..................... BRADY  ...... BADGETT ----------- McDermott baseline :  FAIR park .............. forest PARK..................... CHICOT WESTERN HILLS\" ..... JEFFERSON ...... CLOVERDALE . ' *  DODD....................................... MEADOWCLIFF.... KING  ' ' ----------------- GEYER SPRINGS^ ....~ ' PULASKI HEIGHTS \".............. '\"1755 2 '\" 790 ....... ' 935 ' - ^11 5748 :__7712 _ 640 _ 3^67 510 ' '724 2 622 2566 ^Joso' 5.466' ~~ 36f __372 233 Aii ' 323 __2'I8' _ 430 537 315' 51'3 512 224 '33'r '6'5'8' ''3'16' '464 1777  023 ' 814... 926 _928' \" _9'05 964 ~ 1.741 '5.2'19'\"' 775  055 5,103 732  630 ' 759 705 594  \" 741 \"' ____639 _ - Jp o 054  5,^06 781 61'2   792  \"\"669 ' 491 847 expe'nse '96-97 \"'' expense ' ....95'-'96 \" avgerage PER PUPIL ' ... 847  '\"825 \" '\"'922 002 '5,21'7 7'59'  '\"679' 778' 572' ' \"752 623 408.... 853' .. -9.i23 ' \"5^565' \" 375 3712 _ \" 219 ' '\"439  - 1295 ' .... 2 '2 497 2 566 ' J42 '\" _8Z3 Z  622  'J347 ' 394 216 ' 407 11?'35.84  ' i 03,975.33 41,905 00 46,432.63 '52,900.12' ' i03?307.37 43,607,37 _ 46,'352.94 52,090.65 __1^1\n82477 2 75.585.60' 2 235.666^28 82?l216.24 567.946'26' 56,966.09 55.462.41' 47.079.25 47,643.65 li?j84.63 2i i i'.'468.23 -..V8j215J9 23i.16'9?5i ' 49\u0026lt;811.54 57.409.'34'' 54d,668?0i . 59.34 55.58 \"57.73 120.94 262.20 '103.64 4'5'4 \"2 2'76 2 -335  99^ _ 453 2531 2 ' 3io '406  2361 ' 379  \" 221 ' '484' ' '317 22258 438'  Z-5'2 - 3^ \"sor \" ?52 _J88'  '_312 441 '666^\u0026lt;nn 1- 87.409.34 2\"'5671975 4i'F6Ti? -- --- ---81976 \"36797:30  ..jOIJI _ 30.302.90 41.448.20 27.59373 99.000.60 27.060.92 33.266.51 '32.'611.43 03.409.06 23.210.63 1^082.63 ....25,72i\n42 236.746.63 28O.334.54' _553.692J7 582.185.6'2' 75.11'4.26' 23728.'47 ~ 26'.748.49 \" 186.065?6O ' 484,456'.6'7' -..?'.9'i'i.:9i 28.666 59'' U 27.378.97 25.556.'59 26.583.55 1'^-'9^^-74 16.544'22 33.611.51 29?i26.'53 .23.98O?o6 23.700.96\" __^.!l99.i3 ......21.783.16' _?O76977 96.22873 '2i75l'?56 23.541.58 32.236.53' '46.756.79 ..... 3f.i 57.22 05.068.00 24.672.01 26.85'6.65' ZZ237''295.59......' 539.911.39 ' ' \"\"''27.'676?2'5' 2^!?91:72_.. 26.277?6g 14420.27 ______________15.023741 j_____297'69702........ 247717.56.... .?.2.'550.5'6 21.158.93........... -??..583.6i 21226730.35 '' ' 88'62O.95 54.693.37....... ................... 20.990.08..........2ii07 25....... -8'l9?_?-9* ___26.416.39 33J28.'O3 35.366.67 36.637.67 i5.i59\nio \"  20,413.94 22,919.38 29'667.66 14.72^8'9 31,3'75'15 33,860.27 16,765.31 .-^9./?9O.48 40,24 3.05' --2^299^99^ 22,'59'3.16 '24.6'4'391  36529.64 ''27.7'79.'66 '22722.96 \"37,463.1'1....... 3'8,9\"85.81 26.795.54 '''26.466?i7' 24.350^67 25.900.89 74.56 '54.05 52.40 54.47 114.14 39.58 54.98 78.19 90.00 '74.93 69.33 60.07 '60.43 \"77.09 '02.12 59.90 107.60 \" Q7.22 6279 69.35 66.10 61.34 64.50 04.64 50.69... .yPLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ___allocation OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 ROMINE ........ WASHINGTON WILSON\" WOODRUFF.............. MABELVALE ' . TERRY ..................... FULBRIGHT OTTER\"creek WAKEFIELD 7.... WATSON\" franklin\" garland........... MITCHELL.................... rockefeller....... righ\"tse\"lL\" ........ BOOKER...................... CARVER 7.......... GIBBS\" ..................... WILLIAMS\" total 'grand TOTA'l' '  ' 1'6-1-97' \" ___72. \"7_^660 \"' 362\" ENROLL _______ ENROLL A'VER'AG'E ' '\"' 10-1-96 16\" 1-95\"  ....-...... ' 284\" '*07 511 ''\"495 '7'328 ' ' 373' I' J93' ''_46'4 '7 271' 7242 /7 ^05 Z^-ig 597  596 LjJl 479\"' 'I4:'l7'i' 304 708 '362 268 '418 515 566 302 '656 '304 254 ' ' 24:625 - ' expense '- - 310 _' ' 4'36 479\"  J 32 ' ill  \" 262 7___436 ' 246 LJL 663 SCM 7 \"50'i ' '14,281 ~ \"24,986 460 \"'536 51'8 ' \"3'39 429 444 431 '2'55 \"2'57 ' 406 219 604 629 3'67' '508 '14,0'76' ___311 '6\"75' \"' \"369 '269 \"7'426 '5'21.... ''2'\"56\"4' 1-326 ' 413 ' __A12 4'49\" ' '\" '2'6'0 \"254 ' _ ^16 27 230  301 _ 7_ 310 ' 7_ \"\"'310 ... \" '496  ....1'4.174 24,876\" ' 24','B96  97-98 96-97 57.735^89 54':492':7'7' 69,699.60' __20,057.11 724:163.46 72 27,444.64 20,234.26 \" \" 31,602.51 '\"21:533.79 65,554.46 ''22,754.90  2'4',449:55 27'.'62O.1B 32,518 83' 33,937:51 20,296.58 -.-23.43^06 ' 26,16i?i 5 \"expens'e_ 95-96 average\" ...75,i 39.08 62,455\"91 52,835.39 23,699.36 ''\"20,399?2'3  36:441'.'73' '28:605.10 62,496.51 \"22,176:44 '23,01'6.75 30,502.18 29,786.06 -?3'632.57 31,417.53 2^635.10 23'16474'6' 21,488.49 '24,234.20 ---------- . ------ .- 33.049.80____40,511:8'5' \" \"' a^OOtOO.......\"\"36 547\"05 -.1?2J29^27 2iO7\n5627o '\"\"Tn^flB \"71,392.25 \" 7 7'0.763.37 249,49 too \"66,506.80 207,109.51 ..... - ----- -  vr 59,552.27 '_ ''6'5,810'97\" .?5.143.44 7^72298' ....71^906.60 '197.4'1'5.82' 58,'986.35 121.783.15 -t3?'193/87 2 170'340.05' 132,869:5'2 7.13'3,'799'.95 2,024,546.36 3,1'99','8B5767 69,936.75 '127,6'62.3'2 1.786^95.39 2,877J 26.67 217,976.65 ''221'627.82 58,318.66 7\" 53,065.76 7121:215.60' 5'o','746:24  ...\"91,025739 1:599 376.15 61.270.58 \"7127.586.14 -J.:* 326:53 '91.182 17 7'117.742.55 1.803.639.30 AVGERAGE PER PUPIL' 7 200:61 ,92.63 30.03 \"05.65 71.21 57.21 62.30 7_ '65.90 '\"50.73 \"77.43 '7 252.18 __ 245.87 2 283.47 .1 333.19 257.44 212.17 .7 243.28 7 294.14 237.38 127.25 2,575,644.36 '2.M4 2i'B'7n 115.85 II little rock school district ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES HIGH SCHOOLS CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW TOTAL ......... 10-07-98 ENROLL 10-1-97 SERVICE HOURS HOURS/ ENROLL ' 1,855 790 757 935 911 5,248 6,743.75 1,476?6o 4,692.50 4,533.50 \" },277.75 10,723.50 JUNIOR HIGH'sCHOOLS DUNBAR ............ forest HEIGHTS..............' PULASKI HEIGHTS ..........\" SOUTHWEST ........................ HENDERSON ''..............  CLOVERDALE MABELVALE..... ~ MANN .................. total ............... ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BALE............................................ BRADY............ ....- BADGETT ............' \" McDermott\" ........  baseline\"......... FAIRPARK ------------------ FOREST PA'rk ......''....... CHICOT ....... WESTERN hIlLS JEFFERSON cLoverdale ....... DODD'........... ............. MEADOWCLIFF ........ KING................. ......................... 77} _648 7Q7 510 ' 724 622 506 058 5,406 3,041.00 1,004.50 4.15'7'60 3 400.25 i,'016.25 1,019.00 19,285.00 3O,89TOO 3.64 '1.0'7 \"670 '4.85 1.40 3.57 4.98 1.67 5.42 6?96' iJo 2.01 22.48 5.71 362 372 ? 233 A77 '323 240 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 650 2,127.50 833.00 134.25 2'869.50 3,832.50 1,342.50 6,404.50 1,339.75 '1'77375 2,806.75 '291.50 1,276^00 475.50 8,00025 5.88 2.24 0.58 6.02 11.87 5.41 \"l\u0026lt;89 2'.'49 5.63 5.47 0.57 570 1'43 12.17LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HEIGHTS  ROMINE WASHINGTON \" WILSON .................... woodruff MABELVALE ........... TERRY FULBRIGHT otter creek WAKEFIELD ................. WATSON FRANkUN garland '\"  .... MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER \" RIGHTSELL........... ' BOOKER CARVER.......................... GIBBS.................................. WHJJAMS ............ TOTAL ....... 10-07-90 ENROLL 10-1-97 316 464 320 \"660 362 204 \u0026lt;107 611 '65 320 \"......... 373 ..............493   464 ......271 242 '05 249 597 596 311 ........... 479 ......\"14.171 SERVICE HOURS 5,713.75 3,126.25 4,110.50 '2,701.75 ....... 121.50 i, 114.75 116.00 5,401.00 7,606.25 4,043.25 449.75 2,267.5'd \u0026lt;024.75 1,327.75 1,013.75 7,286.00 \"5,101.25 3,644.50 19,087.75 17,374 50 '9,329.75 137,16550 HOURS/ ENROLL ' 16.00 674 \u0026lt;2.56 _ '09 '_0.34 \"\u0026lt;93 0.29 10.73 15.37 14.77 21 4.60 \"\u0026lt;93 4.90 4.19 17.99 20.49 6.10 32.03 55.07 19?10 9.60 GRAND TOTAL 24,025 106,780.00 7.52 II .....little rock school district ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES HIGH SCHOOLS ..... CENTRAL .......... HALL\"\"'............................................ FAIR.........-----.............................. McClellan ........ PARKVIEW'-------.................. total\".......... ..... JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS DUNBAR   ..... forest HEIGHTS \" pula'ski heights^ SOUTHWEST ....... HENDERSON\"..-...................... CLOVERDALE\" ............... mabeLvaLe .... MANN \"....... -........ TOTAL ......... -.... elementary scHdoLs BALE\"' 2 ............. ....... BRADY BADGETT.... ....... m^ermott baseline.. ......... FAIR PARK FOREST PARK .....' CHicbt............................................... WESTERN HILLS ................. jeffe'rson ...-..... CLOVERDALE .......---- DODD ........... -...... 10-07-98 enroll\"\" 16-1-97  1,855 ....790 757 \" \" 935 \"\"\"911 5,248 771 648 767 510 724 _ 622 \"506 858 5,406 '\"'362 7372' \" '233 ' J 323 \" 248 430 \"537 \"315.. \"513 512 '224 donations 8,980.00 5,343.00 900.00 400.00 3,45000 19 073^00 A866.06 ' \"\"6O'.66\" 1,100.00 915.00 750.00 10,691.00 3,375.06 3,233.88 12,975.94 1,556.00 25O\no6 10,742.04 2,135^42 325.00 _ PER 'pupil 4.84 676 i.\"l'9 0.43 3.79 \"3.63 \"iofe\" \"\"6J2\" ...1.52 i.8i 0.87 1.98 9.32 869 27.20 J4.86\" i.oi 24?98 3.98\" 0.63I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES _____ 10-07-98 MEADOWCLIFF ............ KING ........... GEYER SPRINGS .......... PULASKI HEIGHTS......... ROMINE .............  WASHINGTON'....... WI^ON ................. ............ MABELVALE'.... ....... terry\"'.. FULBRIGH't ............... OTTER CREEK ....... WAKEFIELD...... WATSON .....----- fr'anklin ...... garland .......... MITCHELL ROC'keFELLER............ RIGHTSELL BOOKER carver gIbbs wil'lIams 'total grand tot al ENROLL  10-1-97 332 658 ....316 '64 328  ...... 660 362 284 407 '\"'5'il 495 ...........328 '373  '.....493 .......''464 271 242 - ZL_ ?65 249 ''' '259'7 '596 ZZ 511 _'179 '14,1'71 24,825 DONATIONS 4,400.00 150.00 1,686.94 3,377.16' 3,135^05 ' \"77O'.6o 1,'29\u0026lt;.6o 2'395.00 ... 55.00 3?46o.6o 3,285.60'' 2 1,'255'/66...... 7,600.00 100'50 13,066.00 1,356.00 8408.00 '  506.00 9O.745.'93 120,509.93 PER PUPIL \u0026lt;3.25 0-23 7'..5.34 1...'7.28 ........9.56 '\u0026lt;17 3.57 5.88 0.11 10.37  a.'a'i '^2.'55 16.38 6.37 '53?72  3^3 33.77 1.61 6.40 4.85. I 1. PupiVTeacher Ratio Equitable Allocation Worksheet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/Staff Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) 3. Square Feet per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 4. Percent of Staff with a Masters Degree, plus, Nine Years of Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 5. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 6. School Size High School 7 6 5 4 3 1 (911) (1395) 1 Middle School 6 (506) 5 (538) 4 (686) 7 3 2 1 Elementary 7 6 7. (231) (246) 5 (315) (373) (495) (596) 1 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34) 9. Volunteer Hours per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 10. Donations per Pupil 1 2 3 (.00) (.00) (.0275) 4 5 6 2 (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)  EXHIBIT IComposite School Scores 27- Cloverdale Elementary 28- 29- Terry 30- 31- 32- Cloverdale J.H., King, Pulaski Heights Elementary 33- Dunbar, McDermott, Western Hills 34- Pulaski Heights J.H., Jefferson, Wakefield 35- Central, Southwest, Meadowcliff 36- McClellan, Forest Heights, Mabelvale Elementary, Washington, Woodruff 37- Badgett, Forest Park, Fulbright, Watson 38- Otter Creek 39- Henderson, Mabelvale, Baseline, Booker, Carver Fair Park 40- 41- Mann, Garland, Williams 42- Hall, Brady, Chicot 43- J. A. Fair, Bale, Geyer Springs, Wilson 44- 45- Parkview 46- Romine 47- 48- Franklin, Mitchell 49- Dodd 50- Rockefeller 51- 52- Gibbs 53- 54- Rightsell 7 6  5  4  3  2  1  A A a 0 27.00 32.00 34.00 29.00 36.00 33.00 38.00 41.00 35.00 43.00 37.00 46.00 39.00 49.00 42.00 52.00 45.00 48.00 50.00 54.00 EQUITYComposite School Scores 27- Cloverdale Elementary 28- 29- Terry 30- 31- 32- Cloverdale J.H., King, Pulaski Heights Elementary 33- Dunbar, McDermott, Western Hills 34- Pulaski Heights J.H., Jefferson, Wakefield 35- Central, Southwest, Meadowcliff 36- McClellan, Forest Heights, Mabelvale Elementary, Washington, Woodruff 37- Badgett, Forest Park, Fulbright, Watson 38- Otter Creek 39- Henderson, Mabelvale, Baseline, Booker, Carver Fair Park 40- 41- Mann, Garland, Williams 42- Hall, Brady, Chicot 43- J. A. Fair, Bale, Geyer Springs, Wilson 44- 45- Parkview 46- Romine 47- 48- Franklin, Mitchell 49- Dodd 50- Rockefeller 51- 52- Gibbs 53- 54- RightsellGraph 7 6- 5 4 3 2 1 3 o O 0 27.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 41.00 43.00 46.00 29.00 33.00 35.00 37.00 49.00 52.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 48.00 50.00 54.00 EQUITY Page 1Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American-' Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE.RATIO ST Al RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students 1.000 -.325* -.376\" .120 -.183 .274 -.257 .122 -.085 -.404\" .269 .120 .024 .008 .417 .213 .059 .078 .408 .565 .004 .065 .415 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.325* -.376\" .120 -.183 .274 -.257 1.000 .826\" -.554\" .826\" 1.000 -.455\" -.554\" -.455\" 1.000 .468\" .407\" -.252 -.285* -.365* .241 .135 .453- .170 .468\" .407\" -.252 1.000 -.131 .020 -.285* .135 -.265 -.522\" -.071 -.152 -.638\" -.365* .453\" -.226 -.561\" -.135 -.239 -.696\" .241 .170 .135 .281 -.056 .066 .522\" -.131 .020 -.158 -.282 -.017 -.190 -.045 1.000 -.068 -.197 .149 -.061 .258 .097 -.068 1.000 .088 -.091 -.133 -.222 -.259 .024 .000 .000 .001 .049 .359 .069 .000 .630 .302 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .008 .000 .001 .004 .011 .001 .122 .000 .362 .103 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .417 .000 .001 .083 .099 .248 .361 .053 .706 .657 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .213 .001 .004 .083 .376 .892 .284 .052 .909 .197 .764 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .059 .078 .049 .011 .099 .359 .001 .248 .376 .892 .644 .644 .180 .311 .682 .077 .511 .553 .536 .368 .129 .076 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 2Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American-' Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE. RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY I % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY COMPUTER .122 -.265 -.226 .135 -.158 -.197 .088 1.000 .429\" .175 -.046 .429\" .408 .069 .122 .361 .284 .180 .553 .002 .235 .758 .002 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 EXPENDIT -.085 -.522\" -.561\" .281 -.282 .149 -.091 .429\" 1.000 .512\" .195 .655\" .565 .000 .000 .053 .052 .311 .536 .002 .000 .185 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). VOLUNTEE -.404\" -.071 -.135 -.056 -.017 -.061 -.133 .175 .512\" 1.000 .020 .403\" .004 .630 .362 .706 .909 .682 .368 .235 .000 .894 .004 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 DONATION .269 -.152 -.239 .066 -.190 .258 -.222 -.046 .195 .020 1.000 .335* .065 .302 .103 .657 .197 .077 .129 .758 .185 .894 .020 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 EQUITY .120 -.638\" -.696- .522- -.045 .097 -.259 .429\" .655\" .403- .335* 1.000 .415 .000 .000 .000 .764 .511 .076 .002 .000 .004 .020 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 3File Information List of variables on the working file Name Position SCHOOL School Print Format': F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 1 Value Label 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 Central J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Junior High Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff TE.RATIO 2 Print Format: F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 Page 1te. ratio 1 18.52 2 14.23 3 12.60 4 14.19 5 15.34 6 13.88 7 15.80 8 12.63 9 13.58 10 12.08 11 14.72 12 13.62 13 12.03 14 13.20 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati 12.54 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 9.73 10.98 8.77 9.41 8.25 10.48 9.99 8.50 7.14 .. sq.ft 143.84 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 131.67 128.92 108.47 142.56 122.60 131.72 95.46 162.68 100.45 1-1 teach 52.00 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 29.00 44.00 42.00 35.00 29.00 48.00 37.00 42.00 46.00 turnover 15.00 12.00 18.00 14.00 10.00 4.00 16.00 10.00 7.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 14.00 19.00student# 1 1855.00 2 757.00 3 790.00 4 935.00 5 911.00 6 622.00 7 771.00 8 648.00 9 724,00 10 506.00 11 858.00 12 767.00 13 510.00 14 233.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .04 .07 .09 .30 .11 .04 .04 .08 .24 .07 .05 .04 .05 .01 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 3.64 6.20 1.87 4.85 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 262.20 39.58 74.56 54.05 114.14 54.98 278.19 52.40 54.47 68.07 1-2 1.40 3.79 .00 .00 4.98 1.67 1.40 2.01 22.48 5.42 .96 .58 .00 .00 1.52 1.81 .87 10.26 .12 .001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 equity 35.00 43.00 42.00 36.00 45.00 32.00 33.00 36.00 39.00 39.00 41.00 34.00 35.00 37.00 C:\\Program Rles\\SPSSWIilhollen.sav black 59.00 81.00 71.00 84.00 51.00 89.00 57.00 70.00 86.00 75.00 52.00 57.00 84.00 92.00 1-315 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 te.ratio 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 12.95 15.25 18.70 10.74 17.19 11.61 16.73 C\n\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati sq.ft teach turnover 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 7.47 7.85 11.32 5.30 9.54 5.35 8.26 92.89 55.00 21.00 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 208.54 116.40 74.22 147.63 135.14 142.55 132.22 2-1 53.00 39.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 10.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 49.00 47.00 63.00 44.00 26.00 48.00 17.00 53.00 9.00 .00 20.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 20.00 17.0015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 student# 362.00 323.00 597.00 372.00 596.00 537.00 512.00 224.00 248.00 430.00 464.00 495.00 271.00 316.00 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSSyVKIhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .10 .01 .07 .11 .06 .28 .08 .06 .00 .05 .16 .03 .04 .08 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 243.28 107.68 69.35 66.18 82.12 59.90 252.18 62.30 245.87 84.64 5.88 11.87 6.10 2.24 32.03 2.49 .57 5.70 5.41 14.89 3.93 15.37 4.90 18.08 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 .00 3.98 .00 .00 1.01 24.98 16.38 .11 .37 5.34 2-215 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CiVrogram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav equity 43.00 39.00 39.00 42.00 39.00 42.00 27.00 49.00 39.00 37.00 48.00 37.00 41.00 43.00 black 73.00 83.00 52.00 63.00 52.00 69.00 92.00 65.00 76.00 76.00 92.00 48.00 93.00 75.00 2-329 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 te. ratio 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.70 18.12 18.20 C:\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati sq.ft teach turnover 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 7.47 10.83 10.26 119.73 40.00 4.00 84.88 68.00 9.00 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 9.00 7.00 15.00 12.00 31.00 4.00 125.54 151.12 159.41 129.01 88.67 100.25 3-1 47.00 39.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 71.00 11.00 13.00 18.00 14.00 6.00 11.0029 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 student# 311.00 513.00 658.00 407.00 477.00 332.00 242.00 328.00 37 464.00 38 249.00 39 405.00 40 328.00 41 511.00 C:\\Prooram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .26 .05 .00 .10 .03 .01 .07 .02 .08 .12 .25 .04 .02 294.14 44.87 1.61 6229 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 200.61 57.21 5.47 12.17 .29 6.02 1.43 4.19 14.77 6.74 20.49 17.99 12.56 10.73 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 9.56 .00 42 373.00 .01 58.73 1.21 8.81 J 3-229 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 equity 52.00 34.00 32.00 36.00 33.00 35.00 48.00 38.00 32.00 54.00 50.00 46.00 29.00 34.00 C:\\Program FilesVSPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 52.00 44.00 54.00 73.00 57.00 79.00 92.00 46.00 55.00 94.00 59.00 63.00 46.00 86.00 J 3-3te. ratio 43 13.03 44 17.64 45 18.42 46 15.40 47 14.89 48 14.04 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 4-1 sq.ft 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 teach 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00 turnover 7.00 13.00 .00 11.00 4.00 27.00. 1'   C:\\Program Fiies\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav studentii computer expendit voluntee donation 43 660.00 .06 92.63 4.09 1.12 44 493.00 .15 77.43 4.60 2.55 45 315.00 .10 67.20 5.63 .00 46 479.00 .09 237.38 19.48 .00 47 362.00 .09 60.03 .34 3.57 48 284.00 .02 85.65 4-2 3.93 .0043 44 45 46 47 48 equity 36.00 37.00 33.00 41.00 43.00 36.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 53.00 89.00 70.00 52.00 82.00 71.00 J 4-34 ' FEB 1 4 2000 Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1999-00 School Year nPQFPRFPinflM UflNITflHIWR /o New Score % Black Score % Black UCoCuntuHllunillgloHy^i^i^Qy^gl yeach/Pupll Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate 1999 CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE MABELVALE MANN BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE McDermott 1 2 8 12 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 3 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 46 20 1 1 1 tl 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 17.66 15.54 14.38 16.31 15.96 14.02 14.07 13.92 8.71 9.82 14.1 11.05 14.34 14.45 11.93 12.97 10.94 13.87 13.82 16.69 15.85 9.84 12.74 14.72 11.19 16.21 12.51 16.71 10.56 15.46 13.20 15.00 16.29 12.26 11.45 9.91 10.93 10.97 9.99 9.67 10.22 6.53 7.00 10.16 7.99 10.31 7.46 6.68 6.42 7.99 8.31 8.40 8.83 9.05 6.03 6.69 8.74 6.04 8.61 5.87 8.53 6.72 9.70 7.07 8.39 9.54 130.48 109.52 137,83 99.35 143.89 134.50 89.35 96.34 185.61 187.32 116.16 121.42 134.22 119.41 107.78 170.46 139.57 104.19 117.51 117.03 78.08 230.11 130.62 100.36 141.24 163.15 144.69 128.95 130.66 117.69 122.55 147.01 128.74 0.48 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.53 0.37 0.32 0.42 0.33 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.46 0.54 0.58 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.60 0.34 0.25 0.47 0.23 0.52 0.45 0.76 0.40 0.19 0.44 0.22 0.43 0.25 0.40 0.19 0.29 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.15 0.31 0.23 0.31 0.19 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.04 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 0.0704 0.0891 0.0932 0.2794 0.1201 0.0622 0.0841 0.0697 0.1051 0.3521 0.0837 0.0972 0.0867 0.0432 0.1403 0.0229 0.1498 0.1242 0.1467 0.3017 0.1128 0.1351 0.0215 0.1038 0.1763 0.0585 0.0723 0.1142 0.2842 0.1243 0.0240 0.1139 0.0617 58.07 45.91 63.45 252.21 258.25 76.69 45.66 52.87 64.53 265.43 41.28 52.36 284.92 69.73 77.05 75.49 294.76 71.34 256.03 105.84 75.86 76.45 86.10 67.16 221.61 68.80 240.02 79.03 526.14 67.94 70.37 67.82 69.57 1.97 4.36 2.98 3.70 4.16 9.89 0.16 11.85 2.06 5.70 3.06 0.76 4.71 5.12 5.23 16.64 16.43 3.87 39.33 3.50 3.43 14.05 8.32 22.77 6.85 16.66 7.06 10.61 34.38 38.93 16.35 0.56 40.00 4.15 1.94 0.00 4.74 0.00 3.62 0.00 11.57 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.00 7.65 0.00 3.63 2.76 9.02 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 20.99 5.20 39.33 0.41 28.78 3.00 1.27 0.00 1.11 8.17 1.44 19.60 29 25 34 36 44 38 23 36 45 56 25 34 46 45 58 57 57 43 47 39 35 69 60 40 49 43 50 42 62 47 46 36 47 1999 57% 71% 80% 89% 50% 60% 65% 60% 91% 77% 88% 73% 52% 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 1998 37 47 49 46 47 36 40 39 42 44 36 45 46 41 50 50 43 48 45 47 31 57 44 42 54 45 46 49 60 41 36 41 39 1998 59 81 71 84 51 89 57 70 86 75 52 57 84 92 73 83 52 63 52 69 92 65 76 48 92 48 93 75 52 44 54 73 57 DRAFT COPY 2/11/00 1Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1999-00 School Year % New Score % Black Score % Black School#Level Teach/Pupil Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate 1999 MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHT RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 33 34 50 38 39 36 40 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 16.19 11.87 17.45 16.36 13.09 10.65 12.26 17.52 15.53 11.22 16.36 16.89 14.54 14.68 13.33 8.78 6.03 10.58 8.82 6.44 4.39 7.20 11.05 9.11 6.30 9.80 9.14 9.14 7.99 7.43 147.14 158.70 104.73 190.37 139.89 161.00 131.41 87.98 111.96 165.38 121.00 164.67 103.06 118.45 134.75 0.40 0.23 0.50 0.63 0.51 0.29 0.39 0.34 0.64 0.32 0.41 0.53 0.71 0.68 0.24 0.11 0.29 0.10 0.05 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 0.0398 0.0742 0.0544 0.1569 0.1416 0.3208 0.1042 0.0485 0.0180 0.1043 0.1834 0.1373 0.0961 0.1186 0.0363 67.07 281.03 60.25 67.36 242.78 483.03 173.45 60.30 69.83 104.40 74.61 69.50 286.99 61.47 84.10 2.39 9.60 11.44 21.44 20.68 49.97 15.97 19.75 0.68 11.42 1.95 9.43 18.62 0.33 6.22 0.00 0.00 3.44 26.14 0.00 5.91 6.72 4.50 19.37 0.00 0.45 20.75 37.51 0.00 0.00 37 51 35 61 59 65 55 31 40 50 38 55 53 41 42 1999 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% 61% 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% 1998 41 56 45 39 60 59 52 34 42 43 43 43 47 50 41 1998 79 92 46 55 94 59 63 46 86 53 89 70 52 82 71 DRAFT COPY 2/11/00 2P/K K ________________LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES _____________________________10-01-99_________ OCTOBER 1,1999 ENROLLMENT 1-12 TOT TOT-P/K BL WH OTH TOT % BL % WH % OTH TOTAL F.T.E. TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K /STAFF PUP-P/K /TEACH HIGH SCHOOLS CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOLS DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE MABELVALE MANN TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS 0 0 11 34 34 18 36 36 18 35 71 18 35 0 0 40 47 49 78 60 78 75 58 31 39 50 72 62 47 53 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 145 231 213 456 270 447 399 332 154 147 268 342 348 202 236 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 1167 981 760 1066 582 4556 843 306 179 108 538 1974 35 104 16 18 37 210 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 57% 71% 80% 89% 50% 68% 41% 22% 19% 9% 46% 29% 2% 7% 2% 2% 3% 3% 166.80 121.50 96.40 109.10 105.50 599.30 115.80 89.50 66.40 73.10 72.50 417.30 12.26 11.45 9.91 10.93 10.97 11.25 17.66 15.54 14.38 16.31 15.96 16.15 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 447 507 457 406 422 617 360 435 3651 249 254 295 33 110 49 123 380 1493 43 24 8 8 19 39 11 27 179 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 60% 65% 60% 91% 77% 88% 73% 52% 69% 34% 32% 39% 7% 20% 7% 25% 45% 28% 6% 3% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% 74.00 81.20 74.40 68.50 78.70 69.40 61.85 81.70 589.75 52.70 55.80 54.60 51.30 56.10 50.00 44.70 58.70 423.90 9.99 9.67 10.22 6.53 7.00 10.16 7.99 10.31 9.03 14.02 14.07 13.92 8.71 9.82 14.10 11.05 14.34 12.56 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 185 278 262 534 330 525 474 390 185 186 318 414 410 249 289 179 231 253 271 247 274 344 381 131 160 139 466 169 250 267 16 66 41 249 75 229 85 21 68 58 172 11 233 3 44 1 15 2 14 26 22 81 24 4 3 7 8 8 14 13 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 8% 21% 14% 47% 22% 44% 17% 5% 33% 26% 54% 2% 57% 1% 14% 1% 5% 1% 3% 7% 4% 16% 6% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 4% 24.80 41.60 40.80 66.80 39.70 62.50 53.70 43.10 30.70 27.80 36.40 68.50 47.60 42.40 33.90 12.80 23.30 20.20 48.80 23.80 38.00 28.40 24.60 18.80 14.60 21.60 37.00 25.30 19.90 17.30 7.46 6.68 6.42 7.99 8.31 8.40 8.83 9.05 6.03 6.69 8.74 6.04 8.61 5.87 8.53 14.45 11.93 12.97 10.94 13.87 13.82 16.69 15.85 9.84 12.74 14.72 11.19 16.21 12.51 16.71P/K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-01-99 OCTOBER 1,1999 ENROLLMENT GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 71 18 18 36 55 34 54 36 18 34 720 K 54 62 90 52 59 36 31 74 39 40 67 60 89 59 72 74 32 56 59 40 1984 1-12 231 308 451 308 314 215 198 275 267 193 279 228 426 275 417 335 223 402 236 208 9979 TOT 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 12683 TOT-P/K 285 370 541 360 373 251 229 349 306 233 346 288 515 334 489 409 255 458 295 248 11963 BL 147 146 336 278 213 198 240 164 173 261 245 211 238 282 332 420 191 233 278 225 8573 WH 127 218 253 95 134 52 5 178 127 6 148 73 238 28 143 19 61 209 27 54 3566 OTH 11 6 23 5 26 1 2 7 6 2 8 38 39 24 68 6 3 16 8 3 544 TOT 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 12683 % BL 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% 61% 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% 68% % WH 45% 59% 41% 25%' 36% 21% 2% 51% 42% 2% 37% 23% 46% 8% 26% 4% 24% 46% 9% 19% 28% % OTH 4% 2% W 1% 7% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 12% 8% 7% 13% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 4% TOTAL F.T.E. 42.40 38.13 76.50 42.90 39.10 28.60 38.00 33.00 34.70 36.20 78.90 40.00 46.60 36.67 77.60 41.75 27.90 50.10 36.90 33.40 1,539.65 TEACH F.T.E. 27.00 23.93 41.00 24.00 22.90 15.50 19.30 20.00 18.70 17.80 32.50 23.50 29.40 21.50 43.60 25.00 15.10 31.50 20.10 18.60 865.33 PUP-P/K / STAFF 6.72 9.70 7.07 8.39 9.54 8.78 6.03 10.58 8.82 6.44 4.39 7.20 11.05 9.11 6.30 9.80 9.14 9.14 7.99 7.43 7.77 PUP-P/K /TEACH 10.56 15.46 13.20 15.00 16.29 16.19 11.87 17.45 16.36 13.09 10.65 12.26 17.52 15.53 11.22 16.36 16.89 14.54 14.68 13.33 13.82 ALTERNATIVE SETTINGS 1 443 444 444 317 121 6 444 71% 27% 1% GRAND TOTAL 720 1985 22485 25190 24470 17097 7154 939 25190 68% 28% 4% 2,728.70 1,706.53 28.04 42.53School Name CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan PARKVIEW CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHT RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1998-99 School Year School# Level Teach/Pupil Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma % Nev/ Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate Score % Black Students 1 8 2 12 5 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 46 20 33 34 50 38 39 36 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18.52 14.23 12.60 14.19 15.34 13.88 15.80 12.63 13.58 12.08 14.72 13.62 12.03 13.20 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 12.95 15.25 18.70 10.74 17.19 11.61 16.73 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.54 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 9.73 10.98 8.77 9.41 8.25 10.48 9.99 8.50 7.14 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 7.47 7.85 11.32 5.30 9.54 5.35 8.26 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 143.84 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 131.67 128.92 108.47 142.56 122.60 131.72 95.46 162.68 100.45 92.89 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 208.54 116.40 74.22 147.63 135.14 142.55 132.22 119.73 84.88 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 125.54 151.12 159.41 52.00 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 29.00 44.00 42.00 35.00 29.00 48.00 37.00 42.00 46.00 55.00 53.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 49.00 47.00 63.00 44.00 26.00 48.00 17.00 53.00 40.00 68.00 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 47.00 39.00 29.00 15.00 12.00 18.00 14.00 10.00 4.00 16.00 10.00 7.00 ' 14.00 14.00 15.00 14.00 19.00 21.00 39.00 10.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 9.00 .00 20.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 20.00 17.00 4.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 15.00 12.00 31.00 4.00 11.00 13.00 18.00 1855 757 790 935 911 622 771 648 724 506 858 767 510 233 362 323 597 372 596 537 512 224 248 430 464 495 271 316 311 513 658 407 477 332 242 328 464 249 405 .0383 .0740 .0949 .2963 .1087 .0354 .0350 .0818 .2403 .0692 .0536 .0391 .0529 .0149 .1009 .0104 .0737 .1102 .0570 .2769 .0840 .0580 .0047 .0465 .1556 .0303 .0356 .0819 .2605 .0468 .0034 .0972 .0252 .0120 .0670 .0152 .0797 .1212 .2472 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 262.20 39.58 74.56 54.05 114.14 54.98 278.19 52.40 54.47 68.07 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 243.28 107.68 69.35 66.18 82.12 59.90 252.18 62.30 245.87 84.64 294.14 62.29 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 3.64 6.20 1.87 4.85 1.40 .00 4.98 1.67 1.40 2.01 22.48 5.42 .96 .58 5.88 11.87 6.10 2.24 32.03 2.49 .57 5.70 5.41 14.89 3.93 15.37 4.90 18.08 44.87 5.47 12.17 .29 6.02 1.43 4.19 14.77 6.74 20.49 17.99 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 3.79 .00 .00 .00 1.52 1.81 .87 10.26 .12 .00 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 .00 3.98 .00 .00 1.01 24.98 16.38 .11 .37 5.34 1.61 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 37 49 47 46 47 36 36 40 44 45 46 39 42 41 50 50 43 48 45 47 31 57 44 42 54 45 46 49 60 41 36 41 39 41 56 45 39 60 59 59 81 71 84 51 89 57 70 86 75 52 57 84 92 73 83 52 63 52 69 92 65 76 48 92 48 93 75 52 44 54 73 57 79 92 46 55 94 59 2/11/00 1Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1998-99 School Year ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 40 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12.70 18.12 18.20 13.03 17.64 18.42 15.40 14.89 14.04 7.47 10.83 10.26 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 129.01 88.67 100.25 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 40.00 29.00 71.00 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00 14.00 6.00 11.00 7.00 13.00 .00 11.00 4.00 27.00 328 511 373 660 493 315 479 362 284 .0411 .0196 .0080 .0577 .1466 .0984 .0898 .0930 .0200 200.61 57.21 58.73 92.63 77.43 67.20 237.38 60.03 85.65 12.56 10.73 1.21 4.09 4.60 5.63 19.48 .34 3.93 9.56 .00 8.81 1.12 2.55 .00 .00 3.57 .00 52 34 42 43 43 43 47 50 41 63 46 86 53 89 70 52 82 71 2/11/00 21999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: 1999 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1999 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046 05 CD CD {Z\u0026gt; c CD n 55 c cn o e \u0026lt; c cn o \u0026lt; o c \u0026lt;u a D. Sig. (2-tailed) N .758 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 30 40 50 -.046 1.000 .758 48 48 60 70 Total Score: 1999 N      a o       8 o       a      a   a Q  o    o    0    o o1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 ToSo Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 co o 90     a    (Z\u0026gt; c CD D 55 c CD O O E \u0026lt; c CD O 80 70     a  8 60.             \u0026lt; o c CD a CD CL 50 40 30  0     8 o  40 Total Score: 1998   8    50 60 70 }Composite School Scores (1998-99) 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- n- 28- 2)- 30- 31- Cloverdale 32- 33- 34- Terry 35- 36- Dunbar, Cloverdale MS, King 37- Central 38- 39- Pulaski Heights MS, McDermott, Pulaski Heights 40- Forest Heights MS 41- Badgett, Jefferson, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Woodruff 42- Southwest, Forest Park, Wakefield 43- Booker, Washington, Watson, Western Hills 44- Henderson, Fair Park 45- Mabelvale MS, Carver, Fulbright, Otter Creek 46- McClellan, Mann, Garland 47- Hall, Parkview, Chicot, Williams 48- Brady 49- JA Fair, Geyer Springs 50- Bale, Baseline, Wilson 51- 52- Romine 53- 54- Franklin 55- 56- Mitchell 57- Dodd 58- 59- Rockefeller 60- Gibbs, Rightsell DRAFT 2/7/00 Composite School Scores (1999-00) n- 23- Forest Heights MS 24- 25- Cloverdale MS, Hall 26- n- 28- 29- Central 30- 31-Terry 32- 33- 34- Mabelvale MS, JA Fair 35- Cloverdale, Otter Creek 36- McClellan, Pulaski HeightsMS, Mabelvale 37- Meadowcliff 38- Dunbar, Watson 39- Chicot 40- Forest Park, Wakefield 41- Wilson, 42- Woodruff, Geyer Springs 43- Brady, Fulbright 44- Parkview 45- Southwest, Badgett 46- Mann, King 47- Carver, Jefferson, McDermott 48- '49- Franklin 50- Garland, Washington -51-Mitchell 52- -53- Williams 54- 55- Western Hills, Romine 56- Henderson 57- Baseline, Booker./' 58- Bale, -59- Rightsell 60- Fair Park, 61- Pulaski Heights - 62- Gibbs 63- 64- ' 65- Rockefeller 66- 67- 69- DoddEquitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 High Schools Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 3 1 6 5 4 2 4 3 4 5 1999-00 1 1 4 5 4 2 3 1 2 6 1998-99 6 5 8 5 3 4 5 3 3 5 1999-00 3 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 3 4 1998-99 5 5 7 5 4 6 5 3 5 4 1999-00 4 2 6 4 2 6 4 2 2 2 1998-99 5 4 5 4 4 3 8 5 4 4 1999-00 2 1 1 3 1 4 8 1 3 6 1998-99 5 4 7 6 5 4 2 6 3 5 1999-00 3 1 6 1 4 5 6 7 3 2 Total 37 29 47 25 49 34 46 36 47 44 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 1Middle Schools Dunbar Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 4 3 5 1999-00 5 2 5 1998-99 6 5 4 1999-00 5 3 1 1998-99 5 4 3 1999-00 5 2 1 1998-99 6 5 6 1999-00 8 7 8 1998-99 5 4 5 1999-00 8 6 8 Total DRAFT COPY 4 3 2 4 5 4 2 36 3 2 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 1 5 6 5 3 3 3 1 6 7 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 6 5 2 2 2 3 6 3 6 5 3 4 3 2 5 8 7 4 5 38 40 23 39 36 42 45 44 56 2/7/00 2Equitable Allocation Worksheet\nIndividual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Middle Schools Cloverdale Mabelvale Mann Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 5 4 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 2 1999-00 5 2 3 2 1 4 3 1 2 2 1998-99 6 5 4 3 4 6 5 3 4 5 1999-00 7 5 4 3 2 5 4 1 1 2 1998-99 5 3 5 5 4 2 4 7 1 4 1999-00 4 2 5 6 5 2 4 8 3 1 Total 36 25 45 34 46 46 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 3Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores ton Wi 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 5 6 3 1999-00 4 6 3 1998-99 5 6 3 1999-00 7 7 2 1998-99 5 5 6 1999-00 6 7 8 1998-99 5 4 4 1999-00 8 5 6 Brady 1998-99 4 4 3 1999-00 5 5 2 5 3 8 2 4 3 2 41 1 5 8 2 4 4 2 45 6 2 6 6 5 5 6 50 1 8 6 7 5 4 5 6 1 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 5 1 5 5 5 2 5 6 5 2 5 4 1 7 8 6 7 7 5 5 6 4 4 6 5 7 4 6 4 3 2 58 50 57 43 57 48 43 2/7/00 4Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Carver Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 5 4 4 1999-00 5 5 3 1998-99 4 5 4 Chicot 1999-00 1 4 3 Cloverdale 1998-99 2 2 1 1999-00 3 4 1 Dodd 1998-99 6 6 8 1999-00 8 8 8 Fair Park 1998-99 5 5 4 1999-00 6 7 5 4 5 3 4 6 8 2 45 3 6 1 7 1 8 2 47 4 5 3 8 5 4 5 47 4 4 2 8 6 3 4 39 5 5 3 5 4 2 2 31 2/7/00 3 8 3 5 4 2 2 35 5 9 8 4 4 5 2 57 4 8 8 6 5. 6 8 6 3 6 1 5 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 6 69 44 60 5Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Forest Park Franklin Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 3 3 2 1999-00 4 4 1 1998-99 1 1 6 1999-00 7 8 6 Fulbright 1998-99 4 4 5 1999-00 2 4 7 Garland 1998-99 6 7 5 1999-00 6 8 6 Geyer Springs 1998-99 4 5 5 1999-00 1 5 4 4 6 4 4 3 6 7 42 2 1 5 4 3 8 8 40 2 6 4 6 6 4 6 54 1 5 2 1 6 4 3 49 5 6 4 3 4 6 4 6 1 3 2 3 1 8 1 3 6 4 6 4 4 1 3 7 3 7 4 5 6 3 5 5 5 6 5 7 1 5 5 5 5 4 45 43 46 50 49 42 2/7/00 6Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 6 6 4 4 1 6 7 8 8 4 1999-00 8 7 5 6 4 6 8 8 8 2 1998-99 2 2 5 1 5 3 4 4 5 4 1999-00 3 3 3 8 5 4 6 3 8 4 1998-99 3 5 4 4 5 1 1 4 6 3 1999-00 6 6 4 4 1 1 1 4 6 1 1998-99 4 4 5 1 6 4 6 5 1 5 1999-00 3 5 7 1 4 3 5 3 1 4 1998-99 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 7 1999-00 2 3 4 5 8 4 2 4 8 7 Total 60 62 41 47 36 46 41 36 39 47 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 7Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 3 4 4 1999-00 2 4 7 1998-99 8 8 6 1999-00 7 8 1 1998-99 1 3 4 1999-00 1 1 2 1998-99 1 1 5 1999-00 2 4 8 1998-99 7 6 6 1999-00 6 7 6 6 4 5 2 4 3 6 41 4 6 7 1 2 2 2 37 2 1 1 5 7 4 8 56 1 2 8 3 8 5 2 6 7 5 3 4 6 6 6 6 4 2 2 6 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 8 8 6 7 3 1 8 4 4 6 6 6 7 8 1 3 7 1 1 1 2 51 45 35 39 61 60 59 2/7/00 8Equitable Allocation Worksheet\nIndividual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Rockefeller Romine Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 8 8 6 1999-00 8 8 7 1998-99 6 6 5 1999-00 7 6 5 Terry 1998-99 3 3 3 1999-00 1 1 1 Wakefield 1998-99 3 4 3 1999-00 3 3 2 Washington 1998-99 5 6 5 1999-00 7 8 8 3 3 4 7 8 6 6 59 2 1 3 8 8 8 6 65 4 4 5 4 6 6 6 52 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 55 3 6 3 3 3 5 2 34 2/7/00 2 7 2 2 2 7 6 31 8 5 5 2 3 3 6 8 6 5 1 4 1 1 3 6 1 4 5 4 4 2 6 1 6 5 2 42 40 43 50 9Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 4 3 4 4 4 4 6 5 4 5 1999-00 2 2 4 5 4 3 8 4 2 4 1998-99 3 3 1 5 8 6 6 4 5 2 1999-00 1 3 7 1 8 7 6 3 5 8 1998-99 5 5 3 6 5 4 5 6 6 2 1999-00 4 3 2 8 7 2 4 8 1 8 1998-99 5 5 4 8 1 5 5 4 2 5 1999-00 4 5 3 8 5 5 6 2 1 2 1998-99 5 6 5 3 2 6 3 5 4 2 1999-00 6 6 5 1 4 7 1 6 4 2 Total DRAFT COPY 43 38 43 55 47 2/7/00 53 50 41 41 42 10Composite School Scores (1998-99) 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 30- 31- Cloverdale 32- 33- 34- Terry 35- 36- Dunbar, Cloverdale MS, King 37- Central 38- 39- Pulaski Heights MS, McDermott, Pulaski Heights 40- Forest Heights MS 41- Badgett, Jefferson, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Woodruff 42- Southwest, Forest Park, Wakefield 43- Booker, Washington, Watson, Western Hills 44- Henderson, Fair Park 45- Mabelvale MS, Carver, Fulbright, Otter Creek 46- McClellan, Maim, Garland 47- Hall, Parkview, Chicot, Williams 48- Brady 49- JA Fair, Geyer Springs 50- Bale, Baseline, Wilson 51- 52- Romine 53- 54- Franklin 55- 56- Mitchell 57- Dodd 58- 59- Rockefeller 60- Gibbs, Rightsell DRAFT 2/7/00 Composite School Scores (1999-00) 11- 23- Forest Heights MS 24- 25- Cloverdale MS, Hall 26- 27- 28- 29- Central 30- 31- Terry 32- 33- 34- Mabelvale MS, JA Fair 35- Cloverdale, Otter Creek 36- McClellan, Pulaski HeightsMS, Mabelvale 37- Meadowcliff 38- Dunbar, Watson 39- Chicot 40- Forest Park, Wakefield 41- Wilson, 42- Woodruff, Geyer Springs 43- Brady, Fulbright ' 44- Parkview 45- Southwest, Badgett 46- Mann, King 47- Carver, Jefferson, McDermott 48- 49- Franklin 50- Garland, Washington 51-Mitchell 52- 53- Williams 54- 55- Western Hills, Romine 56- Henderson 57- Baseline, Booker 58- Bale, 59- Rightsell 60- Fair Park, 61- Pulaski Heights 62- Gibbs 63- 64- 65- Rockefeller 66- 67- 69- Doddt * S U.' I (Friryy \u0026gt;----- te' ^Tpi^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 8, 1999 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM: Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Administrative Services THROUGH: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Equitable Allocation of Resources The attached documents are presented for e Boards review. No action is required. The first document is a copy of the administrative regulations that were developed to ensure on going compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requirement concerning the equitable allocation of resources. The second document is a copy of the court filing the district made as a status report in compliance with Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requirements. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCBA-R EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the financial, technical, and educational resources of the District are distributed in a fair and equitable manner. A committee comprised of the associate superintendents, the Special Assistant to the Superintendent, the Manager of Financial Services, and a District research specialist in compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Plan) will develop and implement a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. Members of the staff of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and representatives of the Joshua Intervenors will be invited to assist in the performance of the committees responsibilities. The allocation of resources does not have to be equal. It is probable that there could never be a totally equal distribution. The basis of the allocations must be equitable. The committee will determine which resources should be included in the factors being assessed for equity. Those factors will be analyzed and compared by school to establish District norms and possible standards or parameters to guide in the distribution of those resources. As part of its analysis the committee will determine whether a relationship exists between the resources allocated and the percentage of African-American students attending the schools. If the committee determines that the allocations are outside the acceptable parameters The that it has set, it shall determine what possible remedies are appropriate, implementation of those remedies will be the responsibility of the associate superintendent for the identified division. If budget or policy changes are required to implement appropriate remedies, the Superintendent of Schools will be notified so that action by the Board of Education can be initiated. The committee will serve an oversight function and ensure the following components are in place to assure equitable treatment\n1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent and the responsible officials\n3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby students, patrons, and employees can report complaints or noncompliance without fear of retribution:6. 7. 8. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continuing) NEPNCODE\nGCBA-R Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through disciplinary mechanisms when appropriate, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. Annual review of the compliance program for necessary revisions. 2IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT* EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS , - WESTERN DIVISION   I. little rock school district PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS REPORT OF LRSDS ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Report of LRSDs Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan) requires that LRSD assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district and report the results of this I assessment within 180 days of the district courts approval of the Revised Plan. Revised Plan  2.9.2. The district court approved the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998. Docket No. 3144. Accordingly, LRSDs report of the assessment of the allocation of resources was to be completed on or before October 7, 1998. LRSD files this report in compliance with the Revised Plan. 2. LRSD assessed the allocation of its resources by way of a committee composed of district administrators and staff persons and represenutives of the OfBce of DesegregationMonitoring (ODM).* The committee first worked to determine what resources should be assessed. In this regard, the committee looked to available research in the area of school re\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_447","title":"Glossary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Glossary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/447"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["197 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2CL1-J-------- BYk Christopher Helh Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3' Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALTS in September 2002. ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for conect answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) - Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, Sth, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team) - A process designed to increase stakeholders involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a childs progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral reading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE  An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help Sth and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of cuniculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement TestJR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science)  A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ - Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items conectly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank conesponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science educationNSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence) - A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) - A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth.(Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, commimity members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8**' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score - Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesnt mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared.bnurt Rctc.'ul no if4-t'cn tn O 1 Sec. s dunt 3^ I3'?'i pizjis 43 TERMINOLOGY Some terms used in this report are specific to the field of personnel services (such as relevant labor market). Other terms we use may be familiar to the general public (teacher, for example), bitt have specialized meanings in the context of human resources or the operations of an individual school district. Below we have alphabetized and defined several terms that are frequently used in this report. We drew the definitions from interviews with PCSSD personnel administrators, the district's Professional Negotiations Agreement 1997-2000, and publications of the Society for Human Resource Management. .Building administrators: Certified employees who have supervisory or evaluative responsibility and who are assigned full time to schools. Principals and assistant principals are the two positions in this category. Central office administrators: Administrators who have districtwide rather than building-specific responsibilities. These include the superintendent, assistant superintendents, directors, supervisors, and coordinators. Support staff (secretaries, clerks, etc.) who work at the central office are not counted as part of the central administration in this report. Certified staff: Individuals holding positions that require valid Arkansas teaching certification as a condition of employment. At the building level, certified staff includes administrators, teachers, counselors, and various specialists. Full-Time Equivalency (FTE): A method of calculating and recording the amount of time for which an employee is assigned to a certain position. The PCSSD expresses positions in terms of FTEs when determining staffing requirements for each school. For example, in a secondary school, a full-time teacher is counted as 1.00 FTE if he or she teaches six periods a day and also has a preparation period. If another teacher at the same school teaches three periods a day and has one preparation, he or she is counted as working 4/7 time, or .57 FTE (4 assigned periods divided by 7 possible periods equals the FTE). Unless otherwise noted, we have reported positions in the PCSSD by full-time equivalency. Relevant labor market: The number of individuals who have a specific type of training or certification and who are located within a specified geographic area from which a potential employer might recruit. Special needs positions: Certain certified positions, designated by PCSSD, in which blacks have historically been under-represented, such as math and science teachers. Teacher: Any certified person employed by the district in an instructional position who has no evaluative or supervisory responsibility over other certified instructional personnel. Page 4GLOSSARY The extracurricular activities we examined in this report are defined below. Some explanations include not only the activitys function in the PCSSD, but also relevant background information. Athletics are competitive interscholastic team sports. All PCSSD high schools have boys teams in baseball, basketball, football, and track and girls teams for basketball, track, and volleyball. With the exception of baseball, the districts junior high schools provide all of the same team sports as do the high schools. Some individual schools sponsor teams in such sports as golf, swimming, cross country, and tennis, but not all PCSSD schools offer these sports to students. The interscholastic sports program in the PCSSD operates under the auspices of the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA), which establishes and enforces rules and regulations for athletic competition in the state. Arkansas high schools compete with each other within classifications assigned by the AAA based on enrollment. For example, within the PCSSD, Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills compete against the states other large high schools in class 5 A. North Pulaski High School is a 4A school, and Oak Grove and Robinson compete at the 3A level. Spirit teams incorporate both cheerleaders and drill or dance teams. All PCSSD secondary schools sponsor both cheerleading and drill teams. Cheerleaders are a team of students who elicit and direct organized cheering in support of school athletic teams and other activities. According to the book Cheer! Fight! Win!, cheerleaders select yells to rally crowd support or to signify success at various times during a game or contest. They help to interpret the progress of the game to the crowd and elicit responses from the crowd that will benefit the team. Unlike cheerleading, the drill team is not directly involved in the ongoing events of a game or contest. Drill teams perform lengthy, set routines to music. The team performance is visual and requires the full attention of the audience to be appreciated. Drill team performances are usually presented as part of halftime entertainment. The term drill team is actually a misnomer in many high schools. Traditionally, drill team choreography was based on precision marching and repetition, like that of the well-known Kilgore Rangerettes ofKilgore, Texas. Because their performances consist of high- energy dance routines set to popular music rather than precision marching, modern drill teams can be more aptly called dance teams, a designation that is becoming common throughout the country, as it is in the PCSSD. During the last two decades, the worldwide performance standards of cheerleading and drill team have changed significantly with the growth of camps, clinics, and competitions. Increasingly, the general public has begun to recognize cheerleading as an athletic activity as skill levels have increased in areas such as gymnastics, pyramids, and advanced jumps. Colleges and universities frequently offer Report. ' The PCSSD began using the term dance team instead of drill team in its 1998-99 Non-Athletic Activities Page 7 particularly talented high school cheerleaders and drill team members scholarships, tuition reductions, grants for textbook purchase, or course credit to attend their institutions. Like the districts athletic teams, PCSSD spirit teams operate under AAA regulations regarding eligibility, conduct, and competition. The Arkansas Cheerleading Coaches Association (ACCA) and the Arkansas Drill/Dance Team Association (ADTA), sub-groups of the AAA, disseminate spirit team information to member schools, coordinate skill development and safety clinics, and sponsor regional and state competitions. Along with the sports teams, Arkansas high school cheerleading and drill teams compete for state championships in classifications based on school enrollment PCSSD schools have proved formidable in recent state competition. The Sylvan Hills High School cheerleading squad won the 1999 Class 5 A state championship and the Jacksonville High School cheerleaders placed third in Class 5A. Non-athletic activities that we examined consist of Beta Club, National Honor Society, and student government. Beta Club and National Honor Society serve the purpose of recognizing and promoting academic excellence. These organizations generally invite students to join based on prerequisites such as a certain grade point average, teacher recommendations, and a record of leadership in the school. Student government is a body of student-elected representatives who exercise leadership in varied school affairs. Beta Club The National Beta Club was founded in 1934 by a group of U.S. educators who wanted to recognize and encourage academic achievement, leadership, character development, and community service among high school students. In 1961, the National Beta Club developed the National Junior Beta Club to foster the same type of growth in younger children. Schools that include any of grades 5 throughl2 are eligible to apply for a chapter of the National Beta Club. The Beta Club provides members with opportunities to develop leadership skills through the Broyhill Leadership Conference, the Harris Leadership Program, and the annual state Beta conferences. The national Beta organization strongly encourages local chapters to exemplify the clubs motto, Let Us Lead By Serving, through undertaking service projects in their schools and local communities. Beta Club members pay a one-time membership fee. All Beta club members must be performing at or above grade level and meet the grade requirements set by the local chapter. The national organization does not establish a specific academic requirement for membership, because systems of grading vary in different schools. Among the PCSSD junior highs. Fuller, Jacksonville-South, Jacksonville-North, and Robinson have maintained chapters of Beta Club during the period of time examined in this report. With the exception ofNorth Pulaski, all of the PCSSD high schools have sponsored Beta Club chapters during the same period. Page 8National Honor Society In 1919, a principal in Omaha, Nebraska proposed the idea of an organization committed to placing the regular and faithful performances of academic work in its proper place in the estimation of the student body. Based on his vision, in 1921 the first chapter of the National Honor Society (NHS) was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Now more than 30,000 chapters of NHS are active in both public and private schools across the United States, recognizing and honoring the importance of outstanding scholarship by both junior high and high school students. The national organization requires all NHS chapters to perform a service project for the school or community. In addition, each member must develop an individual service project. According to the national NHS constitution, membership selection is based on four criteria: scholarship, leadership, service, and character. To fulfill the scholarship requirement, students must have a cumulative grade point average of 85%, B, 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale), or the equivalent standard of excellence. That scholastic requirement is the minimum scholastic average. An individual school chapter may raise the scholarship average needed to be eligible for membership at that school. Eligible students are selected for NHS by a vote of the school faculty council based on the four criteria. The faculty council develops working definitions of those criteria and provides some objective measure of a students qualifications in each of the areas. Fuller, Northwood, and Sylvan Hills are the PCSSD junior high schools with NHS chapters. All PCSSD high schools have an NHS chapter. Student Government Often called student council, this school organization provides an avenue for students to develop leadership skills and gain a better understanding of basic democratic principles and processes. Student councils serve as an outlet for students to express their opinions, concerns, and ideas regarding the life of the school. Through student councils, students may become involved in planning and coordinating a wide range of activities, from school dances and special assemblies to community projects such as a canned food drive. More than 18,000 secondary school student councils in the United States are members of the National Association of Student Councils (NASC), which was founded in 1931 to nurture the development of student councils and student leadership programs and to provide support and technical assistance to member schools. The structure and size of student government may differ from school to school, but generally the main body of the student council is comprised of student-elected representatives who are elected at-large, by classes or grade level (e.g., sophomore, junior, senior), or by homerooms. The organization is usually led by an executive board consisting of a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer who are elected by the entire student body. The NASC does not establish standards for student council officers or representatives. Each student council establishes its own constitution that describes the qualifications for all elected offices and outlines the electoral process. All junior and senior high schools in the PCSSD have student councils. Page 9Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc ), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - are the ACTAAP tests. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools\nMabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not born in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing.PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math.Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Revised 12-7-01 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - the ACTAAP tests including tests of literacy and math at the fourth, sixth, and eighth grade plus literacy at the eleventh grade and end of course exams in algebra and geometry. They are based on the states curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. I jCRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE. CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. 1PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed inNew Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5,1, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8.TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Process) - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example\nIn grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world. lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it conectly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement.VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children leam to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"aru_unequal_1325","title":"Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-01"],"dcterms_description":["Lambda Legal Defense Fund announces lawsuit challenging Arkansas' ban on sodomy, 1998.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Little Rock"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1325"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1326","title":"Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-01"],"dcterms_description":["Lambda Legal Defense Fund announces lawsuit challenging Arkansas' ban on sodomy, 1998.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Little Rock"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1326"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1138","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1138"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["288 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Co1111nittee 1900 North Main Street  Su ite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director  ,,{,,, ,,._,p.4 - (50 11 753 -0156 December 1, 1998 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was est Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes i schools, as well as recruitment for the six original maI rr,agnet s,,d1Qols. The Magnet Review Committee is al fli=fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School [ School District and is allocateq an annual budget of$ three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, \\/\\ the ADE. \\_l:!l-1 ..,0hu1\"\"? h'/ \u0026lt;- ..nl, ,(c -\np\u0026lt;J \u0026lt;1--f- ~A~~ rlt{JJ. Ct1~c c~u ~L ~ c__ lh1-P-J-\u0026lt;.d vl~t_ tr 1) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. ,/.,\u0026lt; \" 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved (Jr  .'~- (_, by the MRC on August 6, 1998.  _,\\kl r 1 , '\\~ I 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the )o ,.,1 J k i\nr- \\. initial allocation. o.:t of:,( ~ 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a ~J--} Y. -1J reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. \\--\n, t ''~( ~J~\nqi~1\nd' 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its ':,\"' ~ , \u0026lt;''\nJ' _:\n, . \\\"'.... October 22, 1998 meeting. I'-- \"' r\n., ~ ~ ,. O'- 0\\ / ' .i\\ We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your ~ c, review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. ',, At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase :r-om- 000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b $~33.33-- 0 to $30,833.33) a,J.JM, .......... ~,e the State's MRC budget contribution , 00 ($75,000, plus dcitt-io1r7,,5I0 0). he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted a n or the Magnet Review Committee. t ~ '\n,- \\ {'( /\\ 1\\.-.\u0026lt;- ~ I',\u0026gt; \\_.~ 1P Ov ..,\\' '?J' '- e\u0026gt; ,J,,u-J .,J \\..'~ \\ t , - _..\\, l\\C. 1 .Jg (, ., f ,\"'v\\Q ~ ~ \\ 0\\\" tie ~ \\\\ ,,,\u0026lt; \"'7 , .. 1lt\"\"' r t.,JY' 0~..1. .,...-7).:, '  :.\\-\"-t.l\u0026lt;r \" X-,,-. \\j:)\\ ~('I .. \u0026lt;'~\\\\J \\ ~'I t't r'j .,- V- ~.! (.,,... ti/ tr\u0026gt;~ J.. \\\\ ... --J~ ~ , D' I'\\ o\u0026lt; \\ic' I ,~, \\ .,, ,..l -,- \\ ~, \\\\\"\" i- \" \"\\ '-- - \u0026lt;\u0026gt;J' I \\\" (2 I 1 Q \\ I ~\\--,..- ~ Magnet Review Co1111nittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 1, 1998 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCE OF DESEGRESAT!ON MONITORING (501) 753-0150 1 ,\n(\\~~i I Dear Judge Wright: ,  \\ '7 '1, r\" \\A,l As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in Jul'l.J:-~ ~ .-'\\ Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged--wifnthe responsibility of ,,,, monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet / \"\nschools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict i\" tY: rr:iagnet scb.g.oJs. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of 0 ., tr fl:.:fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special ~-rY l School District and is allocat~_g. an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the \\'i l\" three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming fr om,.,\\~~7\\i'~ . the ADE. \\_B'/ wh~11,7  /4' b .1,,,v' t- ,. o' L,, l) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. , ~J~ 1 v'c~ / 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved C} (1'-' t?...,.~ by the MRC on August 6, 1998:  -\\~'( r r{ 1 t 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the\n\u0026gt;c, 1 c. / ~ i\n,i'-:\ninitial allocation . .. or~JoJ,{ .n ~ 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a ,\nh:?-\n,,\\-,.1  .v o' /. :.Y reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. t\u0026gt; ~\n:\u0026gt;'\n1:\n~.:-J\nqi~1\n 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its '\n.,\"' t--~ !\"ii , (\\ J ~:\n \\t--c..... October 22, 1998 meeting. ,,f ,-\n, ,,.,_ 0 -- ~ ~o'- o\\\" \" \u0026lt;',,~ (} We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your i :\n,\nreview, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. - l. t\" .-:,\u0026lt;- At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase~em-$-l-SQ,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b'f-:l._~33 .33 Oto $30,833.33) a e the State's MRC budget contribution ~, 00 ($75,000, plus deiHo- 1~7,5I0 0). he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted a n or the Magnet Review Committee. i L,, '\n. h~~ .\\:1--... ~ r-.\"\n--J_A 1 ? ..,\\ \\\\c:_./ ri')_-, (, \"l -i7~0 (--- .,., \\ f I ,rl'/ '' ,,,0 -A fl' ~ \" ~  ~.,) ti...., t:. ..i.1-~\"' ,,~ :+() , . :)'-,...~ ~('vr,.. . \\1-:,_\"r~-1~ . tf N~\\ re! ~~'(.,,,.. 1il~J\u0026lt;..: u--? :.. \\\\\\'-- f ~ . ,.9' f'i''\" o\u0026lt; \\ r-/'\u0026amp; ~\\ ~ ,, t' \\ ~ \\\\ --1~  \\'\u0026gt;..,i' ?'- \u0026lt;?. 'e  1,7 Q \\~ . ~J\\\\\" ... I / If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~II. Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment EXPENDITURES FRINGE BENEFITS Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental 1997-98 ACTUAL 14,173 \"In the approved budget, this figure was _ , ? v input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated '{ ,_. \\ i-' ~ . changes in teacher retirement, insurance, '- t-  \\ ...._..,, t.. 1..! L, etc. The new figure most accurately _.,. r' -\n-- . , . -:\n, \" 1 -' ref/eds the costs for this line item. u--\\-.. 11 C 1 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES Utilization of persons or organizations to provide\nr,ecializeq_ser.vices.Jhis category includes costs 6f the lnterdistrict Magnet S..cbQQJ.s...E'lClluation.Aru:w.olReport, and the month! travel allowance orovided to the xecutive Director oflhe Magnet Review Committee. \"Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting ~oo/s (e.g., bq,churr\ns. ra~ ~ ... etc./ and the website mqstec ad design which re/led changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES l l,868 1,532 1998-99 APPROVED 12,800 12,000 1,400 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT  20,900 :/ 1s,ooo , _:.1,soo --------~f1 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, t_tie R~OAes5y~te~ and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contract cost increases since the equipment ls over ten years old, an increase in expenses is ex eded _ _ -__ _ RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1, 188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. 14,256 I 14,256 SAME EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of 1997-98 ACTUAL 6,012 America Conference and the NCSO 1 '? ~ :'\u0026gt; Conference each year. r~~I~  C)~..,. .x_\\,' ftn order to decrease line items in the - .. c-7 -\ni_c u approVi udget,.l[J!.vel was one item ~\n:Jj' ~~ 1: whic as lowered m iffort to remain tt. ,-r.' within t e , VO total. Now, Donna ' Grady Creer has been e eded MSA President-Elect, this, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the distrid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. \u0026lt;=_____ - POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The MRC Office has been using a *butldingowned* FAX machine and paying a *per page rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expeded to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this catego,y. oil p.f- ~ or- ~I .__, P1 -1 (. ,,, '1- \u0026lt; r 1,575 3,921 Page 2 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT ' 3,500 *6,000 2,500 SAME 3,500 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) ADVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrid magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrid magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transitioa-.Jgking place, a reconfiguration roll advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos'dnd any other materials requiring modtfication is necessary 1997-98 ACTUAL 31,502 Poge 3 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 23,595 *35,000 PRINTING AND BINDING 2,700 1,200 *4,000 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as a~ation , I ?. forms, are handled by outside agencies. r  J ~r .  Again, this amount has been increased to handle large pro/eds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,700 I Includes any outside help necessary to finish ,..\n... t\\\"- .It , gjob fgc the. M\"-C Office. This will also incluae v ,-\n, ,\n\", catering services, etc., when necessary. 1  1 Due to increased meeting adivities, Magnet fair expenses, and all other recruitment f undions, this amount has been increased 2,000 f :' . ,., I - *4,000 SUPPLIES Materials nee ssary for the operation of the Mag t Review Committee Office. This is a cootrgolled line item and can be ~ -t held to buagete'a figures. ~~/)-\\ yl \\0 '\n,i f ~ .j--h\"- , I\"'-:\n, ).\".., ,....1--': ~~c..- l ~jO\\..:) PERIODICALS ~Q. o+h~~ Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its adivities (e.g., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been increased slightly in order to expand ./ our subscription access to more education periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. 1,217 572 1998-99 APPROVED 1,500 500 500 Page 4 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT SAME *595 *5.000 ,, c-t'i ' J '-'f ,~ ~' I I,,. ' I *With the approved 7998-99 budget in August, .- \\ 1--, .. ~ ~. - ,o the MRC was planning not to make any ma\nor _\\ ::i \\ -r-'\u0026lt; , -st\" 1 ,.:y , { tJ purchases for the office. However, the copy ~i-....( 1 .('\\-::,'\" X\\) ~i-\n( 1 ~' ~ ,,, machine is over ten years old, and the telephone __.,., , ..) ~ l c- r~ SJ! 7 1 system is also. Consequently, some expenses , -::. ~ :\u0026gt;  --\n~ Ii,, are anticipated for this category \\ ' .\\-:)  ,. ,\u0026gt;~' TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES SALARIES 79,251 70 749 .. 150,000 114,251 70 749 185,000 . ,, \\\"\\cl NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are I I complet~d, and distrid salary increases are established. At that time, it will be ~ J' - / ermined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. \\ ,.. u' ~,v vt... ~! h ... y 7J'\nf'J')V-l- .,,~ r_ w,./-/v \n0t\u0026gt;- ) l(r-D -=,.- ? .,.-\\h.,. ,,~\\l -~~- u,)1.J4/Y\\. ,R{'r- --.....~.J~\"  /.1.,1\".\\' '\n)\"\"\u0026gt; ' 1(j ./\"if'' ~ 1,10 0(j-\n, Magnet Review Co1nn1ittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December l, 1998 1900 orth Main Street Suite l Ol North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVE The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 OlflCEOF DESEGREGATION rroRI Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: 501 758-01 SU As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts contributing $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming from the ADE. l) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its October 22, 1998 meeting. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. . . . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- December 1, 1998 If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy lo provide ii. Sincerely, ~~II. Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 l 998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 14,173 12,800 * 20,900 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental *In the approved budget, this figure was input at a lower rote, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately ref/eds the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES l l ,868 12,000 * 15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. *Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g ., brochures, radio/TV ads, etc./ and the website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,532 1,400 *l,500 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. *Because of contract cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 SAME Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. *In order to decrease line items in the approved budget, travel was one item which was lowered in an effort to remain within the $150,000 total. Now, Donna Grady Creer has been eleded MSA President-Elect\nthis, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the dis/rid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. *The MRC Office has been using a *buildingowned' FAX machine and paying a 'per page' rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expected to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this category Page 2 1997-98 l 998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 6,012 3,500 *6,000 1,575 2,500 SAME 3,921 3,500 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) Page 3 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT ADVERTISING 31 ,502 23,595 *35,000 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrict magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrict magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. *With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING 2,700 1,200 *4,000 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms, are handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projects related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,700 2,000 *4,000 Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include catering services, etc., when necessary. *Due to increased meeting activ1Yies, Magnet Fair expenses, and all other recruitment functions, this amount has been increased EXPENDITURES (Continued) Page 4 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT SUPPLIES 1,217 1,500 SAME Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. This is a controlled line item and can be held to budgeted figures. PERIODICALS 572 500 595 Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its activities (e.g ., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. ~The amount requested has been increased slightly in order to expand our subscription access to more education periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- 500 *5,000 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. ~with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any maior purchases for the office. However, the copy machine is over ten years old, and the telephone system is also. Consequently, some expenses are anticipated for this category TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES 79,251 114,251 SALARIES 70 749 70 749 150,000 185,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are completed. and district salary increases are established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget.  - I ., Magnet Review Co1111nittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December l, 1998 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON!TORlNG As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, ] 987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet 7-- schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict #'\" t)A-magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of 0 111 _ I' , M-fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special .r v School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the -\u0026gt; bl,,,. three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming from f\n\\J the ADE. , 1 / }. Ir ~ c' l) ct'.., 2) 4) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its October 22, 1998 meeting. r For your At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b $5,833.33 (frorn $25.,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus Hie additional 17,500)/ he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. fl 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- December l, 1998 If you or the arties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~II, Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/OGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 14,173 12,800  20,900 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, ~ Health Insurance and Dental *In the approved budget, this figure was input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately ref/eds the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES l l ,868 12,000  15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. *Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools (e.g., br_gg:w[.es, radj,gtJJ(_ ads, etc.) and the website..aJQ~ ad design which reffed changes in magnet schools, 0 including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,532 1,400 *l ,500 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and -\\ \u0026amp; )I the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC ~ Office. t J \"- (' ~ 0 ~ :\nt *Because of contract cost increases since I 7 \"' the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 SAME Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. *In order to decrease line items in the approved budget, travel was one item which was lowered in an..effort to remain within the $150,000 total Now, Donna Grady Creer has been eleded MSA President-fled\nthis, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the distrid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. *The MRC Office has been using a 'bu11dingowned' FAX machine and paying a \"per page' rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expeded to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this category. Page 2 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 6,012 3,500 6,000 1,575 2,500 SAME 3,921 3,500 EXPENDITURES (Continued) ADVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrid magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrid magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. *With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms, are handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projeds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include catering services, etc., when necessary. *Due to increased meeting adivities, Magnet fair expenses, and all other recruitment fundions, this amount has been increased 1997-98 ACTUAL 31,502 2,700 3,700 Page 3 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 23,595 *35,000 1,200 *4,000 2,000 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) SUPPLIES Materials nes ssary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. This is a controlled line item and can be held to budgetea figures. PERIODICALS Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its adivities (e.g., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been ~ 1 increased slightly in order to ex122IJ.d our subscription access to more eaucation periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY This category is used for any maior expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. *With the approved 7998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any ma\n'or purchases for the office. However, the copy machine is over ten years old, and the telephone system is also. Consequently, some expenses are anticipated for this category. 1997-98 ACTUAL 1,217 572 TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES SALARIES 1998-99 APPROVED 1,500 500 500 79,251 70 749 150,000 Page 4 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT SAME *595 *5.000 114,251 70 749 185,000 Magnet Revieiv Cinn1nittee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999  -The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a y~a.d.L budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, with ffiese votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (~ve-~ ,  uo.d0cb.QQLDistrict, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock School o  t i om voting, anafhePtilaski County Special School District representativ was a sent. sis our custom, each Magne____ Review Committe_e me_mber discussed this issue wI I eir party. We are confident tho~ party supports this action. ~\n,.~~ .::vrf=/...-1- -(hp 7\nr)\"/,..~\u0026lt;.\n,-\"\", As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). (7 /.J, ~ l'v 11\n,C' :} '',,,,~ 2) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved / \\ ~-.Y ,-?' ( }, .... by the MRC on August 6, 1998. ,\n.)- --\\ -\\ -'\":7.31 / ,V ...,,c....., ? .I,\\'/ J :') (iv\\./ /\\\"I\" Y ~ L,- / x 41 /.(t r.,t' C /X. To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. Increases in cost of services have caused us to predict a deficit spending or a /\\/.)? reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. \\I \\\"' '1\n\"' J ?-l 1 .. / We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. For your '\" ,J ~ review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. r---\\\"-' \\' VJ _,\n-7-l,Q v {,./'5 \\'( \\ At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it.  . Sincerely, ~ .  Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM ~~-f,F/'\"'-:1-- , I -,--, ( N\" i. ~ . ._ C'V L-//\\ .. ' A.~r 197Y l\\f?il.ov~o -\u0026amp;,J+ ~ . }.__\"'-~~ y, L '~ .:e'\" 1,,+ EXPENDITURES FRINGE BENEFITS Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental 7 J /, j 'In the approved budget, this figure I  l'  7 was Input at a lo ale, due lo the l) ' 11 1-', }.\u0026gt; T anlicipat anges  teacher , I J retirement, ,n urance, etc. The new -, , ~ figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because addilio 1 1 ~ professional services required /2! J..i as a res uh of providing updated P' \\ ?7 v recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout 4 ,,. \"\\ and design for brochures, l? )\"' .J( radio/TV ads, etcJ and the ,-r _:\n'' Website master ad design which , \\ \\' -\n,  .:71 . reflect changes in magnet schools, v-?' 1 '/ ,\n---'\" induding new principals, updated ? \\ curriculum, and the middle school \\ \\ transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses Is expected. ~ fil.!.QQfI 9,500 11,800 1,600 1997-98 ~ 16,925.68 733.45 1998-99 fil1QQ.E! 12,000 1,400 1s.ooo 1.650 MRC ExPENDINRES IContinuedl RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.0011,296 square feetl and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members lo the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference eoyea~r. ch 1 1 -The revised amou .1 ~ '\"' \"~' ' to bring travel fund ~ 1 1997-98 budgeted amount. e,, POSTAGE ~I-,, \"\"'l ),\\ \\ \"-, \\ Includes postage necessary to ~0 ~ r\u0026lt;'~~~ respond to parent inquiries, bulk ,,..,v rJ' mailings for recruitment purposes, 1 \\ 1..._ ... t '\\--:- and all other mailouts as necessary ' _  1_\n\\\"?' \\~'. for the operation of the MRC office. 1\\Y-J.. .,, ', vv\\\"- No change in amount is requested . {' TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. -The Internet access has been added to the MRC's computer system. and the teleph0Relremmt1nicalion costswHl-g\u0026amp;- up ir:, this rolegery_ ..J- ---J2,_,\" ,s, D D\u0026lt;.J j) r -...,, ~ .. rt---r-t\u0026gt; ~of'o,... --fi-1 I\n:, 1997-98 fil.LQfilI 14,256 6,000 2,000 3,500 J 997-98 ~ 14,256 7,984.05 2,492.25 1998-99 .fil.!.QQfl 14,256 3,500 2,500 Page 2 1998-99 ID'.filQ AMOUNT 14,256 6,000 2,500 MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl ADVERTISING   The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs. such as application forms for magnet schools for enrollment, are handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proiecls related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. 1997-98 fil!QfilI 23,600 2,800 1997-98 AfJ!m 1998-99 BUDGET Page 3 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 ~__./ .... ) L-,,7 (\n? \"\\01~ ~ r GYI I, (' I l ~/o 2,560 .25 l.200 3.200 _____.__/ .e\n./ ,, \u0026lt;\" ,._ MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued! CAPITAL OUTlAY This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES TOTALS 1997-98 filLOOEI 1997-98 ACTUAL 733.45 1998-99 BUDGET 500 Page 5 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT 3,700 81,972 96,437.77 79,251 114,251  68,028 70,749.00 70 749 70 749 150,000 167, 186.77-f, 150,000 185,000 ~ ,.\n-: I V h ' , l-- ... ., -,, 1,, e- :\nr,o''\": 1- -', /,N'/1. /l)C' 'o !?' '1,- NOTE: ,  r , I ( ~ .,. ,, , ' Salary increases will be determined later in the year, ofter final negotiations ore _. :\\J   \u0026lt;\n,( completed, and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, on increase con be incorporated into the budget. Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a yearly budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, with these votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock School District, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock School District abstained from voting, and the Pulaski County Special School District representative was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet Review Committee member discussed this issue with their party. We are confident that each party supports this action. As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). l I Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. 21 Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. 41 Increases in cost of services have caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget t!.F ... ....1. .J.... ~ The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~ .  Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 *20,819.94 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Heatth Insurance and Dental \"In the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 *15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. \"Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TY ads, etc./ and the Website master ad design which reffed changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1,400 *1,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188 .0011,296 square feetl and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6,000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. \"The revised amount is requested to bring travel funds bock to the 7997-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2,000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418 .31 3,500 4,225 Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. \"The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system, and the telephone/communication costs will go up in this category. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Page 3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. \"With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3.200 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment, are handled by outside agencies. \"Again, this amount has been increased to handle large pro/eds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. MRC EXPENDITURES (Continuedl Page 4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 *4,000 Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include the cost for our fiscal agent. *Due to increased meeting adivifies, Magnet Fair expenses, all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental jobs, this amount has been increased from the 1991-98 budget. SUPPLIES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIODICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities (e.g., Education Week, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Arkansas Times, Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested hos been adjusted to keep in line with the 1991-98 adual expenses. MRC EXPENDITURES IConlinuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET CAP1T AL OUTLAY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. \"With the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 81 ,972 96,437.77 79,251 SALARIES 68.028 70 749.00 70 749 TOTALS 150,000 167,186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations ore completed, and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page 5 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT *3,700 114,251 70 749 185,000 Background Issues ODM Review of the MRC Budget Proposal Dated January 6, 1999 As explained in the MRC's cover letter, the MRC's office budget has been $150,000 since its inception, an amount ordered by the Court long years ago. The MRC is asking for a bigger budget ($185,000) to cover cost increases that have been rising and accumulating each year. While we believe the MRC does need more money, we'd like to see some changes in the budget and the budgeting process, which we' ll explain below. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval. Rather, the MRC staff has reconfigured the dollar allotments within its budget every year, but always within the bottom-line $150,000. (The staff has carried over any money left from one year to the next in order to meet rising expenses while not disturbing the $150,000 bottom line.) Annual budget review and approval has been a function of the parties' representatives who comprise the MRC. Before the MRC submitted its final January 1999 version of its proposed 1998-99 budget, ODM worked with the MRC to refine the document, pointing out what we saw as problems and suggesting improvements. Our goal was that the MRC budget ultimately be: 1. clearly presented 2. easily understandable and defensible 3. aligned with the MRC's genuine financial needs for the year 4. a reflection of past expenditures and anticipated needs, rather than budgeting on past budget (the nefarious \"budgeting on budget\") The proposed budget was evidently prepared by the MRC Executive Director and her assistant, who don't have much experience or expertise in budget preparation. While they were willing to listen to our suggestions and adopted a few of them, they declined to make others, as explained below. We still believe the budget could be improved considerably. As submitted, the document isn 't clear, contains some budgeting on budget, and prompts many questions, which we will also point out below. It is important to understand the overriding concern of the MRC members that is driving their budget strategy: the committee does not want to risk changing, on an annual basis, the MRC budget total and thus the amounts contributed by the parties and the State. They fear that yearly budgetary changes could result in an increased budget total, thus providing an opening for the parties (especially the State) to raise objections and cause trouble. So this budget has been constructed (and padded) to cover an extended period of time, at least five years. Nevertheless, the budget document is labeled and offered as that for 1998-99. The MRC realizes that its budget must be offered and approved by its members on an annual basis, but the MRC doesn't intend to change the budgetary bottom line every year. 1 Document Critique In a nutshell, the MRC's strategy is to change the budget total this one time and stick to the new status quo for as many years as possible, thus minimizing the potential for making waves with the parties every year. We don't think this is the most useful or even honest way to construct a budget.  An amwal budget should be a tool, based on identified needs, for allotting adequate appropriations and guiding corresponding expenditures for one year's time. As needs and costs change, a budget must be realigned accordingly.  We don't object to a reasonable amount of cushion in a budget to provide flexibility and cover unexpected expenses, but an annual budget is just that: it has only a 12- month life span, because circumstances can change quickly and unexpectedly. Too much padding or number juggling destroys the budget's effectiveness as a planning and spending guide.  If the tvlRC inflates its budget to take care of outlying years in addition to the current 12 months, it will be taking in more money than it really needs, causing the parties to appropriate money they shouldn't have to. The tvlRC has no history of returning unspent monies to the parties who appropriate it, as does ODM. Yet, we do know that the tvlRC has squirreled away any unspent amounts to cover overspending as it occurs.  Some expenditures will probably rise each year (such as staff salaries, for example) but others could decline. Locking into a long-term budget removes some of the tvlRC's responsibility for managing public money in response to ongoing changes in circumstances and needs. The MRC is about to run out of money and overspend its budget or reduce its activities\nit needs a ruling as soon as possible. The cover letter, signed by MRC Chair Sadie Mitchell, admits that the NLRSD representative abstained from voting to approve the budget and the PCSSD representative was absent. Yet the Chair asserts confidence that each party supports the budget proposal. With one abstention and one absentee (one-third of the possible vote total), where does this confidence come from? The MRC approved the 1998-99 budget for the same old $150,000 last August, yet only five months later has made this request for more money. The appeal demonstrates that a budget designed to last for years at a time doesn't fit with the changing shortterm needs that obviously occur. (It probably also demonstrates that the MRC waited until it got into a tight financial corner to make its case for more money, perhaps hoping that a looming crisis - deficit spending or a reduction in services- would be sufficient to get a budget increase from the parties.) The Expenditures section presents many puzzles:  Fringe Benefits: The increase between 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is 47%. This huge leap needs to be explained in terms of the salaries that are indicated later in the document. 2  Professional and Technical Services: The notation explains that additional professional services will be required, but the requested 1998-99 Revised amount ($15,000) is less than what was actually spent in 1997-98 ($16,925.68). This isn't sensible budgeting.  Maintenance of Equipment and Vehicles: The increase between what was spent in 1997-98 ($733.45) and that anticipated in 1998-99 ($1650) is 125%, a huge jump. Our contracts at ODM haven't fluctuated much (if any) due to equipment age. The notes claim that MRC equipment is over ten years old. In our book, that means the equipment is not only obsolete, it's about to break down. The Capital Outlay category does address the need for equipment purchases or upgrades, and provides for a significant sum. So why increase this category if you're going to buy new equipment? This is actually an example of budgeting on budget.  Travel Out of District: Travel in 1997-98 was almost $2000 more than revised for 1998-99. Yet the notes give no hint as to why this cutback is reasonable in light of past expenditures.  Postage: The amount allotted for postage remains unchanged and in line with the I 997-98 actual expenditures. Yet postage rates have increased. Moreover, we would expect that MRC mailings would increase in line with its new \"updated recruiting tools,\" some of which were necessitated by the LRSD's change to middle schools.  Telephone: The jump between the 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is $806.67, which would allow more than $67.00 per month for Internet fees (which is what the notes say drove the increase.) That's an unrealistically high amount.  Advertising: The increase between 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is $11 ,241.65, or 44%. This may be perfectly realistic, but how did they calculate the odd number of $36,900 (for 1998-99)?  Other Purchased Services: The amount spent in 1997-98 is over $ 1000 greater than in the revised budget for 1998-99. Yet notations cite increased meeting activities. This is another example of budgeting on budget rather than on expenditures and projected needs.  Supplies: The amount spent for supplies in 1997-98 was very near the budgeted amount, but the odd figure budgeted for 1998-99 ($1405 . 06) is almost $4 70 less than the previous year. How could they be sure they could cut supplies by 25% and arrive at this revised figure with such specificity?  Periodicals: The notes indicate that this line item for 1998-99 has been revised to be consistent with that of 1997-98, which was $604.78. How did they arrive at the odd new number ($595)?  Capital Outlay: This category as used here should really be entitled Equipment, as the Capital Outlay category is quite broad and Equipment is much more specific, according to the State's guidelines. evertheless, what's most significant here is that the revised numbers for 1998-99 reflect an increase of $3000 above the actual expenditures of 1997-98. Notes explain the increase will provide for replacing old equipment. Fine, but then the Maintenance category above surely doesn't warrant a 125% increase. 3 Potential Options  Salaries: Compensation for staff is expressed in a lump sum. It might be informative to indicate each employee's salary as ODM does. Further, a note explains that any salary increases will be determined later in the year. If salaries are indeed increased, where will the budget be modified to accommodate the raises?  Totals: The document indicates that the 1997-98 budget was $150,000, yet the amount actually spent that year was $167,186. Whence the money to cover the overspending? The document doesn't explain that the overspending was financed by carryover from previous years. Do they intend to persist in this pattern? 1. Approve the revised 1998-99 budget as submitted, but order the MRC to develop future budgets based on past expenditures and anticipated annual expenses. Order the state to pay 50% of the projected total and each district to pay 16.66%, as has been the practice. While this option would enable the MRC to most quickly get its cash flow problem under control, the districts have advanced the MRC some money, so it isn't in imminent danger of overdrawing its bank account. or 2. Order the MRC to submit within 10 (?) days a 1998-99 budget that is based on previous expenditures and anticipated annual expenses, instead of the flat amount of $185,000, along with justifications for each category. In any event, we think that it could be helpful for them to be required to model their budget format on that of ODM. We've spent so much time developing an easy-tounderstand budget and the parties are all used to it. It would be easy for the MRC to emulate our budget format to save them time and grief We will be glad to help them to get their revisions done quickly. 4 MAY-10-99 MON 13:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT ASTRN DISTRICT ARAANSAS IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY' t O 1999 JAM~~W. M\\COAMACK. CLERK By: M , ~ U [\\ M ~ [\\,,...,- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRJCTNo. 1, et al., Defendants. .tvfRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * *   *       * *  DI\n!' ci't:RII. No. LR-C-82-866 NATURE SAVER'\" FAX MEMO 01616 Dale l~ies  10 To Ii tJ ~ 'l.,.o t,..,,J From Co /Oeot. Co Phone# Phone, Fax\n'] 1,,-/.,, ..- ()1,, ITTi F .. , : . '----~--------------- KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ., Intervenors, *  ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The MAY-10-99 MON 13:29 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 02 --::.., Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval\ninstead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission. the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833.33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998. the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC's request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $1-85,0{)0. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 MAY-10-99 MON 13:29 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 24, I 999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week. each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the l 998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 .\\'fRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED iliis /~ day of ,-:: 1999. m,~ ~ru7:r\"T UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 3 NAY-10-99 NON 13:29 Donna Grady Creer Ex8C\\lllve Oi1'9C!or January 6, 1999 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 . - - . .... .., , Magtte0t  Review . Committee 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Ark.ansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: P. 04 (501 ) 758-0156 On Thursday, Odober 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt o yearly budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were In favor of the increase, with these voles being cost by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock SChocl District, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock SChool District abstained from voting. and the Pulaski t Coun1y Speclal School District representative was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet ~ Review Committee member d'ISCUSSed this Issue with their party. We are confident that each party supports this action.  As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee Is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evoluottng and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet sthools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine inferdlstrict magnet school$. The Magnet RevieW Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock school District and Pulaski County Special school Distric\nt and is allocated\" annuQI budget of S 150,000. That amount iS funded by the three districts, with each distrkt contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the odditional three.sixths, or one-half ($75,000). 11 Since its Inception, the MRC has operoted within this $150,000 budget. 21 Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of S 150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. ~) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within lhe .J~\"-!al allocation. 41 fnaeases in cost of services hove caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase In the amount indicated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we rQspectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to S 185,000. This action would increase each dis1rid's proportional shore by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.331 and make the State's MRC budget MAY-10-99 MON 13:30 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 The Honorable 5usan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 {$75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231 increose ln the budgeted amount for the Magnet RevieW CommitteQ. If you should need ony addltlonol information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, die , Magnet Review Committee SM/0GC:sml A1tochment CC: Ann Brown, ~deral Monitor - ODM =1 .-. ,-:, i NAY-10-99 NON 13:32 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 01 EXPE~QITIJ~ES 1997-98 ]997-98 ~ illUi ~ ~ ~ ~ AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 9,500 14,173.16 12.800 20.819.94 lndudes Sodol Security, Medicare, Teacher Reflfemenl, life Insurance, HQOl1h Insurance and Deotal rn the approved budge!, this flg11re was Input at a lower rate. dlle to the anfkipoled dlanges In teocJ,er retirement, lnsvronce. etc. 111a new l!gvre most occurafe/y relled.s the costs for this line Item. PROFES~IQI:::l~ !Ii TECHl::ll~ ~~Vl,E,:i 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 15,000 Utilization of persons or organfzolfons to provide sp@dalized services. This category Includes costs of the lnterdislricl Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and 1he monlhly travel allowance prO'lk:ied to the ElcflCUtive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because of additional professional services required as a re.suh of providing updated recruiting lr\u0026gt;Cls /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures. rad/o/TY ads, etcJ and the WebSJte mos/er ad design which reflect changes In mognet schools. indudlng new principals. updated currlcvltJm. and the middle school transition, on Increase in this fine item is expected. M~NTENAN'E QE fQUIPMENT i VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 l.400 1,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier. the phone system and !he ISM Personal Typing System in the MR.C Office. Because of con/rad cos! increases since the equipment is o.-er ten years old, an increase In expenses is expected. NAY-10-99 NON 13:33 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 501 3246576 P. 01 MRC ExPENOOURE5 tContlnuedl Poge 2 1997.95 1991-96 li2.l-li )998-99 .au.Q!ill AQ!.!AL lill.O!'ill 1ill'!ili:2 ~Q!..!t:il RENTAL OF lAl':IIJ 61':!IJ ~~IL~ 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl, 188.0011,296 square feel! and wiO remain !hot amount, TRAVEL Q!.!I Qf ~IEIQ 6.000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This rine item is used to send MRC members to the lntemo1lono1 Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The revised amount Is requested to bring !ravel funds bock to the 1997-98 blldgeled amount. PQSTAGE 2,000 2,492.25 2,500 2.500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to porent Inquiries. bulk maihngs for recruitment purposes, and oil other mollouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is reques1ed. re_~PHONE 3.500 3,418.31 3,500 4,225 lndudes rnonthly btlllngs and long dls1ance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's CO/\"fl/Wfer system, and the telephone/communication costs will go up in this category. NAY-10-99 NON 13:33 SUSAN W WRIGHT MRC ExPENDmJRE5 IContinuedl ~QVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students lo magnet schools and M-lo-M transfer. wlftl new pr!l'lcfpals in place in seYeral of the magnet scho\u0026lt;\nls, new CUff/aJ/um informahon fo be distribuled, and the middle schools trons,lion toking piece. a reconfiguration of ol odYerlising brochures, M-ro-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modific:ation is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though lhe MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for mognet schools for @nrol\\. menl, ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount hos bean increased ro handle large pro\nects related To advertising the changes in Ifie schools' make-vp, new principals, and Cllrric/Jlum changes. ill2=il ~ 23,600 2,800 FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 Poge3 .l.2.2Z.:2a ~ 1998-99 ~ ~ REV15ED ~Q!..!~ 25,658.35 23,595 36.900 2,560.25 1,200 3.200 MAY-10-99 MON 13:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 03 MRC EX?ENomJRES fConttnuedl Poge4 ~ 1997.98 1998-99 ill:..2.2 ~ ~ BUDGET ~ ~9!.!t::il OTHER PUR~HA5EC ~f\u0026amp;Yl!:~ 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 \"4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish o lob for the MRC Office. This w,N also include the cos! for our fiscal agent. aue to Increased meeting octM/les, Mognel Fair expenses.. oH other recruitment functions. ond con/rod lobar for inddental\nobs, fhis amount hos been increased from the 1997-98 budge/. SUPPt.lES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1,405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Mognet Re1ew Commlt1ee Office. PERIQPICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its octiv~ies fe.g~ Education Week. Arkansas Democraf-Oa.zi:lt~ Arkansas rimes, Magnet Sd'loots of Amerlco moterlolsl. Also indudes MSA yearly membership fee to obloin o reduced rote for the rwsA Conference In the spnng. \"The amcvnt reqve$led hos been od/vsfed lo keep /fl Hne WJ/h the 1997-98 octuol expenses. MAY-10-99 MON 13:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 MRC EXf'ENDITURES IConttnuedl .l.22Z:il 1997-98 1998-92 IDJ.000 ~ ~ CAP!r AL QUJlAY l,500 733.45 500 This category ls used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. wn11 the approved 1998-99 budget in August. the MRC ww- plonnlng nol lo make any ma\no, purchases for the office. The copy madline and the telephone ~fem are c.-er fen yecrs o . Some expensas are anflclpaled for !his colegory. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES .2...Ql. 70,74900 ~ TOTALS 150.000 167,186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases wiU be determined later In the year, after final negolio1ions ore completed, and distrld solory lncreoses ore established. At tha1 time, it will be determined if. and how much, on Increase can be incorporated in1o the budget. P. 04 PogeS ]996-99 REVISED AMQUt:i! 3,700 114.251 70749 185,000 MAY 11 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 1 0 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\ . , ~ U I\\ M D J\"\\.-,' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval\ninstead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833.33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC's request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SC ORDERED this\n/--day of 1/ 1999. ~~ ~FJU G --,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ WOH \u0026lt;llf 58 ANDIOR ?8(1) FA0P )N !:J-I - ev .vt:' ~ 3 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758--0156 On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a yearJy budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, wltti\" these votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock School District, and11lie Joshua lntervenors. North Little Roek School District abstained from voting, and the Pulas f County Special School District representative-was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet Review Committee member discussed this issue with their party. We are confident that ~a party supports this action. As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Efghth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The-Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending cha~ in the actual operation of mag,,.t : \"\" schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of:  M-to-M transfer students between little Rock School Oistcid and Pulaski County Special . School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150\n000. lhat amount ls funded-by the  three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount ana ttfe  State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). 1) 2) 3) 4) Since its Inception, the MRC. has operated within this $150,000 budget. Fiscal Year t99~-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved . ~ . bythe MR on August 6, 1998. . , . ' To t~is point, fhe MRC has contained expenditures to remain Within the  :  , [.Nial allocation, \"'  ~ ~ in cost of services have caused us to-predict a deficit spending ar a ,- rEJd':JdiQn Jn serv~es for the 1998-99 fiscal year.  - : We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. ror your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an i\"'crease. , , At this time, we respectfully request that the Mognet Review Committee Office budget be_:-.:increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the St~e's MRC qudg~t . _   The Honorable SUSon Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaease in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any adcfrtional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, d~/f Magnet Review Committee SM/OGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - OOM EXPE~DITURES ]997-98 ]997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ ~ ~ AMQ!.!NT FRINGE BENEFTTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate. due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure rr,ost accurately reflects me costs for this line item. PRQF5SIQNAL ~ TE!:t:JNICAL SE~~!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 *15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAINTENAN~E OF EQ!.!IPMENT ~ VEHICL5 1,600 733.45 1,400 *l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded. MRC ExPENOOURB {Continued! Page2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 B.U.QQfI ~ 6.U.QQ.EI ~ AMQ!.!NT RENTAL QF LANO ANQ 6!.!ILQ!t:::IQ 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.0011.296 square feet! and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT QF DISTRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6,000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The rerised amount is requested to bring travel funds bade to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. PQSTAGE 2,000 2.492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHQNE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 4.225 Includes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The Internet access has been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Page3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ fil.!QQfI R.EYIS.fQ AMOUNT ADVERTI~ING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers. videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANQ BINQ!NG 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment, ore handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projects related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. MRC EXPENOOURES IConttnuedl Page4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ 6.1.!00EI IDfilQ AMQ!.!NT QTHER PUR!:\nHASEQ ~ERVl!:\nES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include the cost for our fiscal agent. *Due to increased meeting adMties, Magnet Fair expenses, all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental jobs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. S!.!PPLIES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1,405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIODICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkansas Democrot-Goz~tt~. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been adjusted to keep in line with the 1997-98 actual expenses.    MRC ExPf NDITURES IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 6.1.J.QQE! ~ fil.!OOfI CAPIT Al OUll.AY 1,500 733 .45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. ~with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the off,ce. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENOOURES 81,972 96,437.77 79,251 SALARIES ~ 7Q,749.00 7Q 749 TOTALS 150,000 167.186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are completed, and district salary increases are established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Pages 1998-99 RfY!S..EQ AMO!,!NT 3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 By Order dated May 10, 1999 [doc.#3261], this Court informed the parties that it was inclined to approve the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. 1 The Court allowed the parties a period of time in which to object to MRC' s request, and stated that should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court would enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that 1 The proposal was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999, which was attached to the Order. represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. The time for objecting to MRC's request has passed with no objections being filed. Accordingly, MRC's request is granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within one week of the date of entry of this Order, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998- 99 MRC budget hereby approved. Dated this L/l ~y of ~ 1999. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TrilS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::~oMPL)i\nCE WITH RULE 58 A(/OR 79(a) FRCP ON Of 1.f,/1'7 BY~  7 2 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 By Order dated May 10, 1999 [ doc.#3261 ], this Court informed the parties that it was inclined to approve the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. 1 The Court allowed the parties a period of time in which to object to MRC's request, and stated that should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court would enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that 1 The proposal was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a lener dated January 6, 1999, which was anached to the Order. represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. The time for objecting to MRC's request has passed with no objections being filed. Accordingly, MRC's request is granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDEREO that within one week of the date of entry of this Order, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded. 1998- 99 MRC budget hereby approved. Dated this [/j__ ~ay of ~ 1999. ~JV~)~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -:-~is DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~OMP[)/Ji\nIA/ITH RULE 58 ArJOR79(a)FRCP ON 6\n~~ BY ~  2 (!: Ji,,,,.,...,._ Magnet Review Conz,nittee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E -mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEI 0 .. :,:.:. 1 lS99 OFF!aEGF tl!SEGREGATION MONITORING At its June 22, 1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year (Draft l). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET. The total amount budgeted, $20,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127 .00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of 3,929 .86 students. This budget reflects an increase of $473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget, with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated May 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year. As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, tl:le changes result in an additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the l 999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additio~al seats (Draft 1). PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22, 941 ,363, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,648 and an increase of $521 .00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review CommitteE, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility rnay be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the l 998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both att ached herewith. \"Pursue the Po.,, ihilitin of ,\\ta KIi i' / School 1: nro/1111111I \" . . ' The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Actual 1998-99 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 1) \\ SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kinderqarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED 22 Ut1lit1es SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) CAPITAL 30 Equipment OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL 97-98 97-98 ,,.  \"''\\,. 97 98, F.T'.E\nBudger  :::::: .. ?f\\'Actua_l \",.\"\"\"'  6.0 $376,587 10.0 $488,462 39.2 $1,343,119 12.4 $505,887 6.5 $253,085 1.0 $26,065 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.6 $343,817 8.7 $289,709 5.4 $199,275 177.9 $6,147,115 0.0 $165,000 13.0 $425,964 292.7 $10,564,086 20.0 $407,495 5.4 $163,262 29.0 $356,470 1.0 $22,415 6.0 $133,806 37.0 $285,102 xxxxxxxx $3,090, 046 98 4 $4,458,595 xxxxxxxx $15,022,681 $617,803 $27,000 $0 )0000000( $156,919 xxxxxxxx $801,722 )0000000( $2,500 xxxxxxxx $574,289 XXX)OOO()( $35,450 XXlOO(X)O( $17,632 xxxxxxxx $629,871 xxxxxxxx $281,692 xxxxxxxx $0 $0 $281,692 $11 ,213 xxxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxxx $11,213 xxxxxxxx $1 ,724,498 391.1 $16,747,179 XXlOO(X)O( $1,412,026 xxxxxx $18,159,205 D JUL 1 1999 OffiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOat $379,403 $486,343 $1 ,364,146 $505,804 $247,844 $26,065 $0 $0 $344,417 $302,121 $199,275 $6,202,291 $127,946 $425,964 $10,611 ,619 $408,913 $163,742 $366,991 $22,416 $169,737 $312,321 $3,070,261 $4,514,381 $15,125,999 $559,062 $37,886 $0 $142,241 $739,1 88 $0 $462,324 $42,498 $17,721 $522,543 $334,791 $0 $0 $334,791 $32,049 $0 $32,049 $1 ,628,571 $16,754,570 $1 ,404,824 $18,159,395 98-99 / .,,,, ... .,,,., 98-99 ,:,,\u0026gt; ,, 'FlT\nE\n) t.,}.Prowsedt 6.0 $405,002 10,0 $538,313 40.2 $1,573,736 12.4 $562,628 6.5 $285,649 1.0 $29,673 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.6 $362,514 8.7 $358,938 5.4 $224,300 177.9 $6,850,936 0.0 $130,000 13.0 $507,181 293.7 $11,828,870 20.0 $442,653 5.4 $199,997 29.0 ,$453,656 1.0 $49,635 6.0 $173,752 37.0 $364,471 )0000000( $3,601,089 98.4 $5,285,254 $17,114,123 $607,657 $46,000 $0 $164,009 )(XX)OO()()( $817,666 XXX)O(XXX $1 ,500 \u0026gt;0000000\u0026lt; $510,244 )OOOO(XXX $43,250 $26,700 $58,~ ,694 XXX)O(XXX $412,097 XXiOOOOO( $0 $0 $412,097 $21,900 $0 XXX)O(XXX $21,900 XXX)O(XXX $1,833,357 392.1 $18,947,481 xxxxxxxx $1 ,199,429 xxxxxx $20,146,910 Line Item Costs - 1 \u0026lt;  Budget ./\\. ?ft:tK\n..-.,..\n..., ... .,.. ....., .. , .:.::: fi'frl\n{p~iiW F \\:: ..... :::?}: ::j:/::\n:::::/::~ : 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $33,837 $26,635 $37,366 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,284,189 $1,284,189 $1,075,563 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics  $40,500 $40,500 $33,000 Gifted Programs $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 Enqlish $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 Tofal Line Items $1 ,412,026 $1,404,824 $1,199,429 Per Pupi!Cost/ 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97-98 .,r .\" ,\n,97-98 \" . V 98c..99} \" 98-99){ :I Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Budget )? /,:/ Acttiar ..:\"':'-  f'/LE/ \"'\u0026gt;-, Pro.pos~cl}\".:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $61 ,582 $61 ,582 1.0 $67,173 STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 1.0 $43,757 $44,246 1.0 $56,872 03 Specialists 7.0 $268,408 $270,556 7.0 $293,535 04 Counselors 2.0 $76,155 $76,071 2.0 $85,862 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $42,653 $42,653 1.0 $46,975 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $26,065 $26,065 1.0 $29,673 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Specia l Education 1.3 $55,624 $55,624 1.3 $61 ,889 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,594 $39,594 1.0 $44,121 12 Classroom 30.2 $1,042,379 $1,067,326 30.2 $1,144,112 13 Substitutes 0.0 $30,000 $17,666 0.0 $21 ,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $105,300 $105,300 4.0 $146,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1,791,516 $1,806,681 49.5 $1,997,549 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $39,821 $40,661 2.0 $42,999 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,050 $33,530 1.0 $36,169 17 Custodians 4.0 $53,033 $58,134 4.0 $61 ,704 18 I nformat1on Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 . $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $56,973 $58,696 7.0 $68,802 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $519,779 $517,153 $589,205 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $706,392 $711 ,910 14.2 $807,152 TOTAL (10-20) $2,497,909 $2,518,591 $2,804,701 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es $81,480 $75,300 $74,250 SERVICES 23 Travel $2,000 $10,143 $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $13,350 $19,065 $28,584 TOTAL (30) $96,830 $104,508 $112,834 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Re\u0026lt;:iular Classroom $105,498 $75,760 $72,000 (40) 28 Media $5,250 $6,038 $5,500 29 Other $3,372 $3,453 $5,000 TOTAL (40) $114,120 $85,251 $83,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $65,760 $78,372 $77, 833 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 -- $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $65,760 $78,372 $77, 833 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $250 $2,655 $1 ,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $250 $2,655 $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) $276,960 $270,786 $275,1 67 TOTAL (10-60) 63.7 $2,774,869 $2,789,377 63.7 $3,079,868 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $217,370 $213,446 $186,314 I GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $2,992,238 $3,002,823 xxxxx.x $3,266,181 Line Item Costs. - . . .,., .. B u_dget .,,.. .. ,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ::\n-::. .. -:-.-:,::..-:-:-: i/i,\\ : 'efciiio.~~4it Booker ' '/? \u0026gt;} /} : ,:j 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $8,357 $4,434 $10,686 Other Objects Indirect Costs $205,499 $205,499 $172,114 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $153 $153 $153 Plant Services $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 Reading $80 $80 $80 Science $0 $0 $0 English $240 $240 $240 Special Education $640 $640 $640 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Lrne Items $217,370 $213,446 $186,314 Per Pupfl Cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 624.39 624.39 630.43 Total Costs $2,992,238 $3,002,823 $3,266,181 1998--99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97 98 \\/c,  c ,\"' .. ,.97-98' . . \u0026gt; .. ,-98~9!\nh, \u0026gt;}C::C:t\\98'-99\\f\\c:  Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E\n,.,. .. . Proi:\u0026gt;os\"ed CERTIFIED 01 Pnnc1pal 1.0 $57,650 $57,650 1.0 $63,061 STAFF 02 Asst. Prrn 1.0 $45,496 $45,496 1.0 $53,026 03 Speci alists 8.0 $285,971 $285,886 8.0 $315,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $70,795 $70,795 2.0 $74,292 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $54,248 $54,248 1.5 $61,288 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $50,773 $50,773 1.5 $56,857 11 Gifted 1.4 $48,976 $48,976 1.4 $55,762 12 Classroom 24.3 $694,929 $723,844 24.3 $828,825 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,000 $16,739 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $128,706 $128,706 4.0 $145,675 TOTAL CERTI FIED SALARY 44.7 $1 ,462,545 $1,483,113 44.7 $1,674,077 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $48,392 $48,392 3.0 $60,537 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,383 $24,383 1.0 $28,366 17 Custodians 4.0 $43,692 $43,462 4.0 $71,278 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $87,419 $87,718 11 .0 $112,097 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $456,456 $449,541 $544,184 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $664,078 $657,231 19.2 $824,735 TOTAL (10-20) $2,126,623 $2,140,345 $2,498,812 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $81 ,653 $72,098 $83,707 SERVICES 23 Travel $9,000 $7 ,676 $10,000 , (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,560 $8,147 $1i,915 TOTAL (30) $99,213 $87,921 $106,622 MATERIALS 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regula r Classroom $57,660 $71 ,813 $57,800 (40) 28 Media $5,500 $9,651 $10,000 29 Other $3,600 $2,725 $3,200 TOTAL (40) $66,760 $84.189 $71 ,000 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $56,167 $35,442 $36,430 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repai r, etc XII I .... (50) 32 Other ,. . TOTAL (50) I $56,167 $35,442 $36,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $4,000 $8,287 $8,000 (60) 34 other TOTAL (60) $4,000 $8,287 $8,000 TOTAL (30-60) $226,140 $215,839 $222,052 TOTAL (10-60) 63.9 $2,352,763 $2,356,184 63.9 $2.720,864 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $217,167 $217,159 $183,238 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx SZ,569,930 $2,573,343 xxxxxx $2,904,102 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Carver . 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $13,390 $13,382 $12,010 Other Objects Indirect Costs $200,352 $200,352 $167,803 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $149 $149 $149 Plant Services $2,340 $2,340 $2,340 Reading $78 $78 $78 Science $0 $0 $0 English $234 $234 $234 Special Education $624 $624 $624 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,167 $217,159 $183,238 Per Pupil Cost 1997-98 1997-98 (( , 1998~99 .. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 608.75 608.75 616.33 Total Costs $2,569,930 $2,573,343 $2,904,102 Per Pupil Cost $4\n222 y$4\n221   .. / $4:112 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97-98 \\/ ,, ,.,/'97-98 ?,, . 98-99:, . ./\\::-,,.sa-99'\\'c\u0026lt;\\ . Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. B Udctet)/.00:,  / 00c\u0026lt;Actua1c :,:,F,LE/ :):) Proo6$t'!c\nf ? CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $50,354 $53,170 1.0 $62,256 STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 1.0 $58,119 $55,200 1.0 $48,518 03 Specialists 5.8 $169,956 $170,916 6.8 $230,842 04 Counselors 1.0 $43,567 $43,567 1.0 $48,507 OS Media Spec. 1.0 $43,696 $43,569 1.0 $49,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $50,753 $58,247 1.5 $74,622 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,047 $31,047 1.0 $35, 111 12 Classroom 15.0 $485,954 $477,552 15.0 $522,415 13 Substitutes 0.0 $14,000 $7,009 0.0 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $67,312 $67,312 2.0 $76,237 TOTAL CERTIFIEb SALARY 29.3 $1 ,014,757 $1,007,589 30.3 $1,162,334 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $22,339 $22,260 1.4 $29,288 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,569 $14,569 0.8 $32,457 17 Custodians 3.0 $40,097 $39,684 3.0 $45,642 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,499 $47,870 5.6 $36,188 .. 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $303,473 $307,216 $369,681 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11 .0 $424,712 $435,335 11.0 $521,529 TOTAL (10-20) $1,439,470 $1,442,923 $1 ,683,863 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $39,439 $36,305 .... ,.,..,.-,, $38,201 SERVICES 23 Travel $2,000 $9,268 :.-...\n.. $8,500  ,' (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $3,985 $5,957 $Hi,824 TOTAL {30) yy $45,424 $51,530 $62,525 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office $1,000 $0 $1,000 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $49,625 $35,821 $39,1 41 (40) 28 Media $3,500 $2,510 $3,000 29 Other $1,260 $1 ,488 $3,000 TOTAL (40) $55,385 $39,820 $46,141 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $62,059 $65,272 $183,040 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,059 $65,272 $183,040 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1,000 $4,493 $1,000 {60) 34 Other ~ TOTAL (60) $1 ,000 $4,493 $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) $163,868 $161 ,115 $292,706 TOTAL {10-60) 40.3 $1,603,338 $1 ,604,038 41 .3 $1,976,569 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - {SECOND PAGE) $106,558 $106,558 $89,919 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1 ,709,895 $1,710,596 xxxxx:x $2,066,488 Line Item Costs - / :: : .. /.Budge( ? .\n::::::\n:::::.:::'.:'11 ,,-.:\"' : \"'/ !  - '::':'c'i::  t tirc$~t~~~ l Gibbs\\ ::., .~ \u0026lt;\u0026lt; ,,,::rtt 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $540 $540 $835 Other Objects Indirect Costs $104,236 $104,236 $87,302 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $78 $78 $78 Plant Services $1,218 $1,218 $1,218 Reading $41 $41 $41 Science $0 $0 $0 English $122 $122 $122 Special Education $325 $325 $325 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $106,558 $106,558 $89,919 3rd Qtr ADM or Proj 316.71 316.71 324.80 Total Costs $1,709,895 $1,710,596 $2,066,488 . Pe?'\"piJpi(1\nost..- :. -:::::,:::::,:,:::\\\\ik)? .//\\kit . ,.~ ,.,., ,,.,.,.,,,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,  ,,\"'\"'\"'' ~- n, :,:,:,::::::::::,:\n:::::::::::::,:,i,_p,\n.,.9~:: 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 97-98 97-98 '\". '\u0026gt; \"' \" -i':97-98'''' 'i 9\u0026amp;\n'9m: :::::.:. ,,\u0026gt; 98-9'9 ,i'i/i Willi ams Magnet School F.T.E. Budget /}' Actual \"\". it ,,,F\nT\nE} .. , .  ,. Proposed.\\,, .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $66,662 $66,662 1.0 $72,770 STAFF 02 Asst Pnn 1.0 $44,837 $44,837 1.0 $47,761 03 Specialists 5.0 $201,181 $201,181 5.0 $223,133 04 Counselors 1.4 $51 ,530 $51,530 1.4 $57,763 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $31 ,151 $26,038 1.0 $36,985 06 Art-Perf./P rod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $39,220 $44,138 1.1 $50,456 11 Gifted 2.0 $79,658 $79,658 2.0 $89,246 12 Classroom 20.0 $703,555 $703,414 20.0 $807,642 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $12,980 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $124,646 $124,646 3.0 $138,931 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,362,442 $1,355,084 35.5 $1 ,544,686 SUPPORT 15 Secretanes 2.6 $47,016 $47,016 2.6 $53,584 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $39,749 $39,749 1.0 $44,854 17 Custodians 4.0 $47,750 $53, 006 4.0 $55,662 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $31 ,968 $43,637 9.0 $62,177 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $397,919 $393,877 , $472,966 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.8 $568,138 $581 ,020 16.8 $697,515 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,930,580 $1,936,104 $2,242,201 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $54,789 $49,789 ._._.,\n'.:.:::--.-.. $50,168 SERVICES 23 Travel $3,000 $4,233 $3,500 , (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $6,000 $4,267 .. $6,329 TOTAL (30) - $63, 789 $58,290 )()O()OOO(X $59,997 MATERIALS 26 Princ1pal's Office XXXXXXl\u0026lt;X SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $66,090 $72,633 )OO()OO(XX $62,608 (40) 28 Media $5,000 $4,662 $5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx $1,400 $1 ,502 $2,500 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx $72, 490 $78,797 )(XX)()(X)()( $70,108 CAPITAL 30 Equipment . $34,480 $32,834 $34,400 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. XXXlOO\u0026lt;)()( (50) 32 Other $0 $0 )OO()O(X)O( $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $34,480 $32,834 xxxxxxxx $34,400 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx $800 $3,315 XXXlOOO\u0026lt;X $3,900 (60) 34 Other )0000000( .. TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $800 $3,315 xxxxxxxx $3,900 TOTAL (30-60) )0000000( $171,559 $173,235 $168,405 TOTAL (10-60) 52.3 $2,1 02, 138 $2,109,339 52.3 $2,4 10,606 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $172,794 $164,394 $146,494 GRAND TOTAL xxxx:xx $2,274,932 $2,273,733 x:xxxxx .$2,557,100 Line Item Costs - w111iains.\u0026lt; 1997-98 1997-98 Stipends $8,400 $0 $8,358 Other Objects Indirect Costs $161,631 $161,631 $135,373 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $120 $120 $120 Plant Services $1,888 $1,888 $1,888 Reading $63 $63 $63 Science $0 $0 $0 English $189 $189 $189 Special Education $503 $503 $503 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $172,794 $164,394 $146,494 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 491.10 491.10 486.93 Total Costs $2,274,932 $2,273,733 $2,557,100 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 1) 97-98 97-98  .  . 97 -98 \" ...  98~99 \n,:?, .. :,:,98~S9)/t., Mann Magnet School F\nT.E. Budget: . ?'.\n:: \\\n\\\\. Actual \\ .......... . / F,T,E~\\ .tt,,,,.Pr.6.6Q~cj:.:.,) CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $68,177 $68,177 1.0 $67,313 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $134,985 $134,985 3.0 $150,847 03 Specialists 3.6 $94,123 $120,390 3.6 $137,303 04 Counselors 3.0 $122,979 $122,980 3.0 $138,140 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $44,702 $44,702 1.0 $49,770 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 MUSIC 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.6 $149,318 $149,686 5.6 $161,424 10 Special Education 1.3 $36,600 $36,600 1.3 $44,557 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 47.8 $1,605,497 $1 ,609,447 47.8 $1,736,395 13 Substitutes 00 $36,000 $36,915 0.0 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0,0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFlffi SALARY 66.3 $2,292,381 $2,323,881 66.3 $2,515,749 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $98,328 $98,328 5.0 $111,209 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,864 $34,864 1.0 $38,901 17 Custodians 6.0 $64,058 $66,190 6.0 $87,118 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $33,763 $33,087 1.0 $25,957 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $37,240 $41,005 2.4 $46,059 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $657,749 $653,559 $738,034 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $929,738 $930,770 15.6 $1 ,055,550 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx:x $3,222,119 $3,254,651 $3,571,299 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $169,276 $143,189 $158,629 SERVICES 23 Travel $4,000 $2,1 24 $7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 $0 $0 25 Other ... $61,474 $64,787 $58,878 TOTAL (30) $234,750 $210,100 $22,4,507 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office $1,000 $0 $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $129,299 $112,426 $119,615 (40) 28 Media \" $7,000 $10,227 .... $10,550 29 Other $3,000 $3,128 $5,000 TOTAL (40) $140,299 $125,780 $135,165 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $19,790 $25,448 $16,450 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc $0 $0 $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $19,790 $25,448 $16,450 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1,500 $6,678 $4,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1,500 $6,678 $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) $396,339 $368,005 $380,122 TOTAL (10-60) 81 .9 $3,618,458 $3,622,656 81.9 $3,951 ,421 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $339,350 $339,350 $286,111 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,957,807 $3,962,006 xxxxxx. $4,237,532 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Mann 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $3,1 50 $3,150 $1 ,672 Other Objects Indirect Costs $296,283 $296,283 $248,150 Vocational $15,480 $15,480 $15,480 Athletics $19,592 $19,592 $15,964 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $3,461 $3,461 $3,461 Reading $115 $115 $115 Science $0 $0 $0 English $346 $346 $346 Special Education $923 $923 $923 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items  $339,350 $339,350 $286, 111 Per Pupil Cost ,., 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 900.23 900.23 889.83 Total Costs $3,957,807 $3,962,006 $4,237,532 Per Pupil Cost $4,396 .- 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) \\l7J.l8  ?,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;i 97-98 i!Jt\u0026gt;?r r: tt.n,.gsJ::: {}\\}  98:-99/ ?}i\\:98f9$ i?}J): Parkview Magnet School F.T\nE\n:  ,. Budget\\) ::: . {\\:t: A-cttlat tt\u0026gt;  Jffl\\E~ : { Pf6Whlic[ ) CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,162 $72,162 1.0 $72,429 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 3.0 $161 ,268 $161 ,579 3.0 $181,289 03 Speciali sts 9.8 $323,480 $315,218 9.8 $373,632 04 Counselors 3.0 $140,860 $140,860 3.0 $158,064 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $36,635 $36,635 1.0 $40,866 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.0 $194,499 $194,730 7.0 $201 ,089 10 Special Education 2.0 $56,739 $56,739 2.0 $70,559 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 40.6 $1,614,801 $1 ,620,709 40.6 $1,811 ,547 13 Substitutes 0.0 $40,000 $36,638 0.0 $25,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 67.4 $2,640,444 $2,635,271 67.4 $2,934,474 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $151,599 $152,256 6.0 $145,036 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $16,648 $16,648 0.6 $19,250 17 Custodians 8.0 . $107,841 $106,515 8.0 $132,253 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $100,043 $136,650 5.0 $147,795 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $31,002 $33,395 2.0 $39,149 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $754,670 $748,915 $887,018 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .8 $1,165,538 $1 ,198,115 21.8 $1 ,378,773 TOT AL ( 10-20) $3,805, 982 $3,833,385 $4,313,247 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $191,166 $182,381 \" $202,702 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,000 $4,441 ,.,.,,,,., .... ,,., -.. - $7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 $0 $0 25 Other $63,550 $40,018 :i:.:.a I.\n~,_ $41,480 TOTAL (30) $261,716 $226,840 -  $25~, 182 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office $500 $0 $500 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $166,117 $93,871 ~ $159,080 (40) 28 Media $9,200 $9,410 $8,200 29 Other $5,000 $5,425 $8,000 TOTAL (40) r $180,817 $108,706 $175,780 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $43,437 $97,423 $63,944 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) r $43,437 $97,423 $63,944 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $3,663 $6,621 $4,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $3,663 $6,621 ' \" $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) $489,633 $439,590 $494,906 TOTAL (10-60) 89.2 $4,295,614 $4,272,976 89.2 $4,808,154 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $358,787 $363,918 $307,353 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $4,654,401 $4,636,894 xxxxxx $5,1.15,507 Line Item Costs - /\\\u0026gt;: :\": .-,,\".Budget: .,,:,:.:. . . :,,,,: 1:::::,? :-''.-:\"' .. _. -- ,,:-::,:, :: :: rH=lt$i\u0026amp;~t JJ Parkview:\"', \u0026gt;.  , \u0026lt;tt 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $0 $5,130 $3,805 Other Objects Indirect Costs $316, 189 $3 16,189 $264,821 Vocational  $16, 520 $16,520 $16,520 Athletics $20,908 $20,908 $1 7,036 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $3,693 $3,693 $3,693 Reading $123 $123 $123 Science $0 $0 $0 English $369 $369 $369 Special Education $985 $985 $985 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items  $358 ,787 $363,918 $307,353 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj . 960.71 960. 71 981.54 Total Costs $4,654,401 $4,636,894 $5,115,507 OCT-18-99 HON 11:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLTRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LIT1LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * No. LR-C-82-866 P. 01 fjLED U.S. DIST~ICT COURT EASTE:R OISTRJCT ARKANSAS ocr t s 1999 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, * * * * Post-It\"' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 1-!RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * : TD Co. Ocpt. From Co. Phone KATHERINE Th1GHT, et al., Intervenors. * ---------------- ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. The YIB.C communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999 (attached) The etter also contains a proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year\nhowever, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from entry of this Order to object to :MRC's final budget for 1998-1999. Should no objections be filed within the time aUowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the budget . .--ft'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /j DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CO~PUAN~zwr~~ 56 ANDIOA 79(\u0026gt; FRCP ')llf / (j, I 5L . l!!V __ .tt::::: OCT-18-99 MON 11:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 M agli.t!9t Review C om.[~1ittee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Cour1 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capi1ol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its June 22, -1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee. by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year !Draft 1). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: P. 02 The total amount budgeted, 520,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127.00, calculated from an overage third-quarter enrollment of 3,929 .86 students. This budget reflects an increase of 5473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget. with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement pion included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated Moy 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, the changes result in on additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additional seats (Draft ll. PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET\nThe total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22,941,363, which results in o per-pupil expenditure of 55,648 and an increase of $521.00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations ore in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requQsts the Court's review and approval of the 1998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both attoched herewith. \"Pursue the Possibilities of,\",lagnet School Enrollment\" OCT-18-99 MON 11:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 03 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining !he existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~, . ~..--- Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Adual 1998-99 Orlginal Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring OCT-18-99 MON tt:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COL1RT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LIT1LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintllf: * VS. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, *  :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Inteivenors, *  KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * :MEMO TO THE FILE FNLED us OIST/~ICT ccu\n.r EASTERN OIS'f\"RICT ARXANSAS 0('.-, t A I\"\"\" Jv f ~ r\"'J\"J'j JAMES 8'1: ----~~~JJL Defendant Pulaski County Special School District (PCS SD) requested an informal inchambers conference [docket no. 3291]. The Court granted PCSSD's request and held a conference on September 22, 1999, with all parties present. Accordingly, the Court requests that the Clerk make the necessary docket entry to remove PCSSD's request from the pending motions' list. Dated this 14th da of October, 1999 o-Jo Baldwin Law Clerk to Judge Wright f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 2 'l. 1999 JAME~VV.M:!MACK,ClERK By: \\J ,~U f\\ M V f'---- oep CLERK IV NOV 2 3 1999 OiRCEOf Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the budget as submitted. ,J IT IS SO ORDERED THIS Jib DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999 QZ~,~2 'tttfjgF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999. For a copy of the letter, see docket no. 3303, attachment.\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_672","title":"Management audit","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Management audit"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/672"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["145 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nreceived OCT 3 0 1998 Office of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK FOR OUR PURUC SCHOOLS October 29, 1998 IMPORTANT INVITATION TO: Ann Brown FROM: Odies Wilson, HI / President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools SUBJECT: Invitation To Attend Public Input Session Regarding Our Schools Wednesday, November 4,1998 Drop By Anytime Between 4 p.m. - 8 p.m. Martin Luther King Elementary School 907 Martin Luther King Blvd. As you know, the Alliance is working in partnership with the Little Rock School District with a consulting firm to study the management and financial practices of our school district. The firm, MGT of America, will have a team of professionals visiting Little Rock on the evening of November 4*. You should have already been contacted to arrange a one-on-one interview with a member of the MGT Team. We want you to also feel free to attend the public input session. MGTs goal is to talk to as many people as possible about our school district. By hearing from as many people as possible, they will better understand the positive strides that have been made in recent years and months, as well as the unique challenges facing our district. I especially want to invite you to participate in the open forum being held at Martin Luther King Elementary School from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4*. It will not be necessary for you to attend the full, four-hour event. Time constraints will not allow the MGT team to visit with you extensively one-on-one at the open forum, but please plan to stay for as long as you like. The format for the forum will allow you to drop by.at any time during the four- hour event and contribute your thoughts and perspective to the team from MGT. Feel free to also invite any other guests who have comments they would like to share with MGT regarding the Little Rock School District. Thank you in advance for responding to this special invitation. We value your opinion and want you to be able to share them with the team from MGT. Please make every effort to drop by Martin Luther King School next Wednesday evening. Without your participation, the MGT team will not have the benefit of your insight as they work on a series of recommendations to help us plan for the bright future of our district and its students. I hope to see you next Wednesday evening. You will consider your attendance time well spent. 523 Louisiana Street  Lafayette Building  Suite 175  Little Rock  Arkansas  72201 Phone (501) 370-9300 . Fax (501) 375-877403/25/1999 23:31 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 sevann@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us For Immediate Release March 25,1999 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Management Study Presented to LRSD A six-month management study of the Little Rock School District is complete, and results of the study were submitted to the LRSD Board of Education attonight s (Thursday) public meeting. The purpose of the study was to identify specific areas of the districts management structure and operations which could be improved and to provide a thorough review of the districts financial condition. The study was commissioned by a coalition of local entities, including the LRSD, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, Fifty for the Future, and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. The coalition hired MGT of America to conduct the study and report its findings to the community. Dr. Linda Recio of MGT of America outlined for the LRSD Board the scope of its work and presented copies of its 500 page report. Recio encouraged the Board to read the report prior to her return visit with the Board in May. at which time she will respond to questions that Board members may have. Superintendent Les Gamine notes that many changes have been underway during the time that MGT consultants have been surveying staff and community leaders, gathering data, and developing its report Even as we embrace the management study results and recommendations,\" Gamine says, we recognize that our district has been in the process of significant program changes since the study began. We realize that these changes in our curriculum, campus leadership initiative and middle school transition, just to name a few, tt must be considered as we review the recommendations.' Some of the recommendations address the districts organizational structure and suggest numerous changes in personnel alignment. Gamine says ttiat organizational changes can be accomplished through attrition including retirements and normal mobility of staff. The report also concludes that the district needs additional financial support from the community in order to maintain adequate school facilities. Gamine suggests a period of two to three months for review of the recommendations and establishment of a timeline for implementation. MGT \\ bfC- O f J C.0rnjile.4t, /\u0026gt;ook lc.\u0026lt;i A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 } 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology......................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure..................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................... Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures................ ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 .3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS 4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results............................ Principal Survey Results............................................................. Teacher Survey Results.............................................................. Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys........................................................................ Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems............................................................ EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office................................................................ Division of School Services........................................................... Division of Instruction..................................................................... Operations Division........................................................................ Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs................... Assessment of Fund Balance...................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94i TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 PAGE ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes...................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ Chapter Summary.............................................................................. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction..................................................................... Funding for New Construction...................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations......................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan........................................................................ Technology Committee............................................................. Staffing....................................................................................... Infrastructure.............................................................................. Hardware.................................................................................... Staff Development.................................................................... Technical Support...................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................... NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment...................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement................................................ Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts..................................................................... English as a Second Language........................................................ Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy................................................................................ Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results 6-99 6-115 6-116 ,7-1 ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 ,8-17 .8-23 8-27 8-30 9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 ,9-17 .9-22 .9-26 .9-30 9-32 9-35 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 i I 1 J 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational stnjcture that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the ManaQement Study  I The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\nI  the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instmctional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary 1 1 ( including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. t Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. 1 During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page III? I i s f j I 1 Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Fifty tor the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position.' The RFP asked the consultant to \"1 analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-eValuation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v1 i Executive Summary J should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastnjcture to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary 1 The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities, in some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. k These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. { AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES I Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: J .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 5 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place  A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9 I The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include: 1  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education ] There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. i In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. I The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation,\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. k. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1 Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. I 1 1 1 In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. i 1 The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. 1 The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall Implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the T lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: i This strategy should be accomplished by  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement: 1  annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and I  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary J 1 t The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 J Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. j The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary 1 The Importance of Implementation I The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. j As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. I J November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to: 1 I 1 4 i  I \u0026lt; J December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24,1999 J March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc.  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xlilDate: To: From: Re: March 30, 1999 All isociates Viewing the LRSD Management Audit Attached are various parts of the recently released LRSD management audit. I regret to report that the superintendent wasnt very keen on sharing this document with us for reasons he did not express. At our next full staff meeting. Ill share what few comments he did give me on the audit. A complete copy of this hefty tome is in our library for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. Each of you has a copy of the Executive Summary and some other sections of the report, which Ive distributed more or less according to your particular area of interest or expertise. Heres how were going to eat this elephant: Read what youve been given, noting findings, comments, and recommendations that you think are (1) significant for the entire staff to be aware of and (2) which we also may want to somehow factor into our LRSD report thats currently underway. (A review of the entire Executive Summary isnt your individual responsibility, just the areas in it that relate to your other report sections.) I cant be more definitive on what you may uncover thats significant and might therefore be a candidate for factoring into our report or at least further investigation, because I havent read any of the audit and have only the vaguest idea whats in there. Just use your best judgment. The report subsections are pretty broad and cover a number of topics that apply to different staff members expertise. This appears to be especially true in section 9 of the audit. Within the separate sections youve been given, if you find a subtopic you know can be better analyzed by another associate by virtue of his or her experience, expertise, or interest, feel free to make trade-offs. (For example: Margie, youre responsible for Section 9, but youll want to give parts to your colleagues, such as ESL to Horace, ECE to Melissa, etc. Skip, the finance section is very lengthy, so youre free to rope in extra help if you want it.) Im not as concerned with who does what as I am about getting this document digested, so please be generous in helping each other out. Just let Polly know about any trading so she can keep a current listing of whos doing what. Underlining, highlighting, and writing in the margins of these documents is fine, as these are your copies to mark up. After youve completed your review, write up a brief, informal, in-house summary of the key points you noted, by section or subsection as appropriate. Include any observations you have about the relevance the section or subsection may have to our report and any recommendations you have about some sort of subsequent action we might need to take, such as additional research for our report or adding a topic to the report. Polly will compile the summaries, observations, and recommendations into one document to share with all of us. The deadline for getting your stuff to Polly is no later than Friday, April 9. Assignments are as follows: Section 1: Section 2: Section 3\nSection 4\nSection 5: Margie Melissa Gene Horace Gene Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Appendix: Skip Melissa Skip Margie Horace (a cursory review will suffice)04/06/1999 09:55 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: Fax: (501)324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE: April 6,1999 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Board Work Session/Spedal Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will have a work session and a special board meeting this afternoon in conjunction with its regular agenda meeting (the agenda meeting this month was moved from Thursday until this evening. The work session will include discussions of facility needs, the MGT study. Board goals, the district mid-term report, and establishment of an educational foundation. The special board meeting will be an executive session on a personnel matter. The meetings will begin at 5\n00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge i REVIEW OF THE LRSD MANAGEMENT AUDIT SECTION 1 - Introductlow Margie After reading the sections assigned to me, except for some budget data, I found no new information concerning my assigned sections. I have completed my editing of the Associates  LRSD revised plan report, and find that the audit report reflects much of what has already been written by the Associates. This section contains the time line for the management study which was completed on schedule (March 25, 1999). MGT lists the sources used to make the report, such as: Board policies and minutes, compliance reports, ODM reports, school improvement plans, and the like. Two reports made by outside agencies: A Plan for Success, by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, and Plain Talk, released by UALR, were also used as resources. According to the authors of this study, MGT interviewed over 100 campus-level employees, as well as members of the business community, and members of the central office staff. The report does not indicate how the interviewees were chosen or how many were interviewed on each level, such as elementary-level vs. secondary-level employees. The report reflects high praise for the spirit of cooperation between the LR business community and the school district. Additionally, the report cites several initiatives recommended in the LR Alliance report were already underway. The district had a new Board, a new superintendent, and a fairly good relationship between the superintendent and board members. The report indicates that one initiative recommended in A Plan For Success, the marketing of the LRSD, had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD. The MGT report strongly recommends that the district embrace the marketing plan and aggressively market the LRSD. SECTION 2 - Background on the LRSD Melissa This section consists of the following subsections: 2.1 Historical Background and future of Desegregation\n2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD\n2.3 Current Central Office Structure. A brief summary of each section follows. 2.1 Historical Background and the Future of Desegregation This section begins with reference to the history of desegregation in the LRSD and speaks to the district having struggled vrith lawsuit after lawsuit. It mentions that an end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration... The MGT study seems to praise the lack of over-prescription found in the revised plan. Page 1This section contains an erroneous conclusion: This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice , either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The new assignment plan should end involuntary busing, but it will not enable students to attend the school of their choice. Choices are more limited under the new plan than the old. A large portion of the section consists of excerpts from the Revised Desegregation and Education plan. The section concludes with a brief description of ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. 2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD This section contains historic, demographic, and financial data regarding the LRSD. Much of their data is taken from the UALR Plain Talk. I found nothing especially new or noteworthy in this section. Page 2-12 contains some outdated or incorrect data where it mentions that some schools will become ninth grade only for a time. Page 2-14 also contains some confusing language regarding the Pay and Classification Study currently being conducted by the district. This section talks about creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees. I do not know what this means, nor does it make sense. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure This lengthy section is a collection of organizational charts for the central office and departments within the LRSD administration. Each group of charts is accompanied by a brief narrative that defines the responsibilities of the department and its director. Once again, I found some errors or omissions. The ombudsman position does not appear on the carts, but the narrative makes reference to the task of filling the position in the future. It appears that all information gathering by MGT stopped some time in late November or early December, and they made no real effort to update their findings to include changes made after that time. The section on the Reading/Language Arts Department includes one error and one mystery. The error involves the selection of textbooks. The report states that the director is responsible for selecting mathematics and science textbooks rather than reading and language arts (pg. 2-41). The mystery deals with the staff assigned to the reading department. The MGT chart on page 2-42 lists a reading troubleshooter position, which they say is shared with UALR. No such position exits. What the district docs have is an ESL specialist from UALR who conducts inservice training for the ESL tutors and visits the schools to assist teachers in tailoring instruction to meet the special needs of LEP students. In addition to the large collection of organizational charts, this subsection concludes with a chart that illustrates a total of the central office staff by division. The divisional chart does not include principals, school-based staff, food service workers, or the IRC building staff such as aides, security officer, and custodians. That chart is reproduced below. Page 2LRSD Central Office Staff Count by Division Position/Division Superintendent Special Assistant Special Assistant, Labor Relations Communications Technoloqy Administrative Services Division School Services Division Instructional Division Operations Division TOTAL Professional and Technical 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 20.0 26.0 7.0 92.0 61.0 212.0 Clerical and Labor 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 12.5 7.0 29.0 60.0 115.0 SECTION 3 - Comparisons to Other School Districts Gene Section 3 is a comparison of the LRSD with Caddo Parish School District (Shreveport, La.) Richmond City School District (Richmond, Va.) and the Savannah-Chatham County School District (Savannah, Ga.). School districts in Jackson, Mississippi and Columbia, South Carolina declined to be compared. MGT made no recommendations in this section. Salient Points of the Comparison with other Districts  District enrollments vary from 24,000 (LRSD) to 48,000 (Caddo Parish) and average 34,000.  African-American student percentages range from a low of 48% (Savannah) to a high of 77% (Richmond) and average 61%. The black percentage enrollment of each district is substantially higher than the black percentage population of the community served by each district. The LRSD has a lower percentage of students in poverty (21%) than any of the comparison districts and 8 percentage points lower than the average of 29%. LRSD has a lower student to building-level-administrator ratio than the comparison districts and lower than the national average ratio. The student to classroom teacher ratio ranked in the middle of the comparison districts but two students per teacher below the national average. Salaries of most employee classifications were lower in LRSD than in the comparison districts. LRSD has 12 positions with superintendent in the title, plus the superintendent. Caddo has three, Richmond has four, and Savannah has eight. With revenue of $5,417 per student, LRSD is in the middle of the comparison districts in revenue per student with Caddo being lowest at $4,021 and Richmond highest at $6,569. Expenditures per student reflected a comparison similar to the revenue comparison. Page 3SECTION 4- Survey Results Horace Background and Organization During October of 1998, MGT of America administered written surveys to LRSD central office administrators, building administrators and teachers. MGT surveyed all of the central administrators and principals, but only a random sample of teachers. The survey results are initially organized according to the three job categories surveyed. The consultants then compared the three group results and finally compared the LRSD results in each job category to a composite of 26 districts in which they have conducted surveys over the last six years. Summary of Key Points 4.1 Central Administration\n25 of 29 surveys returned (86% rate)  100% of the administrators rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent.  While 84% of the administrators felt that principals cared about students needs, only 56% of them rated the principals work as educational leaders as good or excellent.  Administrators had a low opinion of parental efforts related to helping their children do better in school\nwith 68% rating parental efforts as fair or poor. Most administrators (83%) felt that teacher and staff promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most administrators indicated needed major improvement were Instructional Technology, Plant Maintenance, Administrative Technology, Custodial Services, and Personnel Recruitment. Food Services, Law Enforcement, Purchasing, Strategic Planning, Financial Management, and Community Relations all received combined adequate or outstanding ratings from more than 75% of the administrators. 4.2 Principals: 101 surveys disseminated and 67 returned (66% return rate) Principals were concerned with facilities. Forty-six percent of principals indicated that they did not believe that there is sufficient space and facilities to support instructional programs. In reference to the superintendent, 82% rated him as good or excellent as an educational leader. Most principals (91%) felt that teacher promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most principals indicated needed major improvement were Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Pupil Transportation, Custodial Services, and Facilities Planning. The principals rated Law Enforcement, Food Service, Strategic Planning, and Staff Development as adequate to outstanding. 4.3 Teachers: 488 surveys distributed and 212 returned (43% return rate) While 49% ofthe teachers rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent, 44% rated is work in this area as fair or poor. Page 4Only 42% of the teachers felt that their schools were safe and secure from crime and 33% dont think that their schools are safe. Only 24% of teachers rated parents participation in school activities as good or excellent. Only 36% of teachers believe that workloads are equitably distributed among teachers and staff. Like the central administrators and principals, 84% of the teachers indicated that teachers are not promoted or paid more based on individual performance and 65% indicated that the same was true for staff. The top five programs that teachers indicated were in need of improvement were Budgeting, Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Curriculum Planning, and Custodial Services. The program with the highest combined adequate to outstanding rating was Staff Development. 4.4 Administration, Principal, and Teacher Survey Results Compared Teachers were the least optimistic about conditions in LRSD and central office administrators were the most optimistic. Generally, central office administrators and principals held similar attitudes while teacher attitudes were less optimistic. Teachers were less supportive and evenly divided in their assessments of the superintendents performance. By a 3\n1 ratio, all three groups indicated that schools are not kept in good condition. None of the groups had positive views of parent involvement in school activities and organization.  All survey groups were dissatisfied with the manner in which teacher and staff promotion and pay increases are allotted. Teachers are not overly impressed with any of the districts programs or functions\nwith only staff development receiving a combined outstanding or excellent rating of over 50%. However, 64% of central office administrators indicated that staff development needed major improvement. 4.5 Comparison of LRSD to Other School Districts The LRSD central administrations attitudes were generally less optimistic than that of their counterparts in other MGT districts. However, their opinions about the board and superintendent were significantly higher than the composite of other districts. The central administration viewed the performance of their principals and teachers less positively than administrators in other districts. Overall, the LRSD responses are comparable to those of their counterpart districts. Observations The MGT survey results are not particularly enlightening. I dont feel that the district will discover anything that was not already known. As with the districts ovm climate surveys, the point is not how much information is collected, it is how that information is used to bring about changes. Page 5The return rate for the principals was pathetic. Only 66% of them returned the surveys. I just assumed that participation was mandatory since the district had commissioned the study. Another observation I have is that only 25% of the teachers who returned surveys were African-American in a district that has a considerably higher percentage of African-American teachers. While the survey did not reveal anything striking or new, I do feel that one of the most significant results had to do with promotion and pay. High percentages of all three surveyed groups felt that promotion and pay were not tied to performance. I would think that this finding might have some bearing on how the district develops more equitable promotion policies and practices. SECTION 5 - Effectiveness of the Management Structure and Organization Gene Section 5 is an analysis of the effectiveness of the management structure of LRSD including the superintendents office and the four divisions of district-wide services. Salient Points of Management Structure Section Reduce the number of divisions from 4 to 3 by eliminating the division of administrative sei-vices and assigning the functions to others. MGT may have made this recommendation without knowing the historical significance of the administrative services division regarding the desegregation case. Because MGT gives short shrift to the desegregation case in general, their recommendation here may be another signal of their general disdain for the relationship of LRSD to the continuing desegregation case. Either way, ODM should support continuation of the administrative services division as a primary proponent of desegregation of LRSD. Create a position of chieffinancial officer so that the functions offinancial services report to the superintendent. ODM doesnt have a dog in this hunt but 1 suspect this recommendation is a standard one for MGT. Given the personnel presently in place in LRSD, I prefer the existing structure where the chief financial officer reports to an associate superintendent. Move the internal auditor to report directly to the board. ODM should support this recommendation and promote increased vigilance on the part of the auditor. Realign the instructional division into four major sections: NSF, early childhood/elementary, middle school, and high school. Move staff development into human resources. This recommendation is apparently based on MGTs druthers. I am not aware of research or experience that recommends this alignment of duties for a curriculum department. Neither do know of any reason for ODM to oppose it. Page 6 Create another assistant superintendents position in the school semces division to relieve the associate superintendent of the seventeen schools the position now supervises directly. The existing structure in school services is awkward and unwieldy, so ODM should support this recommendation or one similar to it. MGT recommends in another section that the instructional division be subgrouped around elementary, middle, and high school curriculum. It may be that school services should be divided similarly. MGT makes a host of other recommendations related to administrative structure that range from movement of functions to downgrading positions. My thought is that many of these arrangements are based personal preferences or personnel quirks or strengths. MGT may have gone too far. SECTION 6 - Assessment of Financial Condition Skip In my opinion this section of the report has so many flaws and errors, any suggestions that the authors made that might have value will be lost due to the total lack of credibility. I dont intend to list all of the specifics but just enough to illustrate my concerns. Recommendation 6-1 Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department, (page 6-4j The report goes on to suggest the existing 1.5 FTE positions assigned to handling these tasks be transferred from Financial Services to Human Resources. Comment: The authors have apparently mixed the tasks of developing employee benefits with the tasks of paying for them. Recommendation 6-1 Recommends transferring the responsibility from Workers Compensation from Financial Services to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for Risk Management, (page 6-4) Also relating to Workers Compensation, on page 6-84 the LRSD is commended for its reduced level of workers compensation costs at a time such costs are rising in many organizations. Comment\nSeveral years ago, the districts went to a state-wide averaging and the cost for each district is determined by the state-wide average. So if one district were to reduce their claims and another were to have a great increase in claims, each would only pay the state-wide average. Recommendation 6-8 Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community, (page 6-21) Page 7Comment: Previous consultants recommended another budget award program. This whole section appears to be straight boilerplate and I feel this approach is directed toward creating a pretty budget for award purposes rather than a functional and practical budget. The authors do state that: The time required to pursue this endeavor is considerable for the Financial Services staff. I just dont feel any efforts devoted to this recommendation has short or long term value. Recommendation 6-9 This recommendation is directed the magnet school budget and it appears the authors dont understand the relationship that the two other districts and ADE have with the overall magnet school budget and funding, (page 6-23) The authors devoted a sub section number 6.3 to the Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data. Comments: This section is filled with charts, tables, and graphs trying to explain the sources of revenue for LRSD. It is apparent to me through these pictures and narratives of explanation, the authors just dont have any idea of the complexity of school funding. The authors state the percentage of tax collected in an exhibit conflicts with the districts methodology. The authors state that this exhibit shows a five-year average of 95.3 percent in tax collections while the district indicates a collection rate of 92 percent. They seem confused by this difference. The answer lies in the fact that the amount of tax collected by the county on behalf of the LRSD is reduced by a known percentage the county charges as a collection fee. The amount LRSD receives is the amount of the total collected less the county collection fee and that is the amount shown as revenue by the LRSD. In Section 6.4 entitled Assessment of Operating Costs, the report refers to national profiles to compare LRSD with other districts. This section compares the current budgets for transportation, maintenance and operations, central and business services, classroom instruction, and other expenditures. The Cooper-Lybrand study several years ago and the methodology they use for evaluating expenditures appears to be the most realistic Ive studied. The Cooper-Lybrand method places past expenditures and budget items into a better defined and measurable set of groups such as school building administration versus central office administration, etc. The problem that 1 discovered after spending many hours and days developing an analysis of how LRSD expenditures within the Cooper-Lybrand system, only one other school district (Omaha, Nebraska) were using this system Although, more school districts were starting to use the system, no history was available to provide a comparison between districts of like-size. Based on my experiences, my feeling is that the comparisons made by MGT are not valid and should be taken with a grain of salt. Conclusions In my opinion, the MGT audit report on the Assessment of Financial Condition for LRSD is badly misleading and indicate to me the members of the audit team didnt spend enough time looking below the surface to investigate in-depth the information they gathered. Although there is, in my opinion, much that should have been said about the budgeting and control processes that now exist in LRSD, this report did not establish enough credibility to make any difference in the way LRSD does business. Page 8SECTION 7 - Facilities, Construction, Maintenance, and Repair Melissa This section consists of four subsections: 7.1 Introduction, which identifies some major issues: 7.2 Funding and New Construction: 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair\n7.4 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations. 7.1 Introduction After their review of the facihties services and maintenance departments of the LRSD, MGT identified the following six issues: The current condition of schools is a major concern for staff\", parent, and the community. The movement of ninth graders to the high schools wUl require facUity improvement which have not yet been fully identified. Community involvement in planning for facihty needs is minimal. The district lacks a fully-funded preventive maintenance program The continued enrollment decline projected by 3D/Intemational has not come to pass. A plan for public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical. This section also includes the organizational chart for the faculties department and describes elements of the 1995 FacUities Study conducted by 3D/Intemational. 7.2 Funding for New Construction This subsection includes information on capacities and facility utilization. In a chart designed to show percentage of facihty utilization, MGT uses two types of capacity figures. The use the capacities taken from the 3D/Intemational study as well as some figures based on 100 square feet per elementary student. 125 feet per junior high student, and 150 feet per high school student. As far as I know, this is the first time this particular measure has been used. One of the conclusions that the report draws is that the secondary schools lack adequate support facilities (cafeteria, halls, restrooms, and the like). The report also indicates that the high schools wUl suffer significant overcrowding as a result of the ninth grade reorganization. This subsection includes the recommendations summarized below\nConduct a through study of overcrowding at the high school level and include recommendations for change in the long-range facilities plan. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facilities needs. Continue with the plan to build the two new elementary schools, but the district should not reuse Mitchell and Garland faculties. Update the 1995 faculties study for all operating schools that received very low scores regarding quality of their facilities. Complete a long-rang facility plan (after the facility update is finished) and millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than fall 2000. Create a Facilities Planning Department within the current Facilities Department. Page 9Each of the recommendations is followed by implementation strategies and timeline. While some of these recommendations are very commonsensical, others will be more problematic. Updating the facilities study and planning for facilities needs related to middle school conversion are essential. The recommendation not to re-use Garland or Mitchell is contrary to the plan and to promises already made to the community. Of course, it is possible the MGT only meant for the district not to re-use the building as elementary schools. Who knows? The subject of a millage campaign for facilities needs has obviously been under consideration for some time, but the district needs to do some serious analysis of whether such a campaign has any chance of success. I wonder about the creation of a Facilities Planning Department. The cost estimates that MGT included seem low and they show the same dollar cost for five years. I think it is highly unlikely that no cost increase would occur from year to year. If the district passed a millage and actually had the money to upgrade facilities, this department would probably help ensure well-executed projects. It is possible that some of the existing staff (such as the construction supervisors) could be used for one or more of these positions. 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repairs This section includes the organizational chart for the maintenance department\na comparison of maintenance expenditures with national and regional averages\nand a comparison of custodial square footage to national and regional averages. LRSD custodians are responsible for fewer square feet than the regional or national average. Despite a larger than average custodial staff, the district spends less per square foot on maintenance than the national and regional average. MGT attributed this to a lower than average spending on suppUes and equipment. The study recommended: Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. MGT gave a cost estimate of $150,000 per year to accomplish this recommendation. They recommended adding four preventive maintenance staff and gradually reducing the number of custodians to the regional average (a reduction of ten positions). 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations As the name of the subsection states, this final portion of the facilities chapter examines some of the opposition that could arise to impede implementation of the MGT recommendations. The most interesting part of the subsection is the step by step outline for gaining voter approval for school facility issues :  Develop strong public relations program Pre-plan, study, and analyze Study district historical data Survey your community Develop election campaign strategy Conduct special voter registration Develop targeted election materials, tools, and techniques Page 10Identify the yes vote Plan election day strategy Debrief and evaluate I dont think that any of these recommendations are especially revolutionary or groundbreaking, but they should give the district a bit more focus as they pursue a millage, which they seem determined to do. SECTION 8 - Administrative and Instructional Technology Skip Most of this report repeated the information provided to them through the Technology Task Force report. It appears that much of the verbiage in this section was boiler-plate stating things like: all districts should etc... What the report did provide was Section 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations that did have value and should be considered very carefully prior to approaching the community for an increase in millage or bonds. The report states that the main obstacle to the successful implementation to the technology plan is money. This point is brought out in most of the nine recommendations in the report. Unfortunately they had no substantive suggestions to overcome this very major obstacle. SECTION 9 - New Instructional Initiatives Margie 9.1 Honors and Enrichment (Horace) Summary of Key Points  In the LRSD, opportunities to do even basic coursework in the arts is very limited, outside of the magnet schools. The LRSD Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and National Science Foundation Grant all place emphasis on removing racial barriers to participation in advanced courses. There is a K-12 Talent Development Committee in place and is chaired by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. MGT identified direct relationships among the deseg plan, NSF, and the Strategic Plan. Starting in 1999-2000, the layer of honors/enriched courses between regular courses and students eligible for pre-AP and advanced placement coursework will no longer exist. The Board adopted new admission criteria for advanced work. Any student with a grade of at least C in a prior pre-AP or AP course can enroll in the next level without special permission. AVID is compatible with the LRSD vision and objectives and the outcomes mentioned in the desegregation plan.  At the time of the study, the district had not allotted any money for AVID beyond the $7500 for planning in 1998-99. Page 11Observations MGT captured all aspects of the districts efforts to increase minority participation in advanced courses. The study findings mirror my findings for that segment of the ODM report. Although the MGT study did not raise it as serious concern, beyond the NSF grant, the district has very little funding to effectively accomplish its goals for minority participation. The study did not reflect whether the district had a contingency plan in lieu of an adequate level of support for a program such as AVID. 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement (Melissa) While this subsection presents the information regarding mathematics in a different format than that we used for our report. It does not include any new information. It features an elaborate chart showing the close relationship between the Revised Plan and the NSF Grant. We also pointed out this close correlation, as well as giving the history that makes the interrelatedness inevitable. 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year-Oid, Headstart (sic), and HIPPY (Melissa) This section contains errors that seem emblematic of those made throughout the report. In reading the sections that I have been given, it seems that the people from MGT did a sloppy job. They seem to make many enors that result from accepting the first answer they stumbled upon. It seems only fitting that they would misspell Head Start, a well know federal program. This subsection of the report includes less than a page of narrative and two charts. The first exhibit shows the number of children served in the various programs. The second exhibit deals with funding for the programs. The second exhibit (9-13) indicates that the information it summarizes was furnished by the Division of Instruction. I spoke to Pat Price about the chart, and she said that she had not provided any financial information. Exhibit 9-13 indicates that both HIPPY and the four-year-old program receive substantial funds from desegregation funds. As you know the Settlement money ended with the 1996-97 school year. In that year, LRSD received its final payment of around $600,000. Contrary to these facts, MGT shows over 3 million of desegregation funds supporting early childhood programs. I called Pat Price and she had no idea what had prompted MGT to report desegregation funds. She also indicated that the amount of money they reported for the early childhood program was higher than any figures with which she was familiar. 9.4 Reading/Language Arts (Horace) Summary of Key Points  MGT surfaced several on-going initiatives in the Reading/Language Arts area. Among the districts involvements were the states Smart Start Initiative, the development of criterion- referenced tests in reading, revision of the Reading/Language Arts curriculum, reorganization of Page 12 the Title I program and staff, and alignment of the early childhood program with the K-3 literacy program. Tangible evidence in the form of committee reports, plans, and curricular materials of a strong correlation between the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives and the goals established by the desegregation plan.  At the time of the MGT study, no specific funds had been earmarked for the initiatives. Observations The information provided by the MGT study reflects our findings regarding the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives. The study did a good job of briefly outlining and complimenting the district on the tremendous amount of work that has been done in less than a year. However, the study did not examine whether the timelines the district had established for implementation of the initiatives was viable\nparticularly since they did point out that at the time of the study funding was still in question. 9.5 English as a Second Language (ESL) (Horace) Summary of Key Points The number of ESL students in the LRSD is 602\nan increase of 59% since the 1993-94 school year. As of June 1998, students with limited English proficiency represented 49 different languages. Those involved with the Newcomer Center schools believe that there is no overall ESL program in the LRSD. Rather, there is a total immersion experience, where students are fully mainstreamed, with tutoring support twice a week.  A clear need exists for additional support for the ESL students at Hall High School The study indicated that current and future funding for ESL to be inadequate to meet the needs of the students. Observations The MGT study did not surface information that the district didnt already have access to about its ESL population and its level of effectiveness in meeting their needs. The good news may be that the study in conjunction with the upcoming OCR investigation may finally wake the administration up the need to effectively serve ESL students. Some of the plans the district presently has to improve ESL services reflect some of the observations and recommendations made by the secondary schools work group I served on a couple of years ago. Much of the problem with the district doing an adequate job in meeting the needs of its limited-English speaking population has less to do with analysis and planning and more to do with will. Gene Parker is well aware of the student needs and has developed workable plans to begin to address them. However, up to this point the central administration has lacked the will and attentiveness to support and fund ESL programs. Also, the second tier of administrators who could help and support Gene in terms of policies and resources have been ignorant of the size and needs of the districts population of students for whom English is a second language. The district central administration has failed to comprehend the growth rate of this population and the districts legal obligations to them. Page 139.6 Alternative Education (Margie) This section simply describes the Accelerated Learning Center (ACC - yes, this is what its called), and the proposed Residential Alternative Elementary School, which I cover in my team report. The MGT report praises the LRSD for both initiatives as clear indications of the districts commitments to create a range of services and schooling options for students. The ACC was given a budget of $828,706. Funds were drawn from reserved funds, as this was not a budgeted item. The district has not identified any funds beyond 1998-99 to maintain or expand the ACC. The residential charter school received a $94,000 grant from the U. S. Dept. Of Education for each of two implementation years. The district estimates cost of $1.2 million annually to operate the school. Charter school costs 1999-2000 $1,200,000. $94,000 grant funds $1,106,000 estimated cost to the district first 2 years of implementation Since 1999-2000 budget had not been completed when this report was submitted, no funds had been assigned to this initiative. 9.7 Computer Literacy (Skip) The report focuses on the requirement of all 6\" grade students to take basic keyboarding for one semester starting in 1999-2000. The authors state that there has not been any specific decision made about funding for the new initiative, yet they continue to state that funding for this initiative which begins in 1999-2000 is not adequate. The summary offers that during the time of the study, work had not begun on the actual planning for the 1999-2000 budget. The middle school proposed technology standards details expectations for three different strands of technology for the three middle school grades. It would appear that in order to implement the methods to achieve these standards in a timely fashion, more planning should have taken place than what the auditors were able to discover. 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation (Margie) Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiative which are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budge statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book. The Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any requests for ongoing or new initiatives. This should be a routine procedure. Page 14If the school board enacts a requirement for all students taking honors and enrichment classes to take AP exams, then funding for this initiative should appear in the expenditure side of the budget, even though expenses may be offset by students scoring 3 or better. The LRSD should replace lost desegregation funds for the HIPPY Program. Both alternative learning centers need permanent funding. 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations (Margie) 1. The decision-making process and the authority of the Campus Leadership teams have not been carefully connected. 2. Funding for staff development in not centralized within the Instructional Division nor with the budget for the staff development department. Additionally, funding is not in the school budgets either, rather the funds are dispersed throughout various departments. 3. The PRE department needs a clear priority list of program initiatives to evaluate. 4. No clear relationship exists between the mandated time lines of the science curriculum, and reading and math criterion-referenced tests to the Revised Desegregation Plans requirement of thematic instruction for grades K-5, and the board-approved program component of thematic learning for grades 6-8. 5. At the K-4 level, classroom teachers have several obstacles: developing new skills in 4 content areas over the next 4 years\nwriting and re-writing lesson plans in all these areas\ntrying different teaching strategies, getting coaching help for each initiative\nand, being successful with the students. 6. Each teacher in K-4 classrooms needs a very specific 4 to 5 year growth plan which will allow that teacher to be accountable for all he or she is responsible to do. 7. A great number of the initiative mentioned above depend on the districts guidance counselors. Counselors must have a long-range, ongoing plan of professional development and clear measurable expectations for their participation in each initiative. 8. Teachers are receiving mix messages when success is determined by a students achievement on a multiple choice test. 9. The contract between the LRSD and the LRCTA must evolve to reflect the language contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan. Page 15! j BESEGREGATIOHMONiroWHB RECm'ieO Jl 2 3 1939 UFHGE OF WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS 1999-2000 INTRODUCTION 1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS I. Management and Organization The first four recommendations essentially deal with administrative organizational structure of the school district. The superintendent recommends that we transition the structure of the organization based on the progress that the district makes in becoming Unitary. We have created in a very short time a series of strategies to ensure that the district will have obtained compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Based on that knowledge, and as you review a companion staffing recommendation, we will in a reasonable amount of time (1999-2002) succeed in obtaining similar efficiencies in both organization and cost abatement. And finally, we recommend that we advertise and hire a CFO, Internal Auditor and Coordinator for a Charter School. Note staffing recommendations. II. Assessment of Financial Condition Please note that we have already completed eight requirements of the fifty which MGT offered for the districts consideration. We have established a very aggressive timeline to adopt or adapt the other recommendations. We have, on several occasions, made the CFO and Internal Auditor central in the implementation of the recommendations. There are also several strategies which are dependent on the State of Arkansas changing the accounting system which is currently scheduled for the 2000-2001.Page 2 in. Facilities Construction, Maintenance and Repair As you review the eight MGT recommendations, please be reminded that the study concluded that the District should plan and proceed with a millage campaign. There are significant planning recommendations that we are capable of performing once the Board acts to confirm the 1999-2000 Critical Performance Priorities, including the call for a Millage and Bond Issue during the 1999-2000 school year. We would expect the Board to include as part of their decision making the plans which would satisfy the recommendations ofthe MGT Study. IV. Administrative and Instructional Technology The nine recommendations of the MGT study are exceptionally timely, as we see technology as an integral part of the instructional and operational future of the school district. Much of the discussion and debate will be completed through the work of an expanded technology advisory committee, whose recommendations will play an important part in the deliberations of the school board as they plan for the future of the school district. V. New Instructional Initiatives The one recommendation in this area will be part of the new state accounting system and the program budgeting system which we have previously discussed with the Board. We also expect by the time we will implement this recommendation an upgrade in compiler software will be operational. This will give campuses and divisional personnel enhanced capabilities for more efficient and effective decision making.1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Major Tasks/Activities\\^xivyJ or' -h\"* i. \u0026gt; Timelin^/, Completion Date if- Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Reduce the number of divisions in the central office from four to three. Eliminate the Division of Administrative Services, including the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services and the respective Administrative Assistant, and realign the central office administrative positions to create a more focused approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. 2. Greate a second Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools and realign the Division of School Services to incorporate the departments transferred from the Division of Administrative Services. 3. Realign the organizational structure of the Division of Instruction to provide a comprehensive approach that focuses on curriculum and instruction. 4. Reorganize the Departments of Elementary, Middle and High School Gurriculum Programs. 5. Greate a position of Ghief Financial OfTicer to report directly to the Superintendent and move the Internal Auditor under the Board of Directors. 1999-2002 August 1999 2002 August 1999 Leslie V. Gamine Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Leslie V. Gamine A phased organizational plan will be presented that will restructure the administration of tlie district over a three-year period. Board confirmation Transition beginning by___organization chart change 2002 Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 2 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION  /Activities Tjmelin^ * ) Completion* S, 'Date',\n?' Responsibility Evidence of Success 7^ A 1. Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from the Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department. July 1999 Richard Hurley (Mark Milhollen) Completed 2. Transfer responsibility for Workers Compensation from the Financial Services Department to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for risk management. July 1999 Bobby Jones (Mark Milhollen) Completed 3. Transfer the responsibility for submission of the Superintendents Quarterly Average Daily Membership Report to the Arkansas Department of Education from Financial Services to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 1999-2000 (Jan. 2000) Junious Babbs Mark Milhollen John Ruffins Kathy Lease Leslie V. Camine This area is currently under study and a recommendation will be made in January 2000 4. Transfer responsibility for fixed assets and accounts payable from the Procurement Department to the Financial Services Department. NO The system is currently operational and there does not appear to be any savings or efficiency accomplished by the recommended transfer. 5. Establish formal performance standards and key benchmark indicators for monitoring, and develop a procedures manual for the Financial Services Department. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Manual completion 6. Revise and strengthen existing Board policy and administrative procedures for budgeting, and incorporate in the overall fiscal management policy and procedures. 1999-2000 (October 99) Linda Young Austin Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 3 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Ni 4? - Mai i Major Tasks/Activities Tiiuelin^ Completion, Date Responsibility, Evidence of Success at- 7. Review current budget practices, in concert with development of a fiscal management policy and procedures, to develop the necessary background data to make changes that improve operational efficiency and effectiveness to restore credibility and the confidence of the community. 1999-2000 CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Report to community and Board 8. Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community. 2000-2001 ADE Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Report to community and award granted. State will change accounting system in 2000-2001. 9. Revise method of displaying the Magnet School Budget within the approved budget document from an overall line item object only format to incorporate operational unit bre^downs by site, and an overall executive summary of highlights which should include the use of charts and graphs for better understanding of the budget by the community and the Board of Directors. May 1999 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring Completed 10. Coordinate districtwide budget and fiscal management staff development needs to include the Board of Directors, operational unit administrators, key accounting and bookkeeping staff, bargaining group representatives. Budget Committee members, when established, and other key stakeholders. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Plan developed and operational with named groups. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 4 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) SSptjf, yw K. .a Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/* Completion\" Responsibility Evidence of Success 11. Revise the budget projection criteria and standardize the use of five-year projections. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Board confirmation 12. Incorporate the use of a districtwide Budget Committee to assist in the development of the 1999-2000 budget. 1999-2000 CFO Committee convened 13. Revise the districts internal budget handbook for operational units to be more comprehensive and self- explanatory. 1999-2000 (January) ADE Mark Milhollen CFO lA Completed handbook 14. Implement a comprehensive district-level operational unit budgetary review by the Budget Committee in a series of workshops with the LRSD Board of Directors. 1999-2000 CFO Budget committee Plan approved by Board 15. Realign available dollars within existing revenue sources to match expenditure obligations. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Leslie Carnine Board Board confirmation 16. Allocate the SIRS lawsuit settlement dollars to satisfy previously negotiated bargaining agreement commitments and place the balance of the funds into an unreserved fund balance to establish a first step towards a realistic fund balance. 1999 (May) Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Completed through 1997-98 budget year. 17. Reconsider estimated revenue from the local tax revenue projection. NO Changes in tax collection, etc., make the issue moot. Not consistent with state law. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 5 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Jimeline/  Completion Date TT Responsibility Evidence of Success 18. Utilize any increase in revenue, due to the state base per student adjustment or district growth in ADM for the first quarter, to restore the enrollment adjustment defenal of $347,125 at school sites and place the balance into unreserved fund balance. 19. Form partnerships with each of the top ten taxpayers. 20. Reconcile tax collection calculation methodology and develop a strategy for communication with the public. 21. Research other state Medicaid programs and consider utilizing the services of a national consultant to evaluate the possibility of pursuing state law changes that would enhance the opportunity for the LRSD to receive more Medicaid revenue. 22. Update the current rental charges for facilities by adjusting for a CPI increase as reflected in Exhibit 6- 26. 23. Generate advertising revenue from educational-related advertising on the LRSD owned bus fleet and vehicles. February 1999 Mark Milhollen Completed Board confirmation 1999-2000 (January) 1999-2000 (February 00) 1998-99 1999-2000 1999-2000 Debbie Milam Suellen Vann CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen CFO lA Patty Kohler Mark Milhollen Vic Anderson Vic Anderson Suellen Vann CFO Recognition plan operational Communication strategy implemented Completed - contracted through ADE Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 6 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION .(continued) '   Major Tasks/Activities 'Jj Timeline/^ Coupletiqnt Date Responsibility ' . W\n. ' Evidence of Success 24. Annually review the current practice of outsourcing the transportation function utilizing a cost benefit analysis approach in an effort to contain or reduce costs, and justify the continuation of this outsourcing practice. 25. Establish a national and local comparative benchmark series of school districts and organizations. 26. Establish a task force to review cost accounting software options for purchase and implementation within the next two years. 27. Initiate bargaining strategies to discontinue the practice of automatic step increases and remain in compliance with existing state salary schedule and funding formula requirements. 28. Initiate a thorough review and analysis of existing bargaining contract language and practices. 29. Update and recalculate the five-year revenue and expenditures projections provided to the Board of Directors. 30. Incorporate an analysis of selected expense objects as part of the formal budget document. 1999-2000 (October 99) Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mike Martello Board confirmation 1999-2000 (November 99) 2000-2001 1998-99 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) 2000-2001 Mark Milhollen CFO Jean Ring lA CFO Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry Richard Hurley Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Mark Milhollen CFO lA Presented to Board and community Report presented to Board Current Bargaining issue Plan developed to renew contract and presented to Board for their consideration. Board confirmation Board confirmation (Note ADE changes) Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 7 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities j-StS'.SS 31. Establish a positive and negative threshold for expenditure control purposes. 32. Implement a light duty loss control program to continue to reduce workers compensation costs. 33. Explore the cost benefit possibility of handling legal services in-house with a staff attorney. 34. Analyze all professional technical expenditures (e.g., physical therapists, speech pathologists, training consultants) for potential savings through consolidation or elimination of limited use services. 35. Establish a method to account for al! staff development costs regardless of operational unit or object for the expense. 36. Implement specific and strict guidelines to all operational units for overtime accountability authorization and documentation in compliance with Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements. .Timeline/ Completion 'Date 1999-2000 1999-2000 2001-2002 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Responsibility Mark Milhollen CFO lA Bobby Jones Dick Hurley Leslie V. Gamine Board of Education CFO Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Kathy Lease lA CFO Vic Anderson Brady Gadberry Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley lA Evidence of Success iS Board confirmation Board confirmation Develop standards for word attendance and punctuality. Board review based on unitary status achievement Report presented to Board for consideration 1999-2000 budget 1999-2000 budget Revise regulations on overtime usage. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 8 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities  a-' A  Timeline/ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success \\ 37. Reduce stipends for car allowances by 35 percent and review all stipend practices for other potential cost savings. 1999-2000 Dick Hurley Brady Gadberry CFO 38. Revise the current formal budget format to include a separate section on incentive school budget analysis. 1999-2000 budget Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation 39. Incorporate language within the revised fiscal policy to establish a benchmark minimum of five percent of expenditures for an emergency unreserved fund balance. 1999-2000 (October 99) CFO Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Board confirmation 40. Establish an immediate minimum of one percent fund balance base from any new available revenue not currently budgeted in the approved 1998-99 budget. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen 1999-2000 budget Board confirmation 41. Distribute combined personnel and payroll cutoff paperwork timelines as well as formal payroll dates throughout the LRSD. 1999-2000 Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen Publication of calendars completed. 42. Develop a priority list of technology enhancements for the areas of Financial Services, Human Resources, Risk Management, Procurement and other operational areas to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing manual or outdated computer applications. 1999-2000 Darrel Paradis Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Richard Hurley Bobby Jones John Ruffins Plan confirmed by Board Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 9 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Jis' Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ * Completion pate*- * Responsibility Evidence of Success 43. Develop an action plan for implementation of a voter- approved millage increase for both operational needs and capital outlay needs. 1999-2000 Leslie V. Camine Board of Education Millage election 44. Revise current policy and practice related to sick and annual leave to provide the leave at the end of each month and eliminate the practice of advancing excess sick leave. 45. Enter into an exclusive vending contract for all vending services in the LRSD. 46. Develop an investment policy. 47. Negotiate sweep bank account services with a local financial institution. 48. Implement the use of a PC-supported formal cash flow forecasting process. 49. Require inventory and property control accountability to become part of every operational unit managers performance evaluation. NO 1999-2000 1999-2000 (October 99) 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Contrary to Attorney Generals Opinion CFO Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mark Milhollen Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen Associate Superintendents Report received by Board Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 10 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) J Major Tasks/Activities 50. Revise signature control requirements for the Cafeteria and Activity fund accounts. Timeline/ Completion Date 1999-2000 (October 99) Responsibility Mark Milhollen Evidence of Success Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 11 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR t Maj or. Tasks/Act ivities 1 Timeline/.^^ \"  f 7?^ Completion^ Date^ 3* Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Conduct a thorough examination of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure and include recommendations for changes in the long-range facility plan. 1998-99 Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Completed Long range facilities plan to be part of bond issue. 2. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facility needs. 1999-2000 (November 99) Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Bonnie Lesley Junious Babbs Vic Anderson Linda Young Austin Board confirmation and bond election. 3. Continue with plans to construct two new elementary schools, one to replace Garland and Mitchell and the other in the West Little Rock area. 1998-99 Stephens 1999-01 West LR Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Stephens School has been bid and will be constructed. Plans for the new school will be included in the millage campaign.____________________ 4. Establish a policy on the use of temporary facilities that will provide the criteria for need and establish limits on the total amount of temporary space at a particular facility. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Doug Eaton Board confirmation 5. Update the 1995 facilities evaluation study for all operating schools that fall in the lowest two categories. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Doug Eaton Board confirmation 6. Complete a long-range facility plan (upon completion of the facility update study) and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct the deficiencies. 1999-2000 (February/ March 2000) Leslie V. Camine Board Board confirmaiton Bond election Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 12 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR (continued)  Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ Completion 1 I Datef\n^''^ \u0026lt;-j! t f . Responsibility j'' Evidence of Success 7. Create a facilities planning department within the current facilities department. 1999-2000 (January 00) Vic Anderson Doug Eaton Board confirmation 8. Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target the additional funding for preventive maintenance. 2000-2001 Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Leslie V. Carnine Millage campaign Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 13 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Major Tasks/Activities 1. Establish a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this committee with monitoring and providing guidance on all technology operations in the LRSD. 2. Conduct a study of the salaries offered by LRSD for programmer positions to determine the degree to which they are competitive with the salaries offered by other employers in Little Rock and surrounding areas. 3. Establish a minimum level of technology that each LRSD school should possess. 4. Implement a procedure of allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools. 5. Develop an equipment replacement policy. 6. Provide annual funding for the replacement of equipment. 7. Review various strategies for delivering staff development and devise new creative approaches to address the significant need for enhanced training for teachers. Timeline/ Completion Date . 1999-2000 (October) 1999-2000 (December) 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) Responsibility John Ruffins Lucy Neal Leslie V. Gamine Richard Hurley John Ruffins Technology Advisory Committee John Ruffins Lucy Neal J. Babbs CFO M. Milhollen Technology Advisory Committee Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Marion Woods John Ruffins Lucy Neal Evidence of Success Board confinnation Board confinnation Confinnation by Technology Advisory Committee and Board consistent with the equitable allocation of resources plan. Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 14 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Timelin^ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success 8. Place technology education specialists In every school in the district as specified in the districts Technology Plan. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee Plan for technology specialist assistance for every school and technical support. Board confinnation 9. Analyze, select, and implement some combination of strategies that, when fully operational, will provide an adequate level of technical support to LRSD schools and administrative offices. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee CFO Lucy Neal John Ruffins Board confirmation NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 3' i Major-Taslcs/Activities uw ji It 1 . Timeline/, tpiripleilibn * Date Responsibility ' Evidence of Success' 1. Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiatives that are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. 2000-2001 CFO Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Leon Adams Board approval of 2000-01 budget. Draft July 1999Arkansas Democrat \"^(fjazeltc  FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1998  Florida consultant to put LR schools to test In unanimous vote, School Board agrees to split $144,000 cost of study with businessmen BY CYNTl IIA I lOWISLL ARKANSAS OLMtX l\u0026lt;Al-( iAZI. I 11\nThe Little Rock School Board voted unanimously Thursday to join city business leaders in financing a $144,00(1 management and financial study of the school district as a way to strengthen public confidence in district operations. . The district will pay $72,000 to MGT of America Inc., an educational management consultant company based in Tallahassee, Fla.  Fifty for the Future, a group of senior central Arkansas business leaders, is contributing the other $72,000 to the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools for the study.  In June, alliance members suggested the management and financial audit to the School Board and pledged to raise half the cost if the board would agree to the proposal. The district and the alliance are partners in the resulting contract with MGT.  This is an exciting project that will really chart the course for our district, Odies Wilson, alliance president, told the School Board, lie said the study will give educators, parents and community members a common starting point in their efforts to identify and meet student needs. MGT is to complete its study by mid-March, when it will present recommendations for improvement based on its local findings and its knowledge of operations in other school systems similar to Little Rock in size and resources. Linda Recio, an MGT senior partner, will coordinate the study. The company has already scheduled an open house from 4-8 p.m. Wednesday at Martin Luther King Magnet Flemcntaiy School, 907 Martin Luther King Blvd., to collect commendations, recommendations and concerns about the districts management structure. A suiwcy will be distributed to teachers and administrators to solicit the same type of information. Company officials also arc planning to meet with School Board members and others over the next few weeks. The company will examine whether the district's organizational design and individual administrators duties arc conducive to meeting district goals. It also will look at the number and types of positions in the district. in addition, it will review the districts finances and budget to sec if they support the instructional program, the recently revised desegregation plan, building maintenance, expanded technology and construction of new schools. Also Thursday, the School Board approved program standards for the middle schools for grades six through eight that will replace the city's eight junior highs beginning next August. The standards establish the academic subjects to be taught, including visual and performing arts, foreign languages, health and physical education. They call for organizing staffs al the schools into teams that will be assigned common groups of students. The school will also, feature flexible school-day schedules, integrated lessons, school-based decision- inaking and teachers trained specifically for middle- school work. School district administrators gave board members progress re- i ports on efforts to redraw school i attendance zones for next year to create more neighborhood schools and on plans to open a new Stephens Elementary School and adjacent city community center by August 2000. The board is expected to meet again in early November to get a more complete report on the costs and design for the new school at 18th and Valentine streets, which will house more than 640 students. The proposed school attendance zones are still being scrutinized, Superintendent Les Car- nine said. Should further changes be necessary, affected parents will be notified, he said. Parents of students who now attend school outside tlieir proposed attendance zone will be surveyed in early November about whether they want their children to attend their current school, their neighborhood school or otli- er schools next fall.\n FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 'XX schools get favorable rating in finance study ' BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AllKANSAS UI.MIK HAl.liAZIJ ir ' ', A' Florida-based consulting firin' liircd last year to do a man- '. agemcnt and financial study of tlic  Little Rock School District pre- . sented its completed report, in-  eluding 72 recoinmendations for , iniprovemeiiL to the School Board .. on Thursday. Dr. Linda Rocio, senior partner .  in MGT of America, Inc., of Talla-  hassee, told the board that the vo- .  luminous audit found that the ur-  ban  school district is generally well run. '\n.' -Ilowever, there are significant ' \"'opportunities to improve manage- inent, instructional delivciy, com-   munication with internal and external stakeholders and financial  ^laljility, she said. 'About two-thirds of the recom- inepdations in tire report  wliich '.coiitains nine chapters and is sev- \nei\nal hundred pages in length  deal with the financial inanage- inent of the system. . 'i Recommendations include a \\ .call for property tax increases, no '. ^atec than September 2000, to fi- .hpngc as much as $05 million in renovations and expansions to district buildings. . Still other recommendations call for an updated study on dis- trict facilities in light of teclmolo- gy needs as well as the planned sliift to middle schools and high school\nthree. 'it!'- four grades instead of \"iRecio also rcconnnended ap- r pointinent of a chief financial officer and an internal auditor to re- port-dircctly to the school hoard, '. 'aild a review of district contract .' 'negotiating practices that would : eliminate outdated\" practices 'outdated' such as automatic annual pay increases to employees for their ad- ditidnal year of experience. '. LThe report calls for slreamlin- \\ing\"the districts top adininistra-  live,'\nstaff. Tlie reorganization 'should reduce the districts four .ijmiii divisions to three, by elimi- ^^Tpg the existing administrative '.Scfiiccs division and assigning du- ztlefi in that section to other divi- Sijbns. The administrative division ^dj^ntly includes school assign- \"Dnjjht, desegregation, and persou- l^iJieCduties. \" *'Tiic report suggests alternative revenue sources and recommends that'the district become more ag- .^essive in marketing itself to the public.' ftccio will return in May after boili'd members have had an opportunity to review the report and ,.iti [ecommendations. -iTlie $144,000 study was jointly commissioned last October by the School Board and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, with' support from tire Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce :^nd Fifty for the Future. AI ArlcinsasDciuoGrdt T^OjiazeUv )  SUNDAY, APRIL 25. 1999 LR School District seeing finances sag, firms audit says Study suggests seeking tax increase, reconsideiing benefits to bolster funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS OEMOCRAT-OAZE'n E Financial conditions in the Little Rock School District are strained at best, according to a study of the districts financial and management operations. MGT of America, Inc., a Tallahassee. Fla., company, attributed tlie districts financial peril to the depletion of state desegregation funds and expenditures that exceed revenues. The MGT audit made 49 recommendations on how the states largest school district might bolster its financial health. Those proposals include asking voters for a tax increase, realigning expenditures to match revenues, building reserve funds, strengthening financial policies and reconsidering some longstanding employee benefits. MGT was hired last fall by a coalition of Little Rock organizations  including the district, the Little Rock  Alliance for Our Public Schools, Fifty For the Future and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce  to do Uie six-month, $144,000 audit The district paid half the fee. Besides a comprehensive review of district financial practices, the audit team headed by Dr. Linda Recio also evaluated and made recommendations about facilities, instructional programs, community relations, the administrative organization and technology systems, including preparation for the 2000 conversion of computer systems. Superintendent Les Gamine and his staff arc reviewing Uie study. Tlipy will give In llip Srhnol Hinnl probably in July, a detailed plan and. time line for responding to most rec- . . -  --------------- ommendations. However, a few of phasing in a reserve fund equal the proposed changes might be put to at least 5 percent of expenditures into place sooner. Gamine said last fw coping with emergencies.  \"  ........................... Still otlier recommendations call week. Others might be phased in. and still otlieis modified or rejected. Im very open to doing some things, Gamine said. I think tlie staff is, too. It's just a matter of work--------.--------.------------------------- vancing sick and aimual leave to em- ing tlirough tliem over a period of ployees, and reconsidering the longtime. The report is pretty solid.\" standing practice of giving automatic Gamine said tlie auditore assessment of tlie districts financial condition was no surprise but a confirmation of what district officials have said. District officials are in die very earliest stages of plamiing a campaign for a voter-approved tax increase to support tlie schools, paitic- ularly some construction and renovation needs. The MGT auditors noted that the district got the last of its total ^3 million in state desegregation payments in 1996-97 and, Uiis year, drew | the final $3 million available from a j employee groups. $20 million low-interest loan from The existing teaching contract the state. Tlie district will not have to repay the loan if it can show that standanlized test scores of black students are witliin 90 percent of tlie scores of white students. District officials say they believe the district ha.s met that goal, but Ilie state has not yet confinned it There is currently no revenue source in siglit tliat will begin to compensate for tlie loss of these fund sources. the auditors said. To offset tlie loss of desegregation money, the district has taken 'UiPir p 1 Audit  Continued from Page 1B money from its reseivcs to meet its expenses, they said. One scenario described by the auditors puts the district into a $1.1 million deficit by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and an $11 million hole by 2003. Those project- --------------------: , ' , . . ed deficits should be eased some- ^Quent superintendent changes in what by tlie recent $12 niillion state veal's resulted in insta- Feimbursement to the district for shortfalls in teacher retirement and health insurance payments. The re- imbui-scmcnl was not included in tlie initial calculations. Regardless of the [state reim- bursementj it is crucial tliat fiscal, bargaining and budgetary practices do not continue in a 'business as usual posture, die study said. Kecomniendations call for balancing revenues and expenditures for strengUieiiing board policies on budgeting, seeking a tax increase by late 2000, revising Uic practices of ad- pay increases for employee longevity. Tlie concept of automatic step increases is no longer as popular given todays environment of customer- based decision-making with accountability for results,\" the auditors said. Tliis practice clearly presents a liigli fiscal risk to tlie district.\" Auditois recommended an overall review of tlie districts contracts with its employees, pointing out tliat the district is not required by law to continue collective bargaining witli permits teachers to resign and take up to three years to be re-employed at the same salary and retain sick leave. The auditors suggested tliat provision be reconsidered. They also suggested Uiat the district curb overtime costs tliat increased 314 percent to $287,000 in 1998. Car allowances to employees should be reduced by 35 percent and payments of stipends belter controlled, auditor's said. Other suggestions in the study call for fonning partnerships with citys lop 10 taxpayers, updating current rental charges for district properties. and generating revenue from educational related advertising on district-owned buses and vehicles. The MGT study suggested extensive changes in tlie districts administrative structure, needed because bilily in the oiganizalional stiucLurc, 1 This poipetual change has ere- I ated a dysfunctional infrastructure with inefficiencies, duplication of , services, duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and a fragmented functional structure,\" auditore said. The {iroposed changes call for reducing divisions within the district from four to tliree. That can be accomplished by dismantling the existing administrative services division, currently headed by Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs. The sections witliin tlie administrative seivices division  dese\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_577","title":"Marketing","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Marketing"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/577"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["77 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nT Pittman/ portis COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC RELATIONS MEDIA RELATIONS ISSUES MANAGEMENT i 1 J A Proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for the Little Rock School District 1 J May 1998 Prepared by: Pittman/Portis Comraunications 1021 West Second Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3001 s ) U 1 I 1021 WEST SECOND STREET  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201  501 -372-3001 FAX 50 1 -374-0049Situation Analysis The Little Rock School District has been involved tn federal court desegregation litigation since 1957 and for more than a decade has been subject to active federal court supervision. While opinions about the effectiveness and outcome of the court- supervised desegregation plan have differed, the revised desegregation plan offers a clear opportunity for designing and implementing new communications and marketing ideas for the Little Rock School District. Among the groups that will be able to take advantage of this opportunity are: 1. The Little Rock School Board and LRSD administrators, who should realize expanded opportunities to make decisions based on the contents of the plan. 2. The parent community, which should see an opportunity to end confusion and increase its participation in local school decisions. 3. The Districts teachers, who should feel an increased sense of unity. With the Federal Court's recent approval of the Revised Plan, it is the intent of the Little Rock School District to develop a comprehensive communications plan that moves the school district forward and creates a more favorable image with its constituents. Pittman/Portis Communications recommends the implementation of a coordinated and proactive public relations and marketing plan. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 21 i Mission of the Little Rock School District 1 1 The mission of the Little Rock School District is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Program Goal of LRSD Public Communications Campaign 1 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support tn the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD student. (Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, 1998) 1 t* LRSD shall establish a parent and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. (Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, 1998) f V J 1 5 I J Target Audiences  Parents of students enrolled tn the Little Rock School District  Parents of students enrolled tn private schools  Parents of pre-school age students  Little Rock teachers and staff  Business and community leadership  Little Rocks residential and commercial Realtors  Central Arkansas Media/Arkansas media  All Little Rock residents and taxpayers 1 i J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 3I Institutional Objectives I J Objective 1 1 i To retain children and families currently enrolled in the Little Rock School District and build confidence and support among the children and families it serves. . J I 1 I 1 1 J 1 1 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5' To effectively market the Little Rock School District in order that it may recruit new children and families to the district. To design and implement effective external communications that build public trust, confidence and community pride in the LRSD. To facilitate improved relations with the media as a tool for stability tn the district. To facilitate improved understanding among all LRSD employees. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 4 J1  Communications Objectives ) Objective 1 Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district. Objective 2 1 I J Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students. Objective 3 1 Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities. Objective 4 Establish Marketing Teams within each school building. 1 Objective 5 Communicate regularly with LRSD families. 1 Objective 6 Establish regular and timely communications with all LRSD employees. 3 Objective 7 Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. Objective 8 J Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media. I Objective 9 Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. 3 1 I 4 Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 5 1 1 Objective 1 Conduct on-going market research to actively solicit feedback from current and prospective students/families. Use research results to evaluate and improve the current system. Background: 1 ! I Since 1991, the Little Rock School District has continued to see students and families depart the public school system. Naturally, as LRSDs enrollment has declined, enrollment has increased at the citys private schools and in public schools in surrounding communities such as Conway, Cabot, Benton and Bryant. 1 As enrollment has declined, LRSD has not allocated sufficient funds to evaluate customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction or monitor public perception of the educational programs and services offered. Without qualitative or quantitative data, it is impossible to accurately assess overall public perception including the reasons for enrollment decline. 1 Research is a vital part of the public relations planning process. It teUs you what's really going on. It allows you to establish benchmarks that can be used to measure the effectiveness of the program. Now is the time to dedicate adequate resources so that the district can seek reliable feedback from those it serves, those it no longer serves, and those who have made a decision not to enroll their children tn the district. Formal research means addressing the critical issues of performance, productivity, and perception. Only formal research can uncover solid information that can provide criteria for making decisions. J 1 The following strategies Eire proposed in an effort to monitor opinions and perceptions from the following target audiences:  families currently enrolled tn the Little Rock School District.  families currently enrolled tn private schools.  Little Rock residents/taxpayers without school-age students.  teachers, staff and administrators in the school district 4 ! Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD\nPage 6 JThe opinions of these audiences are critical to the successful future of the Little Rock School District. i Action Strategies: i J J 1. 2. Conduct Focus Group Interviews with the following target audiences:  parents of LRSD elementary students.  parents of LRSD junior hlgh/senlor high students. Seek to obtain the following information:  Why did they choose to enroll their children in LRSD?  Are they satisfied with the educational programs and services offered? Ask for specifics.  Is there room for improvement? Ask for specifics.  What conditions would cause you to leave LRSD?  What would you tell a newcomer to Little Rock about your experience with LRSD?  Have their children ever been enrolled in private schools or public schools outside Little Rock? If so, how do they compare the educational experiences? BUDGET: $5,875.00 (See Attached Proposal) 1 Conduct Public Opinion PoU by telephone with 400 Little Rock citizens who are registered voters. Seek to obtain statistically valid Information on these subjects:  Pubhc perception of the Little Rock School District  Public support for a possible millage increase. BUDGET: $5,900.00 Conununlcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 71 Objective 2 Create a new image for LRSD that focuses on the strengths it possesses and offers to its students. Action Strategies: T t I 1. Create a new LRSD logo I J An organizations logo serves as its most identifiable tool and often establishes an Immediate and forceful perception about that organization and its components. Because the current logo has been tn existence for at least 14 years, it is time to develop a new logo that will enhance the Districts image. 1 1 The logo must symbolically communicate the following:  excellence,  quality education,  stability in resources, and  a willingness to embrace diversity. BUDGET: $1,000.00 - $1,500.00 2. Develop a consistent message in all district communications that projects the strengths LRSD possesses and offers to its students. These strengths include: i I J  diversity among students, teachers, staff and administration that builds a solid foundation for productive interaction and relationships throughout ones adult life. 1 I Communications and Marketing Pian/LRSD: Page 8i  delivery of quality educational programs.  abundance of resources not available tn other schools and districts. s i  enhanced choice for specific academic focus.  a safe and secure environment where district staff and students are able to teach and learn. J  technological opportunities to establish competency for life and work tn the 21st Centuiy.   community partnerships that provide educational opportunities and resources available nowhere else in Arkansas. 11 1 i I i T ! Commuiilcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 9I ( 1 I Objective 3 Establish a LRSD Communications Advisory Committee that provides professional advice for and additional resources to all communications and marketing activities. 1 ( Action Strategies: I J 1. 2. Define the purpose and role of the LRSD Communications Advisory Committee. Committee responsibilities should include: I ] I 1 '  provide advice and resources for all print and broadcast materials\n support the media relations effort of LRSD\n assist tn developing effective market research methods\n provide feedback and professional cormsel as it relates to crisis communications\n provide professional cormsel and resources as the district seeks to empower school building leadership by providing the tools they need to create effective communication and marketing plans for their individual school building.  sheire professional tools and resources on an as-needed basis. Recruit communications professionals from the Little Rock business community to serve a minimum of one-year. 1 Six to ten professionals should be Invited by LRSD Superintendent Les Camine to serve a minimum of one year and attend regularly scheduled meetings to address the communications needs of the District. ] ] Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 101 I I J J 1 Potential members should possess:  a desire to see Little Rocks public schools succeed tn accomplishing their objective to provide superior educational programs and effectively communicate that to all its audiences.  a commitment to the role of public education.  a commitment to community service.  communications skills and resources that can be shared tn order to help LRSD meet its communications objectives. J 3. Assemble the Communications Advisory Committee regularly to review on-going communications projects with the intent of - seeking thoughtful and professional advice. 1 1 I j Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 11 J3  ) I J Objective 4 In an effort to establish a more customer-friendly environment and creative marketing approaches, LRSD will encourage the establishment of Marketing Teams within each school building through the leadership of the building principals and the Little Rock PTA Council. ! -J Action Strategies: ] 1. 2. 3. Develop a theme to be used tn all LRSD marketing and recruitment efforts. A suggested theme: \"An Individual Approach To A World Of Knowledge.\" I 1 Produce a LRSD Marketing Guide to be used by the local building Marketing Teams. The guide win address and provide the following information and resources:  Defines the role LRSD employees play tn serving thetr customers (students/families) and marketing and communicating with prospective customers\n Provides recommendations for organizing local building Marketing Teams, including the prospective make-up of the local team.  Provides sample plans of work and resources that would enable the teams to effectively cany out a proactive marketing and communications plan for the school families they serve and the prospective families who express an interest in their school. 1 1 BUDGET: Labor/graphic design and printing expenses 1 Provide professional training to all local Marketing Teams. Trainers should include district staff and marketing professionals from the Little Rock business community. J BUDGET: To be determined based on project needs and potential costs of consulting services. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 12 ,J4. Provide communications support to those schools that require assistance (i.e. developing school Fact Sheets). 5. 1 i Develop an LRSD employee newsletter that focuses on the essential elements of customer service and marketing to prospective customers. The newsletter should be distributed four times per year and include information such as new marketing ideas and opportunities, success stories and so forth. J BUDGET: Review existing LRSD employee newsletter budget for labor, printing, graphic design, etc. 6. 3 1 1 - Establish an incentive program for LRSD schools and employees who play an active and creative role in marketing Little Rocks public schools. Establish a committee of building principals, teachers and parents that will establish incentive awards and recognition for the schools and district employees who meet marketing objectives as they relate to recruiting new school families. 7. 1 Seek the services of interns from central Arkansas colleges and universities, supervised by LRSDs Communications Department, who can enhance communications support to local school buildings. BUDGET: $500 stipend/per student per semester 3  1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 131 1 1 1 .J 1 ] 1 1 I i I i J i 1 J Objective 5 Communicate regularly with LRSD families and potential families. Action Strategies: 1. 2. Use the Districts Internet presence as a communications tool.  Send postcards to parents Informing them of the LRSD tntemet home page address.  Configure the home page to make it easy for parents/families to communicate easily and swiftly with the administration via the Internet.  Build an address database of parent/family e-mail addresses that will enable the District to communicate instantaneously with large groups of parents on matters requiring Immediate attention or action.  Consider the establishment of a Ustserve capability that can automatically distribute longer communications via the Internet to anyone who subscribes to the list.  Send out e-mail bulletins from the Superintendent at least once a month to parents/families on the e-mail address database. BUDGET POSTCARD: $1,025.17 for postage TOTAL (See Attached proposal) $845 for handling $1.500 printing $3,370.17 Use direct mail (postcards) to communicate directly with parents/famihes about district functions such as individual school meetings, changes tn policy, and so forth. BUDGET: $3,370.17 Conmuuilcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 141 J 3. 4. Four times a year establish phone banks composed of staff, administration and district/community volunteers to answer questions on any subject phoned in during well-publicized Call Your Kids School nights. 1 I Coordinate with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to allow Dr. Camine to write a periodic op-ed column tn which he wUl give a state of the schools report. ..J I 5. Establish Dr. Camine as a resource for the regularly scheduled KATV television feature, First Class, which carries good news reports about the schools. 6. 3 1 The Communications staff will make arrangements for Dr. Camine to serve as a regular guest on radio talk shows. Dr. Camine should be positioned to talk about education in general and the Little Rock schools in particular. I 7. 1 Improve the way the Districts cable television channel is used, including more effective programming, graphics and so forth, to make it a resource that parents/families actively seek out as an authoritative, reliable and vital source of information about their childrens education. BUDGET: to be determined by LRSD 1 1 1 ] 1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 151 1 1 J 3 3 3 3 : 7 ! J Objective 6 Establish regular and timely communications will all LRSD employees. Action Strategies: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prepare a weekly staff update to be faxed to each school building. Building principals will be responsible for copying and distributing to all staff. Department managers tn administrative offices will be responsible for copying and distributing to administrative staff. Arrange for the superintendent and other senior persoimel to periodically visit with school building personnel. Rather than creating a new organization, institute a new element to the \"Key Communicators\" role. Have Key Communicators also serve tn an advisory capacity to the administration regarding issues of LRSD employee communications. Consider writing and distributing a Communications Inventory Survey that asks district personnel to comment on current communication strategies and provide ideas for future communication efforts. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 161 Objective 7 Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. Action Strategies: 1 f 1. 2. Rename the Office of Student Assignment. This name conjures up negative perceptions that families have no control over where thetr children will attend school. Its name implies that students are M j assigned to school buildings by employees of this office. This sets up with prospective families a barrier to effective commimication about the real benefits of a Little Rock School ' District education. ] 1 Names to consider include:  Student and Family Services  Office of Student Enrollment  Recruitment and Enrollment Office 1 a J  1 Develop marketing brochures that target prospective students/families as weU as families of students who are moving to a higher level (junior high/middle school or senior high school). All marketing brochures should include registration forms. Separate marketing brochures should be produced for (1) (2) (3) elementary schools and programs, junior high/middle school programs, and senior high programs. j Brochures should highlight the overall programs and provide a capsule description of the individual school buildings. Whenever possible, the brochures should highlight those programs and services that are not offered by private schools or suburban public schools. J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 17i 1 t These brochures should be used by and distributed to:  building principals and Marketing Teams for use in school building recruitment efforts.  recruitment representatives from the Office of Student Assignment.  local Chamber of Commerce representatives for use tn economic development activities.  residential Realtors in the Little Rock area who have contact with newcomers to the city\n posted to the LRSD web site. 1 BUDGET: \" Graphic Design: Printing/15,000 count: 8 Page, four color, 4x9 8 Page, four color, 81/2 x 11 (See attached proposal) $3,500 - $5,000 $ 5,452.00 $ 8.903.00 3. 1 In order to give all print communications (brochures, ads, etc.) and possibly web page graphics a new and fresh look, LRSD should update its photo library with new photographs that focus on the primary themes established in Objective 2 (diversity, quality educational programs, abundance of resources, enhanced choice, and technological opportunities). I BUDGET: $ 2,000 for 3 days with free-lance photographer, supplies, processing and duplication of photos. This is at editorial rate vs. commercial rate. I 1 1 \"I J 4. Encourage the partnership with the Little Rock Alliance for Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce in terms of their sponsorship and coordination of the \"Show 'n Tell' event. Seek additional support for this community-wide open house event from the building's Marketing Teams. n Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 18j 5. Produce a print and broadcast advertising campaign that focuses on the strengths of Little Rock's public schools and seeks to actively market LRSD to prospective families. Coordinate the advertising campaign with the \"Show 'n Tell\" event and LRSD registration. J BUDGET:  Print advertising campaign:  Radio campaign: (See attached proposal) $ 27,500 - $35,000 $ 52,500 - $ 65,500 I 6. Although extensive television advertising is cost prohibitive, there may be a way to have a presence on this medium. Specifically, here are the action steps that might allow this: 1 1 !  Approach potential corporate sponsors that are current television advertisers.  Solicit help  not tn terms of cash, but instead, tn terms of donated television time.  LRSD would produce 3 to 4 television commercials that are :15 tn length (NOTE: A local TV station could be approached to provide production)  Ask the corporate sponsors to run thetr : 15 commercials, backed by a LRSD :15 commercial, this totaling the cost of a standard :30 commercial. (NOTE: Several advertisers already own and run :15 commercials about their business: others might be persuaded to create one or two as part of this sponsorship program).  The corporate sponsor would simply be given copies of the LRSD spots and would produce them Into thetr own spots.  The corporate sponsor's media schedule would be placed as usual, and the LRSD would recognize the sponsor for thetr contribution tn the appropriate way. 1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 191 J 1 1. Develop an initiative to make the residential and commercial Realtors of Little Rock into a powerful ally for growth and support of the Little Rock School District:  Maintain and provide to area Realtors informative brochtues about the Districts strengths and resources.  Communicate to Realtors the up-to-date capabilities now offered on the LRSD web site. Make certain they have the necessary information to refer prospective District patrons to the web site.  Arrange for Dr. Camine to serve as the main speaker at least once a year before the Little Rock Board of Realtors.  Arrange for local Realtors to participate in formal school tours so they may become more familiar with the educational opportunities offered. T i J J 1 i Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 201 I I Objective 8 Develop and maintain one-on-one relationships with the Central Arkansas news media that fosters open communicatinns and creates a better imderstanding of the districts educational programs and opportunities. 1 Action Strategies: 1 J 1. 1 mA 2. 3. 4. 1 Begin immediately a scheduled round of meetings with all Central Arkansas media outlets. These should be conducted with Dr. Gamine sitting down (either at the LRSD offices or at the offices of the individual media outlets) with the top decision makers at each outlet as well as every reporter who deals with education topics regularly. The meetings can be spaced to accommodate Dr. Gamines schedule but the whole series should be completed as soon as possible to introduce Dr. Gamine to the media. The meetings will be presented as background, off-the-record sessions in which Dr. Ccimlne win candidly answer all questions presented to him, but which win not generate articles directly (although they could lead to the development of articles later). 1 Develop a schedule of regular news briefings for the media that cover education tn Little Rock. These need not take the form of a formal news conference, but should be an opportunity for the media representatives to ask questions in a relaxed atmosphere with Dr. Gamine and a rotating series of LRSD administrators. I Gonsider delivering a Monday-morning e-mail briefing to all media representatives outlining what will be taking place tn the District that week that could prove of interest to the media. Recruit a local web site development expert to develop a portion of the site that the media can use as a resource for background 1 Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 21 Ji I 1 1 information about the district, the individual schools, policy and regulations, upcoming events and the Uke. The site also should be configured in such a way that the media can submit e-mail inquiries and have them answered expeditiously. The web site also should have a special subsection devoted to information from Dr. Camine to the media and public. 5. Develop an organized program of shooting B-roU video footage (non-nzirrated scenes) from various schools and classrooms to be used by the broadcast media to illustrate stories about the good things happening in the Little Rock School District. - BUDGET: $1,900 per day (filming and editing) 1 3 1  I Conununlcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 22J 1 I J ] 1 1 i I i J I I Objective 9 Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock comTnunity in order to effectively communicate the activities of the district. Action Strategies: 1. 2. 3. \"Leadership\" can include LRSD senior administrators, board members, and others who represent the district well in an ambassador position. Communications staff should regularly provide talking points to be ' distributed to those who actively communicate with area communiiy groups. Community groups to target should include, but not be limited to, the following:  Little Rock City Board and Education Commission  Pulaski County Quorum Court  Little Rock's State House and Senate delegation  Rotary, Kiawanis, Lion's, and other civic clubs  Neighborhood Organizations  Leadership Roundtable  Fifty for the Future  Little Rock Chamber of Commerce  Little Rock Alliance for our Public Schools Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 23 I! i i .J J ! I Price Quote: 1 1 Qualitative Research I f I J 1 11 1 t ] 1 J I 1 1 1 J ] 1 rriPR-2\u0026amp;-1990 13146 P.02 1  I FROM: Staqr Pittman Pitti^ Portia Donna Creighton Decision Research, Inc. ftnii-jeGa' Sbiy wi eiJ' i.waidi ta DATE: March 20, 1998 5 I i RE\nProposal for Qualitative Research LOGY: J Three fixua groups, seating 12-15 and lasting one hour, will be conducted in Litde Rock, AR. These group will consist of one group each: parents of Elementary students, parents of Junior High students and parents of High School students. A list of prospectivn participants will be supplied by the client for rrcn tiring purposes. nimTABu:: ] Two (2) weeks lead tiine is desirable to allow ample time for recruitment and Held set-up. With signed authori2atioa of prqect confinnation, implementation can begin. I PyPGET: I $5,875 i 10% + client food (Includea screening questionnaire and discussion guide design, facility rental, hostesses, recruitment, respondent refreshments, project coordination, field direction, audio and videotaping, briefing and debriefing sessions, moderation and report) 1 J 1 i TOTAL P.a2 1 1 1 . J r J Price Quote: 1 I Postcard Mailing to LRSD Families 1 I 3,3 i r 1 I 1 i ! 1 J I 1 J .c- w cyd Schuh Company, Inc. noTCraaantf.  ute* Rodt. ar 72303 Rwnm 301.374-2332 ' ooPCT/cowyamnqi p QUOTATION FOR:_______ Pittman \u0026amp; Poirtia Attn : Stacy Pittman 1021 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR 72201 RBFHHgWCS Esc. Postage t $1,025.17 LR SCHOOL POST CARD Sxpiration Data: 04-18-98 Salaspaxaon\nGreg McMahon Quantity Deacription Setup Price w/setup 22,000 Data Processing Load Tape/Standardize Layout Provided Postal Code Merge/Purge by Household 15,012 Data Processing Non-Profit Sort Best Rate-Automation Print 4-up Cheshire list Permit 15,012 Machine Arfr-paB-j ng Apply Cheshire Labels Apply 4-up Cheshire Ledsels Postcard Mail Sort-LSC Provided Mail Non-Profit 25.00 25.00 25.00 $300.00 $175.12 $370.28 TOTAL: $845.40 1 I subject to final confirmation upon raeaipt o client supplied * iata, artwork, and/cr materials. Ark. sales tax (if applicable) additional. 3If Lloyd Schuh Company, Inc. 22O7CamaRa. * UtM Roe*. AR 73209 101.374.3133 QuoTs/caNroDfld^^ SSWWSB .J QUOTATION FOR\n_______ Pittman a Portia Attn\nStacy Pittman 1021 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR 72201 RBPBRSNCB Eat. Poataga t $1,502.38 HOME \u0026amp; SCHOOL CONNECTION Expiration Date: 04-18-98 Salesparson\nGreg McMahon Quantity Description Setup Price w/getup 22,000 Data Procaaaing Load Tape/Standardize Postal Coda Sort Best Rate-Automation Print 4-up Cheshire list Permit 22,000 Machine Addressing Apply Cheshire Labels Apply 4-up Cheshire Labels L^el Self-Mailer Apply 1 Tads Mail Sort-LSC Provided Mail Non-Profit 25.00 50.00 $410.00 $996.00 5SV !  1 1 1 TOTM.\niWftS'.' SSR^-1 I ya ritrw $1,406.00 1 Ml pricing gubject to final confirmation upon receipt of client supplied data, artwork, and/or materials. Ark. sales tax (if applicable) additional. !'XI 1 1 J ..j J Price Quote: 1 ] Printing Expenses for Brochures and Reports I JMAR 20 ' 90 0t:04PM ARKANSAS SRAPHICS ' p.2 .A i ! J DATE: PROPOSAL FOR: ] 1 .1 1 1 .XL-*. L ' 03/20/98 CJS.W Attn: Spencer May JOB DESCRIPTION: Stacy Quota 8 page + Cover SIZE: 4x9 NEGATIVES: PROOFS: STOCK: BINDERY: TURNAROUND: ADDITIONAL: PRESSWORK: Ink coion: Bleed: BILLING TERMS: QUANTITY AND PRICE: Olak Blualina, Mxcchprise 100# Snamal Taxc acoza, crim, old,\n\u0026amp; aeicch 10 Daya 4 c/p 2/a Taa Hat 30 13,000- $5,452.00 800 Soud: Gaines/P.O. Box 34080  Linle Rocle. Arlrar.9 779n?_dnan . \u0026lt;ni.i7k.aa:x xs^v \u0026lt;n,.77\u0026gt;C77\u0026lt;7MPR 20 ' 90 0i:04P!1 ARKANSAS CRPPHICS IC4 i WHra  ' '-J t-t r: J DATE: 03/20/98 1 PROPOSAL FOR: CJW Atta: Spancar Hay JOB DESCRIPTION: I SIZE: NEGATIVES: PROOFS: Scacy Quota 8 page Covar 8i X II Olak I Bluslinst KaCchpxint STOCK: 100# Snanal TaxC BINDERY: acors, Crla, fold, \u0026amp; acicch 1 TURNAROUND: 10 Days I J ADDITIONAL: 1 PRESSWORK: lok coion: z!^ Ht Bleed: Yas BILLING TERMS: HsC 30 I QUANirTY AiND PRICE: 15,000- $8,903.00  1 ( 100 South Giines/P.O. Box 34080  Little Roclc. Arkxnsii 71203-4080  *01-376.8435 FAY \u0026lt;01.774-7^*^n J Price Quote: Print Advertising Campaign 1 j -4   1 -J ] ] 1 1 JMfiR 590 13:55 FH CJRU aai 7s 4341 .Vj 1 rcss^:. St'-'- iaff . .ajc Cranford Johnson Robinson W\u0026lt; r' FAX TRANSMTITAL SHEET Date 3/5/^ To: Stacy Pittmany PittmanJPortis Phone: EA2Q_ 372-3001 371^1049 J From:Grey Harrison Number of pages including this sheet J, Time Sent 1:QQ PM Operator Our FAX number is (501) 975-4241 Telephone (501) 975-6251 / Direct (501) 975-7272 Capitol Center f 303 West Capitol Avenue / Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-3593 COMMENTS: 1 I i Estimated Costs for Little Rock School District j Arkansas Democrat Gazette - 4 column x 10\" ads, B\u0026amp;W 2 insertions per week (SundayiWednesday pick-up) Metro Section (Pulaski, Saline, Lonoke, PauDcner, White \u0026amp; Jefferson Counties) 8 weeks total (4 meeks in July 1998\n4 weeks m January 1999) Estimatod Cost: S27^ - $35,000 T1 Radio - Pre^corded spots (:30 or :60) 200  250 A28-^ GBPS weekly (approx. 20-25 spots per week on 5 stations) 8 weeks total (4 weeks in July 1998\n4 weeks in January 1999) Estimated Cost: $52,500 - $65,500 1 Vm on my way to the dentist, hut Ill call you hack when I return to explain things. Greg Harrison ton irrrcd OCT? itott A UTTLEROCK JT^ \\ I liance: FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS October 22, 1998 Fax Memo TO: Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Marketing Team Member FROM: Alma Williams SLUJECT\nUpcoming Marketing Team Meeting on 10/27 at 12 Noon. Make plans to attend our next Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Marketing Team Meeting on this coming Tuesday, October 27 at noon at the Little Rock School District Administration Buildings Board Room located at 810 West Markham. A brown bag luncheon with a presentation of the Little Rock School Districts plan for Middle Schools will be the starting point for this meeting. Suellen Vann of the LRSD will detail how the district.is implementing the middle school concept while also addressing questions and concerns. This bring-your-own-bag luncheon will provide the opportunity to listen and learn. Immediately following this presentation, we will re-convene to discuss how the Alliance Marketing Team can support the Middle School plan as well as a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for the Little Rock School District. Please RSVP by calling the Alliance office at 370-9300. 523 Louisiana Street  LaFayette Building  Suite 175  Little Rock  Arkansas  72201 Phone (501) 370-9300 . Fax (501) 375-8774 lO/IOd TO:t?T 86, 53 ^30 8T09-t7Z-t0S-T:X5J 33d3WWO3 30 33aWbH0 31I I Making Your School THE School of Choice I Principals Institute-1998 I W Todays Outcomes o Better understand why we need to market our schools o Review how and why parents choose a school o Assess internal marketing need I- o Understand image and how to control it J I* Public relations is developing relationships which change 1'^ attitudes that bring about desired behaviors. 11 Patrick Jackson Past President, FRSA 1t All institutions live or die by public opinion. K- b- Janies Tolley Former Vice President. Public Affairs Chrysler Corporation fell !* We re not tbe only game in town! S' 3 .I o private, for-Dront schools o private, non-profit schools o home schools o charter schools few Tbe Diffusion Process Iwitli an examnle al haw a param aelects a schaall o Awareness - finils a listing of all the possible choices - public \u0026amp; private - in the neighborhood\nreads about the schools in the newspaper\nbuilds a list of possible schools 217 I I The Diffusion Process twMi an example al hew a parent selects a schaall % Ul .1 l\u0026gt; o inters-obtains brochures, annual reports, and other written materials on each of the schools\nselects a smaller number which still seem to be possibilities I* The Diffusion Process Iwitli an example al haw a parent selects a schaall  o Evaluation - talks to friends who have children in those schools and asks about the strengths and weaknesses of all\neliminates a few more because of these conversations w The Diffusion Process (with an example al haw a parent selects a schaall k I \u0026gt; o Trial - visits classrooms of schools still considering\ntalks to the principals\nasks questions of the teachers about specific interests  I 3The Diffusion Process (with an example al hew a parent ulectt a schawl] I o flfloptlon - selects a school based on total input and enrolls the child \u0026gt; I I* Why do parents seiect a particuiar schooi? Criteria most cited by parents when choosing a new schooi o academically solid, but not so rigorous as to intimidate tbeir children o accredited o competitive in academic test scores o recognized for excellence o above-average expenditures on pupil expenditures o above-average teacher salaries o above-average library and media services o small class sizes IScheelMatchl 4^.l^H What do parents want? w ? I I* o each child to Ieam as much as he or she is capable of learning o a friendly, protective, yet stimulating learning environment I \u0026gt; Q prompt civil and understandable answers to their questions I o their kids to be happy  Characteristics of a Customer- FriendiySchooi I?  6 o responsiveness o flexibility o two-way communication o shared decision-making o accountability r' o adequate resources o individual recognition in K Total Quaiity Management Theory o build a quality product Ip o sell it at a fair price b \u0026gt; o give good, prompt service when something goeswrong bl o be pleasant to the consumer \u0026lt;: ,1- I 5Marketing VS. Selling \u0026gt; When selling, you've . already determined I i|* the nature of the product or service lil* that you're offering. When marketing, you create and adapt the product to meet the needs of your consumers. I I h \u0026gt; Internal Marketing... I \u0026gt; What it is and why its important I- I I I I Sharpen your schools image! The 4 Ps of Image\nI oPrice/value oPrograms oPlaces oPeople 6r Visitors must report to the office. I i Welcome! We re glad you're here! Please come to the office and introduce yourself! I I I Please let our office staff welcome you to the building! I' \u0026gt; Sharpen your schools image! I.. I I I I\nSi \u0026gt; The 4 Ps of Image: oPrice/value oPrograms oPlaces oPeople PPP = Positive Picture Phrasing Si I Si I 6^ I I Students Management Certified personnel Lounge Costs Learners Leadership Instructional start Workroom Investment t\n7Internal Marketing Sample Employee Self-Assessment Why do you work in our school? Passion for what I do Only job I could get Close to home I look forward to coming to work every day. Strongly agree Strongly disagree I feel that I make a difference every day. Strongly agree Strongly disagree I could contribute more to the students in my school by (fill in the blank)________________________________________ I plan to help my school/department this year by (fill in the blank)_________________________________________I hl Simple Ideas for...Principals o speak Simply\nforget educational iargon o view every contact - Dy phone, computer, in person - as an opportunity to build support o put something positive on every childs report card I I o reconsider school signs o print school pluses on a small card and have laminated\npass out to everyone Great School Public Relations Ideas I\" te- o Key Communicators - identify opinion leaders and build them into a team which understands and supports your school and communicates that suppoil o Know Whafs Right - brainstorm with your entire staff What's Right with Our School. Then, put that information on paper. 3 More Great School Public \u0026lt; Relations Ideas * Jr te: 5^ o let people see for themselves - plan and implement a Principal for a Day, Student for a Day, or Teacher for a Day program. Get people Into your school. o Use your well-read publications - dont start new publications. Put your important information into those that people already read. 8bl s Constructive PR is planned\n1^' r r r i\u0026gt; destructive PR lust happens. 9STUDENTS - ESTABLISHING A RAPPORT Public Relations The bottom line in education is, and always will be, children. As such, the most important of all school public relations is the relationship between the children and the staff and faculty who serve them. We need to continually focus upon what we can do to create a school and classroom environment where children feel good about themselves and their role in the educational process. Some sure fire ways of building rapport with the children in your classroom and school are listed below: Welcome students back to school in the fall by calling them on the phone or sending them a card or letter. Accentuate the positive. Taking the time to give a student a little extra attention may seem like an insignificant act. However, for some students, your pat on the back, the supportive comment, or the simple sticker on the paper may be their only source of positive feedback on that day. Invite a student to eat lunch with you once a week. This is an opportunity for both you and the child to get to know each other in an informal setting. Be available to your students, and let them know you are there if they need you. A good teacher is not only a good instructor but also serves in the capacity of a counselor, advisor, confidant, and a trusted friend. Dont be afraid to enjoy yourself and let your students know how you feel about what it is you do. The teacher sets the feeling tone for the classroom. Students are very perceptive, and will reflect the attitudes modeled by the classroom teacher. Give students an opportunity to develop leadership qualities by assigning such classroom responsibilities as monitors, tutors, and officers. Get to know each of your students as well as you can. What are their likes and dislikes? ...academic strengths? ...hobbies? ...home backgrounds? ...goals and aspirations? Remember that you are capable of making mistakes. Listen to children as they explain their concerns. When appropriate, be willing to change a decision or conclusion. Have a sense of humor. While what we do is very important, it does not always have to be serious. Kids of today have enough problems of their own to worry about. Dont take out your personal frustrations on your students. Dont forget that respect is not something a teacher gets\nit is earned - every single day of our professional lives. BUILDING A RELATIONSHIP WITH PARENTS  Public Relations Parents have a need to develop a relationship with the teachers to whom they entrust their children on a daily basis. Teachers have a need to get to know parents in order to better serve students. For the purpose of more effective instruction, and in order to develop meaningful relationships with parents, schools need to have good public relations programs. Some suggestions for building a positive rapport with parents follow: Get parents into the classroom by using them as resource people. Let them explain a hobby, skill, or interest. Increase parental contact. Positive contacts are especially appreciated by parents. Commit yourself to making one positive parent contact per week. Parents are more approachable regarding a concern if theyve had previous positive experiences with the school. Invite parents to after-school and weekend activities. Develop a list of activities which parents can do at home to support their childs educational program. Create an award for families that complete these activities. Send home letters to parents on a regular basis. These informal letters should let parents know what is happening in your class, current goals and objectives, and student achievements. Be open with parents regarding problems and concerns. Encourage parents to express their concerns so that you can deal with them and prevent the concerns from growing out of control. - Use parent volunteers in the classroom as tutors, to correct papers, assist on field trips, read to students, or work with small groups. - Let parents know that you value their input and suggestions. - Homework is the most consistent communication between the school and the home. Make sure homework is meaningful and clear. Let parents know they can contact you at home to clarify questions they might have regarding an assignment. Invite parents to observe classes, eat lunch with their child, or share morning coffee with you. Personal contact is an extremely important step in building a meaningful relationship. Always take the opportunity to let parents know you appreciate their efforts to support their children's educational endeavors.RECOGNITION, PROJECTS, ACTIVITIES fc\nPublic Relations Classroom projects and all-school activities promote involvement, increase motivation, and foster an interdisciplinary instructional approach. These activities are also excellent opportunities for positive public relations. They involve parents and community members, and also give the local media chances to feature classrooms, schools, and students. The following smorgasbord of ideas offers a wide variety of classroom projects, all-school activities, and means of recognizing students. Student Recognition Classroom Projects All-School Activities Newcomer Corrunittee -Greets new students and orientates them to the school. Student of the Week - Post pictures of the child and display items that are special to her/him. Invite parents into the class and for lunch during the week. Birthday Ribbons Happygrams Post student work. Make sure every child has something displayed which reflects success. Citizenship Awards Perfect Attendance Awards Positive phone calls to parents Quarterly Awards Assembly - The goal is for every child to be recognized for something during the course of the year. Science Fair - Students research and demonstrate a simple scientific concept. Display at an open house for the parents. Leisure Reading Club Student Book of Great Works - Have a book on you desk in which students can enter accomplishments of which they are proud. Sleepover/Pajama Party at the school, perhaps a campout, even at the teachers house. What a great way to get to know your students! Parents/Grandparents Day Lunch with the teacher Classroom newspaper Activity Day - Bowling, walking, rollerskating, cross country skiing, bicycling Pet Show Popcorn sales one day per week during lunch hour Brotherhood Week World Peace Week Wellness Activities Day American Education Week Artist-In-Residence School themes or slogans Cross-Grade Pals - Students in the primary grades are buddied\" with students in the intermediate grades. Students read to each other, exchange letters, and share other activities during the school year. Talent Show - Schedule it for the winter months, and combine it with a chili supper Walk younger children home during the first month of school to meet their parents. If they ride a bus, ride the bus with them. - Brown Bag Lunches - Invite parents to speak on areas of interest to kids during lunch hour. School Spirit Day - Students wear clothes in the school colors and/or with the school logo on it Honor Roll Catch Them Being Good - Pass out tickets or coupons redeemable for incentives when you see a student modeling appropriate behavior. Class breakfast Secret Pals at Christmastime, Easter, May Day Have a picnic in the park in May Celebrate the schools birthdayTELEPHONE TECHNIQUES Public Relations Phone calls are a vital link to the home and to the public, and can be your most effective means of developing a positive relationship with parents and community members. Following are some suggestions for insuring that the image you project over the telephone is both positive and professional: 1. 2. 3. 4. Answer the phone as promptly as possible. Upon answering, identify yourself and the school you represent. Be pleasant. Nobody wants to talk to a school or the teacher\n people want to talk to other people. A cheerful greeting and a warm tone of voice let the caller know they are dealing with someone capable of being friendly, helpful, and understanding. All callers, whether parents or concerned citizen, should be treated with the highest respect, and should never be considered as interruptions. Listen carefully to what the caller has to say. Your ability to concentrate on what the caller is saying and to maintain an attentive and helpful manner is even more critical when the caller has a problem or concern. In such situations your role should be to assist the caller and to help in solving the problem rather than making excuses or employing other defensive strategies. When calling a parent about a concern, be aware that such a call can be very uncomfortable for the parent. Be empathetic, state the concern, and avoid being judgemental. Let the parent know how you will handle the concern and how they can support you. Parents are less likely to be defensive if they perceive you as someone who cares about their child and who is trying to work with them to help their child succeed in school. 5. 6. 7. Use good voice control. - Speak directly into the mouthpiece. If the caller cant hear or understand you, s/he may become frustrated and discouraged. - Remember, a monotonous voice is perceived as boring, while a speaker who constantly changes inflection is perceived as flighty or insincere. Your inflection should convey an interested and helpful attitude. - Enunciate and articulate so that what you say is what people hear. Never put someone on hold without asking permission and explaining why it is necessary. Always thank the caller for waiting. If the caller will be on hold for an extended period of time, break in occasionally to let the caller know they have not been forgotten! If a callback is necessary, do so as soon as possible. People are very impressed with such attentiveness. On the other hand, getting back to people when you get around to it conveys a message of indifference on your part.= DEALING WITH NEGATIVE PEOPLE/COMPLAINTS = \u0026amp; Public Relations Even the best of educators will occasionally come under criticism from parents or community members. How you handle the negative feedback, whether or not the criticism is justified, will have a significant impact on how parents perceive you. There are guidelines that teachers can use to assist them in responding to negative parents, their concerns, and criticism. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Be open-minded. Consider the parents point of view. No matter how much professionalism, competency responsibility, or integrity you have, you are capable of making a mistake. Teachers need to accept the fact that they will occasionally make an error. Listen carefully, with the goal of fully understanding the concern. Let the parent talk while you listen. Interrupt only to clarify her/his point and confirm your understanding of it. Let the parent vent her/his concern. Such venting is not only therapeutic for the parent, but will give you the information you need to deal with the situation. Dont allow yourself to react emotionally to the parent. A negative response only serves to further alienate them. Talk only after thinking about what you can say to assist in the resolution of the concern. Remember always to be polite, honest, and open. Acknowledge your regret over the parents dissatisfaction. Express empathy for their inconvenience and/or problem. Let them know you will seek a solution to the problem. When the criticism is well-founded, respond to it. Take steps to insure that the source of criticism has been corrected. Respond quickly. The sooner the source of criticism has been addressed, the less the opportunity there is for the concern to mushroom. An irritated parent will become unnecessarily agitated if, upon reporting her/his concern, s/he is left with the impression that s/he has been ignored. Respond effectively. Seek a permanent, total solution to the problem. Try to end the discussion on a positive note. Inform the parent, in very specific terms, what you will be doing to resolve the issue. Follow up with a phone call or note to give the parent feedback on how you have followed through.GAINING SUPPORT FROM NON-PARENTS \u0026lt;4^ Public Relations All citizens help support schools and education through local, state, and/or federal taxes. Typically, a vast majority of the people in a school district do not have children in school. Educators are beginning to realize that it is essential for them to make the senior citizen, childless couples, and singles a priority audience. We must involve and educate the nonparents if we wish to gain their support for our schools and educational programs. Following are some suggestions and activities to help classroom teachers and schools reach out to this increasingly large and influential group: Involve the non-parent in the classroom/school. A bonding and support instinct is initiated when people are given opportunities to become a part of the program. Consider using non-parents to * serve as tutors and teachers helpers * help plan for special celebrations * read to primary students * share a craft, talent, or skill * work with students who have exceptional needs  be pen-pals to students * work in the IMC, computer lab, or office area * listen to children read stories or give book reports - Draw upon the knowledge, skills, and experience of non-parents when developing new programs and curriculum. One does not have to be an educator or parent to have something important to say about what needs to be taught in schools. Place non- parents on school committees (e.g., long term planning, curriculum, advisory, public relations). - Ask for the opinion and input of the non-parent. Survey them to find out what they think the strengths and needs of your school are. How do they feel the school could better serve the needs of the non-parents? - Unleash your best ambassadors, your students! Send them out to perform for area clubs and organizations. Let them visit the hospitals and retirement homes. Set aside a service day on which students volunteer to rake leaves and do small jobs for retired citizens. Or plan an Apprenticeship Day when students learn about a profession or occupation by spending the day at the worksite under the supervision of a non-parent. - Inform the non-parent. Send classroom newspapers and school newsletters to non- parents. Work with the local media to let the public know the significant and positive things which are happening in the schools. Once a month, invite non-parents to a morning coffee where information, questions, and concerns can be exchanged. - Acknowledge the non-parent. Have a special visitation day just for the non-parent. Give them a free lunch, a tour of the building, and an informative and/or entertaining school program. Get your class to adopt non-parents in the neighborhood, and hold special activities with them throughout the year. Issue Golden Age passes to senior citizens.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_604","title":"Ombudsman","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","School management and organization","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Ombudsman"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/604"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe Office of Ombudsman was established during the 1998-1999 school term and the position filled by James L. Washington, who had been principal of Henderson Junior High from 1994-1998.\nJOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374.4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. received AUG 7 \" 1998 August 6, 1998 OTGEOf Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 Re: Job Description for Ombudsperson Dear Mr. Babbs: Mr. Walker asked that a share a copy of Joshuas draft of the job description for the Ombudsperson with you and Dr. Carnine. Enclosed is a copy of same. Please give me a call if you have questions. JCS/ Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Brown Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Joshua Intervenors DRAFT JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE POSITION OF OMBUDSPERSON POSITION: Ombudsperson for the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Bachelors Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in management or supervisory capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Teachers Certificate. 4. making. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. REPORTS TO: Class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors will provide reports to the Superintendents of the Pulaski County school districts of Ombudspersons findings. SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by Joshua class counsel. JOB GOAL: To investigate and assist in the resolution of complaints about policies, procedures, practices of the Pulaski County school districts. The goal of the office of the Ombudsperson is to also assist the Pulaski County school districts with the task of ensuring that students and their parents and/or guardians are aware of their rights pursuant to district practices, policies and procedures, the student rights and responsibilities handbook, and all other applicable state and federal laws to ensure an equitable education to class members. The Ombudsperson will act as anadvocate on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardian involved in the discipline process, investigate parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and other complaints by students and parents relating to equitable access to and delivery of necessary educational opportunities and services being offered by the District. To this end, the Ombudsperson will work with District officials, students and parents to achieve equitable solutions. To communicate, assist and be available to help students and parents and/or guardians understand District educational philosophies, goals and objectives. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To investigate and assist in the resolution of complaints regarding practices, policies, and/or procedures. 2. Attend discipline hearings on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardians to serve as an advocate regarding the discipline appeals process. 3. Attend administrative and/or teacher conferences on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardians to ensure proper educational needs and placement of students through proper assessment and other evaluations. 4. Attend Emergency Management Team conferences on behalf of students and/or their parents and/or guardians to ensure proper placement of students regarding their educational needs through proper assessment and other evaluations. 5. To investigate student and parent complaints of race, gender and disability-based mistreatment and attempt to mediate equitable resolutions. 6. To investigate student and parent and /or guardian complaints of race-based discrimination and attempt to achieve equitable solutions. 7. To provide summative quarterly reports to class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors outlining the relationship of the complaints to desegregation plan provisions, a summation of findings and conclusions and recommendations to remedy recurrence. 8. To provide written and/or oral reports to the Board of Directors regarding student and parent concerns. 9. Monitor all aspects of school operations. 10. Other duties as assigned by class counsel of the Joshua Intervenors.SALARY: Negotiable5013744107 UfiLKER LRU FIRM 847 P04Z0\u0026lt;1  17 '90 10: I I Attorney At Law . 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas tzzm Tslephone (501) 37.4^58 i FAX (601) 3744187 i J0H.X W. W.\\LSR RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN POSTER. UR, Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 20, 1998 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: I understand that Mr. Walker has already contacted you about my position as ombudsperson. School has started. I have started to receive telephone calls from parents and patrons of the District The first problem which I would like to bring to your attention for discussion is that of the elimination of the staff position of social worker at Rockefeller Incentive School. I refer to Rockefeller as an incentive school because the basic characteristics of the student population have not substantially changed since the approval of the revised plan. We believe that the social worker position is important and necessary for the school's ability to relate to community concerns and to the needs of the underprivileged children therein. The social worker position has been one which has bce.n regarded as successful for many years. It is my and Mr. Walkers understanding that programs that have been successRil in facilitating desegregation and remediating problems which are attributable to class status will be continued rather than eliminated. 1 would, therefore, like to visit with either you, Ms, Sadie Mitchell, Mr. Junious Babbs or the appropriate person who has responsibility for this area. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. Sim JO OTua Josfiua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Julius Babbs Mr. Chris Heller 1 I02/10/1999 15:03 5013242090 lrsd human resourses RASE 02 Little Rock School District Job Description Job Title: Job Code\nDOT Code: Division: Department: Location: Reports To: Prepared By: Prepared Date: Approved By: Approved Date: FLSA Status: \"OMBUDSMAN\" Administrative Services Administrative Services Student Assignment Building Associate Superintendent - Administrative Services Associate Superintendent - Administrative Services 07/24/98 Director - Human Resources 10/22/98 Non-Exempt SUMMARY To serve as a student/parent advocate upon instances of conflict and/or concern within the student school experience while working to achieve equitable solution among all parties. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSTBIUTIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. -Ensure that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. -Act as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process. -Investigate parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempt to achieve equitable solutions. SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES This job has no supervisory responsibilities. QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE Bachelors degree (B. A.) is preferred from four-year college or university\nor one to two years related experience and/or training\nor equivalent combination of education and experience. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read and interpret documents such as policy manuals and procedure manuals. Ability to write routine reports and correspondence. Ability to speak effectively before groups of customers or employees of organization. MATHEMAHCAL SKILLS Ability to work with mathematical concepts such as probability and statistical inference, and fundamentals of plane and solid geometry and trigonometry. Ability to apply concepts such as Page 102/10/1999 15:03 5013242090 LRSD HUMAN RESOURStS PAGE 03 fractions, percentages, ratios, and proportions to practical situations. REASONING ABILITY Ability to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Ability to interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagram form and deal with several abstract and concrete variables. PHYSICAL demands The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to talk or hear. WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perfoim the essential functions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet. Page 2Arkansas Democrat 7^(JjazcLk |  TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1998  Henderson principal named LR school district ombudsman BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAWJAZETTE James L. Washington, principal at Henderson Junior High School since September 1994, will become the Little Rock School District's ombudsman, a new position required by the districts recently revised desegregation plan. Superintendent Les Carnine said Monday that as an ombudsman, Washington will serve as an advocate for parents and students who have problems or conflicts with the school district. Much of the ombudsmans work is expected to be done on behalf of parents and students who want to appeal disciplinary  actions. A committee of parents and teachers will be formed soon to interview candidates for Hendersons principal. The schools enrollment is 603 this year, down from 724 ItJit year. The committees recommendations will be forwarded to the superintendent, who will endorse one candidate to the School Board. Carnine said he hopes to complete the selection process by the School Boards Dec. 17 meeting, and no later than early 1999, in time for student pre-registration for the next school year. It is during pre-registration, Jan. 25 to Feb. 5, that parents select the schools their children will attend in 1999-2000. Henderson is one of eight Little Rock junior highs that will become a middle school for grades six through eight. Because sixth- and seventh- graders will be new to Henderson next year. Gamine said parents from Hendersons feeder elementary schools will be included on the candidate screening committec. The primary feeders for Henderson are Terry, McDermott and Romine elementary schools in west Little Rock. Carnine said a new principal may assume duties at Henderson as soon as the second semester starts in January, but that will depend on the new persons current responsibilities. Washington will delay assuming his new job until the new principal can take over. Washington is a longtime district employee who has worked in the student assignment office and as assistant principal at Hall High. He has experience at both the elementary and secondary school levels. Carnine described the job change as a lateral move for Washington and said his salary will not change. The ombudsmans position will be included in the district's department of pupil serx'ices, headed by Jo Evelyn Elston. In addition to acting as a parent and student advocate, the ombudsman should ensure that students are aware of their rights in tile district and should investigate and resolve complaints of racebased mislreatiuent. The revised desegiegation plan was negotiated by representatives of the school district and tlie families of black students who intervened in the districts 1982 desegregation lawsuit.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 777 P02Z02 AUG 26 99 13:46 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, .Arkansas 72206 Telephont (501) 374-3755 RLX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH W.ASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. August 26,1999 Via Fax Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: So that there will be no possibility of misunderstanding about the duties of the ombudsperson for the next school year I respectfully request a meeting with your top level administrative staff regardmg tlie subject including his budget, his relationship to other administrators and to Joshua and his reponing responsibilities. I request that you be in this meeting along with Dr. Linda Watson. Mr. Junious Babbs, Dr. Marion Lacy, Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell. It is our view that the position was effectively diminished in status and responsibility when Mr, James Washington made the negative report regarding Ms. Gayle Bradfords administration and treatment of black students. It is clear by his retraction letter that he was taking orders from higher * 11wlMwiO XlViil iXl^XXwX authority' and that he is not in a favored position in this district by the nature of the expectations of his job. I believe that it is important that he directly report to you, Dr. Carnine, rather than to Mr. Babbs, and that his work be as required by the plan. He is not an agent of the district per se\nrather, he is an agent of justice and fairness for the students, as you are, and he is paid by the district. He is an extension of you. This inquiry will also delve into the responsibility for the assistant superintendent for the district because his duties are also unclear. I suggest that we meet on September 8,1999 at 10:00 a.m. for a meeting that I expect to last between one and two hours. I also request that Mr. Chris Heller and Ms, Ann Brown be present along with Mr. James Washington. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, '. Walker JWW:lp To: James Washington Little Rock School District Fax Number: 5013242213 FAX BLAST TO ALL MEMBER OFFICES USOA FROM\nRuth Cooperrider Deputy and Legal Counsel, Iowa - Office of Citizens' Alde/Ombudsman Capitol Complex, 215 E. Seventh Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0231 Phone: 515-281-3592: Fax: 515-242-6007 E-mail\nrcooper@leqis.state.ig.us I am the USOA's representative to an Ombudsman Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) which has been working to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of ombudsman offices. (The latest USOA newsletter has an article about the Committee.) The Committee's work has focused on defining vrtio is an Ombudsman, including what are the essential characteristics of an Ornbudsman^The CdmwlgeeT8~gettingTdoaBTo~completing its-work on a-Resolution-and an accompanyjDg,.epoilthat-WiJI be submitted to the ABA'S House of Delegates. Action taken by the House of Delegates on these documents or issues becomes official ABA policy. The Resolution is attached. The full report is available at www.abanet.org/adminlaw/ombud^atlanta.html. The Committee is presently reviewing various concerns and issues, most of which relate to defining or describing \"independence and \"confidentiality\". These unfinished issues include: 1. Whether the Resolution by itself adequately set out the defining essential characteristics of an ombudsman. 2. should confidentiality be guaranteed in light of current requirements in laws on\nequal employment opportunity. Freedom of Information Act, archives and record-keeping requirements, anv other law or agency want to access the Ombudsman's confidential records? Relationships between the Ombudsman and the federal Inspector Generals\nwho has access to a) b) what between these two agencies. a) b) Placing the Ombudsman outside the entity under the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Is it appropriate for an ombudsman to investigate those who appoint, confirm or have power to remove the ombudsman? c) d) e) 0 Ombudsman's access to information What are the ombudsman's fair procedures? Providing the ombudsman with independent counsel. Broad versus narrow jurisdiction and comment ,eelMdocumansaep.abtein P-dsentingourp^ionto 1) Do you------ to the three fundamental charactenstics of an ombudsman: independence, neutrality/impartiaiity and confidentiality? feel the report adequately supports the definition in communicabng a definition which might 2) Do you form the basis of US law? it this coming month? I NEED YOUR COMMENTS BY OCTOBER 13, 1999, 6:00 P.M. CDT. If you think something in either the Resolution or Report needs to be revised, please be specific and if possible, provide the suggested language change. You may respond to me by e-mail, fax, or postal mail.DRAFT RECOMMENDATION OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTEE TO THE SECTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND REGULATORY PRACTICE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the use of ombudsmen in the public and private sectors and further recommends the following principles for the establishment of ombudsman offices, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that only those individuals meeting these principles may legitimately call themselves ombuds-men , n ombudsman is authorized by an entity to  (1) receive complaints and inquiries about, and to address, investigate, and examine alleged acts, omissions, improprieties, and systemic problems within the jurisdiction specified by the entity m the law or written policy establishing the ombudsman s office (2) exercise discretion to accept or decline to act on a complaint or inquiry (3) act on complaints and inquiries on the ombudsmans own initiative t J J via 1---- , 1  ul (4) operate by fair procedures to aid in the just resolution of a complaint or problem (5) resolve issues at the most appropriate level of the entity (6) function by such means as: (a) educating .  . , (b) developing, evaluating, and discussing options available to affected individuals (c) mediating (d) investigating (e) conducting an inquiry and report findings, and VC) WUUUVWUJ5 *A*i^v**x^ --------------------- 1 t V (f) making recommendations for the resolution of a complaint or problem to those persons who have the authority to act upon them. B. An ombudsman must be provided with these essential characteristics at a minimum to discharge the duties of the office effectively  (1) independence from control by any officer of the appointing entity or person who may be the subject of a complaint or inquiry in structure, function, and appearance (2) impartiality and neutrality, and (3) confidentiality. C. An ombudsman does not  (1) accept or provide notice to the entity of an alleged violation (2) make, change or set aside a law, policy or administrative decision (3) conduct an investigation that substitutes for determining rights in administrative or judicial proceedings (4) make binding decisions or determine rights, or (5) compel an entity or any person to implement the ombudsmans recommendations.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2213 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN Introduction Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Of Webster defines ombudsman as, \"...one who investigates complaints and assists in achieving fair settlements.\" The word itself is Scandinavian in origin and generally refers to someone who is a representative, agent, or authorized person who safeguards and serves the interest of a particular group. Today, the position of ombudsman in its various forms (client ombudsman and consumer ombudsman, for example) has the reputation as a fair-minded, neutral and powerful source of assistance to those coping with bureaucracy. Building trust and credibility is vital to the success of any business. Most of the time, problems and concerns are resolved through the normal chain of command. However, there are times when problems are not addressed in a satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, the problem does not disappear. It may grow until it contaminates the entire business relationship. Providing the services of an ombudsman to work with the people involved in the business can effectively demonstrate the commitment to everyone in a fair and equitable manner. Ombudsmen are institutions that are involved in doing impartial investigations of citizens' complaints. An ombudsman receives the complaint and then conducts a thorough and dispassionate investigation searching for points of law and proper procedure and questioning whether the district may have done an injustice to a citizen. At the conclusion of an investigation, the ombudsman makes a recommendation about how the case should be resolved. Although the ombudsman does not have the power to reverse decisions, he should use whatever political powers available to try to enforce the recommendations. The function may occasionally involve mediation. The mission of the organizational ombudsman is to provide a confidential, neutral and informal process which facilitates fair and equitable resolutions to concerns that arise in the organization. In performing this mission, the ombudsman serves as an information and communication resource, upward feedback channel, advisor, dispute resolution expert, and change agent. While serving in this role, the ombudsman should adhere to the following list knows as The Standards of Practice: 1. Adhere to The Ombudsman Association Code of Ethics. 2. Base the practice on confidentiality. 2.1 An ombudsman should not use the names of individuals without permission. Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 2 2.2 During the problem-solving process, the ombudsman may make known information as long as the identity of the individual contacting the office is not compromised, unless necessary. 2.3 Any data should be scrutinized carefully to safeguard the identity of each individual whose concerns are represented. 2.4 Publicity about the office conveys the confidential nature of the work of the ombudsman. 3. Assert that there is a privilege with respect to communications with the ombudsman and resist testifying in any formal process inside or outside the organization. 3.1 Communications between an ombudsman and others (made while the ombudsman is serving in that capacity) are considered privileged. Others cannot waive this privilege. 3.2 Do not serve in any additional function in the organization which would undermine . the privilege nature of our work (such as compliance of officer, arbitrator, etc.) 4. Exercise discretion whether to act upon a concern or an individual contacting the office. The ombudsman may initiate action on a problem he or she perceives directly 5. Are designated neutrals and remain independent of ordinary line and staff structures. No additional role (within the organization) which would compromise this neutrality. 5.1 The ombudsman strives for objectivity and impartiality. 5.2 The ombudsman has a responsibility to consider the concerns of all parties known to be involved in a dispute. 5.3 Do not serve as advocates for any person in a dispute within an organization\nhowever, do advocate for fair processes and their fair administration. 5.4 Help develop a range of responsibility options to resolve problems and facilitate discussion to identify the best options. When possible, help people develop new ways to solve problems themselves. 5.5 The ombudsman should exercise discretion before entering into any additional affiliations, roles or actions that may impact the neutrality of the function within the organization. 5.6 Do not make binding decisions, mandate policies or adjudicate issues for the organization.Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 3 6. 6.1 6.2 7. 8. 9. 10. Remain an informal and off-the-record resource. Formal investigations - for the purpose of adjudication - should be done by others. In the event that the ombudsman accepts a request to conduct a formal investigation, a memo should be written to file noting this action as an exception to the ombudsman role. Such investigations should not be considered privileged. Do not act as agent for the organization and do not accept notice on behalf of the organization. Do always refer individuals to the appropriate place where formal notice can be made. Individuals should not be required to meet with the ombudsman. Al! interactions with the ombudsman should be voluntary. Foster communication about the philosophy and function of the ombudsman's office with the people to be serviced. Provide feedback on trends, issues, policies and practices without breaching fidentiality or anonymity. Identify new problems and provide support for responsible systems change. con- Keep professionally current and competent by pursuing continuing education and training relevant to the ombudsman profession. Endeavor to be worthy of the trust placed in the ombudsman. Activities and Complaint Summaries: 1. The ombudsman was contacted by a LRSD parent whose child attended Crystal Hill in the PCSSD. Her complaint was that the child has numerous sanctions although he has been diagnosed with a handicap. The parent indicated that she told the school about the handicap. The school was contacted. The parent was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in the PCSSD and advised of her rights by the LRSD ombudsman. 2. 3. 4. 5. The ombudsman was contacted by grandparents seeking help with establishing guardianship while the parents moved to another city. The assignment office was contacted and the process was completed. The assignment office The ombudsman initiated the development of the LRSD Dropout Prevention Plan with assistance from the district's coordinator. A former student contacted the ombudsman for assistance in asking a school transfer so that he can continue his education to become a teacher. The visit to the admission officer was productive. Regular contact is maintained by phone. It was explained The parent of a student who had been recommended for expulsion during the previous school term contacted the ombudsman for reinstatement procedures, that the student was not eligible for reinstatement for one calendar year.Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 4 6. The parent of a Hall High School student contacted the ombudsman to discuss transfer options. The student was experiencing attendance problems. It was explained that his attendance records would transfer with him and that changing schools would not solve the problem. They were referred to the assistant principal to develop strategies to improve his attendance. 7. The parent of a Hall student contacted the ombudsman for assistance with ...e pu.ein or a nail siuaenT contacted the ombudsman for assistance with getting her son transferred to Central. The process was explained to the parent and she was referred to the Student Registration Office. 8. The ombudsman was contracted by a parent about a recent change in guardianship. As result of the change, the child has a new address that justifies a school change. process was explained and they were referred to the Student Registration Office. The 9. A Henderson parent contacted the ombudsman for information about the -------------- -------- ...u magnet program\nspecifically, the course differences between magnet and non-magnet students. I, , ...... Wfl IIWII JIUUCHI3. Her questions were answered and she was referred to the principai for more detailed information. 10. A Hall- parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about her son's grade change from A ZK A I I_b _ - - *__ I I  . fl. the last school term. Inquires were made and it was discovered that the grade should have been changed. The assistant superintendent was notified and the grade changed. was a The process 11. The ombudsman was contacted for assistance with respect to getting M-to-M transfers to Clinton elementary in the PCSSD and transportation for her grandchildren. was explained and she was referred to the Student Registration Office for service. 12. A parent contacted the ombudsman because she could not get a L children to Jefferson. The school was contacted and a stop was established. courtesy bus stop for her 13. The ombudsman was contacted with a complaint about not being assigned to the school of her choice, Rockefeller. The assignment process was explained and her questions Z* M fl zJ * answered. were 14. The parent of a Central student appealed the assignment because of problems with students charged with crimes in the community. Her request was denied. A meeting arranged with the principal and her fears were addressed. was 15. The ombudsman was contacted by the guardian of a octumy officer at Henderson had consensual sex during the 1997-98 school year. The officer was student who alleged that a security transferred to Fair. The student was seeking a transfer to Fair. The ombudsman met with the guardian and a meeting was scheduled with the authorities. The meeting did not take place. Instead, they took the student to school and alleged that he fathered her child DNA test results proved that he did not father the child. 16. The ombudsman initiated talks to re-establish the Future 500 scholarship program for African-American students in the LRSD. 17. Dr. Terrence Roberts met with the ombudsman to discuss the role of the ombudsman in the district.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN wi.5o, Fax: (501) 324-2213 wV A ~sasatesBt RSCS5VED Ombudsman's Monthly Report September 1999 JAN 2 i 2CC0 Introduction GiTiGSuF The ombudsman is a designated neutral or impartial dispute resolution practitioner whose major function is to provide confidential and informal assistance to students, parents, and administrators. When providing assistance, an ombudsman uses a variety of skills which include counseling, mediation^ information fact-finding, and upward feedback mechanisms that offer a range of options to those who contact the office. The ombudsman functions outside the ordinary line management structure and has access to anyone in the organization, including the superintendent. The ombudsman has a long and honorable tradition as the means of protecting against abuse, bias, and other improper treatment or unfairness. The LRSD ombudsman follows in this tradition by identifying and bringing forth such issues in a confidential and neutral environment. Guided by the requirement of terms of reference for the function, he also follows the code of ethics and standards of practice of the ombudsman's association. Activities/Summary of Complaints: 1. 2. 3. A parent contacted the ombudsman requesting information with respect to accessing the four-year-old program at Brady. The process was explained and the parent left satisfied. The parent of two students from McClellan contacted the ombudsman to discuss how she can get them into the ACC. They have had attendance problems and the mother wanted information about mentors, jobs, and work permits. The information was provided. The students decided to return to regular high school. A student and an adult met wit the ombudsman to discuss power-of-attorney documents and how it would impact the child. After the conference, they went to the Student Registration Office for the documents.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The ombudsman met with the principal at Wakefield to discuss a student who transferred to Franklin. She reported that they might be victims of abuse. The principal at Franklin was notified and SCAN was contacted. The parent of students who were retained contacted the ombudsman to complain that the retentions were not justified. The principal was contacted and their situation was explained. There was no substance to the complaint. The ombudsman communicated findings to parent. The parent of a McClellan student contacted the ombudsman about the Youth Challenge Program. The phone number and a contact person were given to the parent. She felt that the program is what her child should attend rather than high school because of discipline problems. The ombudsman was contacted by the grandparent/guardian of a student who had been placed in an alternative education setting. She had some fears that were based on hearsay. She also requested assistance in getting him a job. The ombudsman calmed her fears by scheduling a visit to the school with the parent. Applications were also provided. A parent phoned to obtain information about assignment patterns and .information about Parkview. The Director of Student Registration provided the information. The ombudsman assisted the parent in the analysis. 9. A Pulaski Heights Elementary School parent phoned to request assistance in getting reimbursed for the student's electronic device that was confiscated .and then lost by school staff. She also complained about the lack of  supervision while students wait for the bus after school. The ombudsman served as mediator and assisted in accomplishing resolution. 10. The parent of a Henderson student phoned to complain about the process for assigning students to the magnet program. The ombudsman explained the process and recommended the parent visit with the principal and/or his designee for clarity and additional information. 11. The ombudsman made a follow-up phone call to the parent who requested Youth Challenge information. The student decided to remain in public school. 12. A parent asked for assistance in getting his child's bus stop moved to a corner closer to his home. The walk was acceptable. The Director of Transportation was contacted with the appropriate forms signed by the parent. He explained the situation. The parent was not satisfied.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 3 13. Two parents with children at Southwest complained about he assistant principal, teachers, and staff. Several meetings using \"shuffle diplomacy\" took place before both sides were asked to sit at the same table. Resolution was achieved. They withdrew their requests for M-to-M transfers. 14. A parent phoned to complain about the lack of books at Southwest. She also complained about the negative school atmosphere. The ombudsman visited with the principal and the school regularly. He immediately addressed the book issue. The ombudsman found no substance to the complain about the atmosphere. 15. The parent of children who transferred from Watson to Terry phoned the ombudsman for help with the bus stop. After completing the appropriate form, by phone, the stop was changed to an acceptable distance from the new address. 16. A parent from the Pulaski County School District phoned for assistance. After hearing his story, the parent was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in the PCSSD. 17. The parent of a student at Southwest who wanted to challenge his son's eligibility status for athletics because there was no written policy contacted the ombudsman. The student was eligible by AAA rules. There were several meetings between the parent and school administration. The students status did not change inspite of his circumstances. 18. The parent of a student at Henderson contacted the ombudsman because the child could not afford an instrument to play in the school band. The principal was contacted and offered recommendations to assist the parent. The student got the instrument. 19. The ombudsman was contacted by the parents of a student at McClellan who had been charged with disorderly contact at school. She was referred to Juvenile Court. The ombudsman went to the court on behalf of the student. The court ordered mediation and she was given probation. 20. A student at Washington was charged with possession of a weapon at school. The parent contacted the ombudsman for assistance. After attending the conference with the principal, the process was explained to the parent and student. The parent believed the process to be fair.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 4 21. The parent of a student at Central contacted the ombudsman about problems his child was experiencing at school. It was recommended that he contact the principal for assistance. 22. A grandparent of a Southwest student contacted the ombudsman because she believed that her child's bus stop was near the home of a known sex offender. The address and identity were confirmed by the ombudsman. The parent and ombudsman contacted Safety and Security then met with the principal. The stop was changed. 23. The parent of a Fair High School student contacted the ombudsman for help with her child who often leaves the campus without permission. She reported that the administration at school have been contacted and are aware of his behavior. She was referred to the juvenile authorities for FINS petition. 24. A parent at Henderson phoned for information about a school transfer because she was unhappy with the assignment. There were no other problems. She was encouraged to get involved with the school through the PTA and perhaps volunteer her time. Active participation will resolve any issues, concerns, or hearsay about the program. 25. The parent who wanted a bus stop moved visited the ombudsman for more information about the process for changing stops. His questions were answered. 26. A parent from the Pulaski County School District phoned about her child's problems. She was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in  her home district. 27. There was a follow-up phone call to the parent of the Southwest student whose stop was near the residence of a known sex offender. She reported no problems. 28. The parent of a student at Western Hills contacted the ombudsman's office for help in getting her child's bus stop moved closer to her home. It was explained that she lives within the two-mile radius and that stops provided are courtesy stops. The ombudsman contacted Laidlaw but the stop was not changed. 29. The parent of a student to soon be released from a center for troubled youth contacted the ombudsman for information. Her questions were answered and she was referred to her home school principal prior to placement to explain her situation.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 5 30. The lead counsel for Joshua was visited to discuss several complaints received by his office. They were noted. 31. The ombudsman appeared in court to testify on behalf of a student from Fair charged with disorderly contact. The student was placed on probation. 32. A community activist contacted the ombudsman with quotations about the job and the Joshua's role in the desegregation case. The role of the ombudsman was explained. Questions about Joshua were referred to the associate superintendent. 33. A parent from Mann contacted the ombudsman to complain about her daughter not being eligible to play football. The athletic director and AAA were contacted and the rules and rationale were explained to the parent. 34. A group of Parkview parents contacted the ombudsman for clarity with respect to working concessions at Quigley. The issue was who would collect . the receipts. They alleged that the athletic director told them that he would be responsible for their receipts. The athletic director was contacted and he met with the group to explain the process. 35. The parent of a student from Fair contacted the ombudsman to request assistance in getting a school transfer as the result of a fight her daughter had with other students. The assistant principal was contacted and he addressed the situation to the satisfaction of the parent. 36. The father of a King student contacted the ombudsman to ensure that the  school followed due process, suspension for threatening compromised. His son had been recommended for long-term another student. Due process was not 37. The ombudsman spoke at September. four PTA meetings during the month ofLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2213 JAMES L WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN 'p Ombudsman's Monthly Report October 1999 JAN OfflCECF Introduction OESEGREttATiOJi MONITGRiNG The Office of the Ombudsman was established during the 1998-99 school term. He receives inquires and'complaints about the practices and services provided by the district. The ombudsman can investigate to determine if the district is being fair to the people it serves. The ombudsman is:  independent  responsible for making sure that practices and services of the district are fair, reasonable, appropriate and equitable  an officer of the district  able to conduct confidential investigations that are non-threatening and protect complainants against retribution  required to file regular reports The ombudsman is not:  an advocate for people  a defender of the actions of the district Who can complain? A student with parental participation, a teacher, and administrator, or anyone who feels that there has been unfair treatment that the ombudsman is authorized to investigate. Ombudsman Monthly Report October 1999 Page 2 What can the ombudsman do?  Advise you about what steps to take with the district  Refer you to available remedies.  Investigate your complaint.  Talk to anyone and see any documents or evidence a district staff member has in his/her possession.  Recommend that the district change a policy, practice, process, or guideline to make it fair.  Mediate a settlement or recommend a resolution. What can the ombudsman not do?  Make decisions for the district or reverse decisions it has made.  Reverse decisions of appeals. What can be investigated? A complaint that a decision\n Is unjust or oppressive  Discriminates against a person or group  Is unreasonable or arbitrary  Is based on wrong or irrelevant facts  Is based on the wrong interpretation of the policy. A complaint that an act:  Is done for an improper purpose  Is done negligently  Is done without adequate reasons. A complaint that a decision or act is unreasonably delayed. When you call the public body:  Have your questions and important facts ready.  Find out why and how the district made its decision  Make notes of your calls and the answers to your questions.  Ask about any review or appeal process you are entitled to.Ombudsman Monthly Report October 1999 Page 3 Complaint Summaries/Activities 1. The ombudsman transported a student to job interviews - Skate City and Schickel's Cleaners. His family is in great need of assistance. Social agency referrals were made. 2. A parent phoned to complain about an assistant principal's decision to suspend her from performing because of a fight she had before a football game. The process was fair and followed due process guidelines that were communicated to parent. 3. A parent contacted the ombudsman about his son who is in rehab for substance abuse. He is a former student from Hall. The young man was contacted and has regular meetings with the ombudsman as follow up. 4. The ombudsman met at McClellan with the Principal's Club as part of the intervention strategies for black males who are at-risk. Student rights were the topic of discussion. 5. A report was made at the monthly Biracial Committee meeting outlining the number of black and white families who have received services through the ombudsman's office. 6. A parent complaint about the principal's failure to follow due process when her daughter was suspended from McDermott. There was no substance to ' the complaint. The process was explained to the parent. 7. A Badgett parent and principal contacted the ombudsman's office to discuss the behavior problems of the male student. The ombudsman facilitated a meeting that led to an assessment conference for placement. 8. The ombudsman went to the home of a community activist to collect documents that she alleged are issues that the lead counsel for the Joshua Intervenors do not address. The documents were given to the lead counsel. The ombudsman does not engage in this type of activity. 9. The ombudsman made a home visit to assist the family with transportation. The student's brothers have been charged in a high profile murder case. He has been the victim of harassment. Discussed behavior alternatives to fighting.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - October 1999 Page 4 10. There was a follow-up visit at Badgett with the principal and the parents of the male student experiencing behavior problems to discuss sanctions. Original recommendation was modified, 11. The ombudsman arranged a meeting with the Director of the Division of Exceptional Student and the parent of a wheelchair bound student at Hall to discuss concerns about accessibility and participation. Concerns were noted. Plan of action developed. 12. Another meeting took place at Badgett involving the principal, counselor, teacher, and parent of the male student with behavior problems. The agreement was to initiate screening process. 13. The ombudsman, in his role as dropout prevention coordinator, provided training for teacher at Mann. 14. A parent contacted the ombudsman to discuss transfer options from area magnet (Washington) to King. Her options and process were explained. 15. The parent representative for a crossing guard at Meadowcliff was contacted with update on progress. The city is still trying to budget the money for the position. 16. A parent with a child receiving services at Southwest phoned to discuss her child's handicap. Charges are pending. The ombudsman explained how the conference should proceed and discussed the student's rights. 17. The ombudsman was contacted for additional assistance with having a courtesy bus stop added for her child at King. 18. An investigation was requested into the assignment process at Parkview. The allegations stated that preference was given to athletes and to students whose parents have influence. There was no evidence to support the complaint. 19. A foster parent contacted the ombudsman to assist in the reinstatement process. Agency representative met with the ombudsman and student. The process was discussed. The two were accompanied to the Alternative School and the student was permitted to re-enroll.James Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 5 20. The parent of the child confined to a wheelchair at Hall was contacted with a progress report with respect to the school's efforts to accommodate her child. 21. The ombudsman held a group meeting for the \"Badgett Bunch.\" Appropriate behavior was the topic of discussion. 22. A Fair High School student was charge with disorderly conduct by the school's resource officer. The student has a handicap. The procedures wcr explained to the student and parent with respect to the school's procedures and those of the police officer. were 23. The parent representative from Meadowcliff contacted the ombudsman for an update with respect to the crossing guard. Still no word from City Hall. 24. A meeting was held with the parent of the student confined to a wheelchair at Hall for input into the accessibility issues that include getting on the stage for performances, drop-off and pickup area, and student parking. 25. A parent who lives within mile of Wakefield phoned for a courtesy stoo The ombudsman contacted Laidlaw with alternative routes and drove several routes from the home to the school. We were unable to assist the child within the guidelines of the transportation department. 26. There was a visit to the home of the Fair High School student with the disorderly conduct charge. A conference was held with the parent and student to discuss legal options and a plan of action in Municipal Court. 27. A parent (grandparent) contacted the ombudsman about an incident involving a staff person at Rockefeller's two years ago. The claim is that the ' ---------J J uy Vt J I IC CIO II i I Io LI IClL I child suffers emotionally as a result. The grandparent would like to know the outcome. 28. The principal at Central was notified of the pending investigation of the Mock Trial Team composition and selection process. 29. The Watershed Project was visited to get some cloths for a student in need at the Alternative School.James Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 6 30. The Fair High School student with a disorderly conduct charge was contacted at home for her court appearance. He did not show for the meeting or court. 31. There was a visit to the Juvenile Court on behalf of the Southwest student with a disorderly conduct charge pending. The objective was to have the case moved to the court of a sympathetic judge. Plan was good and it worked. 32. 33. 34. A parent of a Rockefeller student complained about the fairness of her sanction for allegedly making a derogatory statement about a teacher. There was a meeting with the principal, assistant principal, counselor,'and teachers. The issue was resolved. Counseling will be provided if needed. A parent phoned about her son's sanction at Dunbar. The school did not violate due process procedures. This was communicated to the parent. A student was taken home from the Alternative School to avoid disruption. The parent and the ombudsman spoke with the child to calm him down. 35. The ombudsman served as an advocate during an EMT meeting for the student charged with disorderly conduct. The decision was to modify his sanction because there was a relationship between his behavior and his handicap. 36. The ombudsman met with the grandparent with concerns about the treatment of her grandson received at Rockefeller. Her issues were forward to the appropriate administrator who reported that he would meet with grandparent to answer her questions. 37. The ombudsman went to Municipal Court on behalf of the Fair student charged with disorderly conduct, the student failed to appear. A warrant was issued but it was explained that the charge would be dropped if the ombudsman can produce documentation about his being hospitalized. There was an effort to get those documents from the hospital. 38. The ombudsman visited the principal at Romine to clarify his role and answer questions. toJames Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 7 39. The ombudsman went to Rockefeller to interview a student, at the parents request, about alleged mistreatment. The allegation was exaggerated. The situation was resolved. 40. A parent phoned to express her concern about the way her daughter was being treated at Henderson by a teacher. The principal was contacted and he addressed the concerns. 41. There was another visit to the hospital in an attempt to get documentation for the courts. Then, he went to the court to explain the student's status. 42. The ombudsman visited the home of the Wakefield student who lives in the walk zone in an attempt to find an acceptable route to walk. The route was established and the parent agreed. 43. There was a conference at the office of the lead counsel for Joshua to discuss several complaints received at his office. They were discussed and guidance for resolution was offered by the ombudsman. 44. there was a meeting at Rockefeller with the parent, administrators, counselor and teachers to resolve a dispute about alleged mistreatment and to address the child's potential problems. 45. The ombudsman met with the administrator responsible for transportation at . King to review the route sheets for a possible stop added for students who live within the walk zone. A stop was recommended. 46.The ombudsman met with the \"Badgett Bunch\" to work through some issues regarding their behavior. 47. A parent phoned to complain about her son's sanction after he made threat. There was a misunderstanding about the laws. The principal and parent came to an understanding. 48. The ombudsman met with the parent whose child faces disorderly conduct charged at Southwest to discuss a resolution. 49.There was an evaluation team meeting at Badgett for a student who may be eligible to receive additional services.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN /J14. Fax: (501) 324-2213 cBIVso Introduction Ombudsman's Monthly Report - November 1999 -'ji\nUiiia ^tpigS^ JAN 2 i The ombudsman has the discretion to initiate action without waiting to receive a complaint or inquiry. The ombudsman also determines whether to accept or to act on a particular complaint or inquiry. This process is in contrast to the processes of the judiciary, mediators, or arbitrators. The ombudsman may determine that the complaint is without merit. Or, the ombudsman may receive a complaint or inquiry on a specific topic and conduct the inquiry on a broader or different.scope. The ombudsman may need access to all information relevant to a complaint or an inquiry so that the review is fair and credible. The ombudsman may make a formal or informal report of results and recommendations resulting from a review or investigation, in which case the ombudsman should:  consult with an individual or group prior to issuing a report critical of that individual or group, and will include their comments with the report\n 'communicate the outcome, conclusion or resolution of a complaint or an inquiry to the complainant and may also communicate with other concerned entities or individuals. The ombudsman uses the power of reason and persuasion to help resolve matters. Finally, the goal of the ombudsman's efforts is to provide an internal path to fairness and justice. Therefore, the ombudsman's quest is to seek the fair and just resolution of the matter undertaken.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - November 1999 Page 2 Complaint Summaries/Activities 1. 2. 3. On November 3\"*, the ombudsman received a complaint about the mock trial team at Central. The complaint was that the selection process favored white students whose parents work as lawyers, judges, etc. The principal acknowledged that the need to increase participation among black students exists. The school is developing strategies for improvement. Assistance is available from the Office of the Ombudsman. Jefferson Elementary has a no canned soda rule for lunch. A parent complained that the rule is not enforced for white students. The school was contacted. The rule is written in the school's handbook. The ombudsman visited the school and did not observe white students with canned sodas. The ombudsman visited the principal at Otter Creek Elementary to explain his role and to answer questions. 4. The ombudsman visited the principal at Geyer Springs Elementary to explain his role and to answer questions. 5. The ombudsman met with the principal and assistant principal at Southwest to follow-up with a handicapped student. There were several incidents reported about his behavior in the self-contained class. 6., There was a complaint reported by a parent at Bale Elementary. The parent reported that there was a serious incident and that a man that she did not know interviewed her daughter and that she was not notified. Because the incident involved a white student, she believed that the school attempting to cover the issue up. was The ombudsman discovered that the school followed the proper procedures. The mother was satisfied with the response. The principal had no knowledge of the incident. Efforts will be made to ensure parental notification in the future.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 3 7. 8. 9. An ongoing dispute between Hall High School and a parent with a child who is confined to a wheelchair resulted in another meeting to discuss the school's efforts to comply with federal regulations. Progress has been made. It is anticipated that we will have addressed all of her issues by December 16. The grandparent of a former student has requested answers to an incident at Rockefeller involving her grandson and a food service worker. There was also an incident at Fair Park (all during the 1997-98 school year). Her request (written) was given to the Director of Labor Relations. No response as of today's date.  A parent complained about the lack of awards presented to black children in her son's class at Otter Creek Elementary. The principal was contacted and as a result of the conference, the parent was satisfied. 10. A Mabelvale Elementary School parent complained about the a appropriateness of halloween decorations in the schools. Some have frightened her child. The principal was contacted and the decorations in question were removed. The parent then complained about her perceived lack of concerns on the part of the school when her child was held out of school for ten consecutive days. It was the mother's decision not to send her child to school. She declined an offer to meet with the principal and the ombudsman for resolution. 11. The principal at Dunbar was visited to discuss the ombudsman's role and to answer questions. 12. The principal at Mabelvale Middle was visited to discuss a complaint about an assistant principal's alleged mistreatment of a student. The complaint had no substance. 13. A student was interviewed in response to his mother's complaint that his trial team supervising teacher made threatening remarks about whether he should attend band practice or team practice.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 4 14. The lead counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was consulted about several calls. The ombudsman spoke with a parent about an issue at Romine. A meeting was scheduled with the principal. The principal was visited to discuss the complaint. The parent failed to attend the meeting. 15. The ombudsman had a session with the \"Badgett Bunch\" to discuss strategies to improve their reading skills. Activities were scheduled. 16. 17. 18. A parent phoned with questions about the magnet school assignment process. The ombudsman met with a representative from the Office of Civil Rights to discuss the job and activities. A parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about the lack of written guidelines that govern middle school athletics. He threatened to seek an injunction because his 6^ grade son was not permitted to participate in varsity athletics. He was told written guidelines exist. The athletic , director was contacted to respond to his specific concerns. 19. The aunt of a Henderson student phoned to express concerns about the principal's decision to change her class from regular to Pre-AP after a personal dispute with the teacher. The student was not able to achieve. The ombudsman intervened and the issues were resolved. She returned to . the regular class. 20. The \"Badgett Bunch\" was visited to discuss behavior issues at the school. 21. A parent phoned to complaint that due process was not followed when her child was suspended. The ombudsman reviewed the case and found no substance to the complaint.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 5 22. The ombudsman contacted the Juvenile Court on behalf of a Southwest student with psychological and physical handicaps after he was charged by the school's Resource Officer. He was able to negotiate for mediation in lieu of a charge. The mediation was successful. No court charges were filed. 23. The principal at Bale was contacted about procedures ensuring parental notification when students are interviewed in her absence. 24. There was an lEP team meeting at Southwest for a student. The ombudsman served as an advocate for the fairness of the process. 25. There was a complaint from the guardian of a Western Hills student alleging that the teacher did not properly notify her about her child's decline in achievement at a meeting two weeks prior to interim reports. She also alleged that the teacher displayed inappropriate behavior in the classroom, ' and is guilty of making comments to her child that enforced her feelings about the teacher not liking her. The investigation confirmed the lack of notification. Other recommendations were made to resolve the issues. The school accepted the recommendations and they were implemented. Several meetings were required to resolve the issues. 26. The parent of a child confined to a wheelchair at Hall met with the Director of Plant Services for the purpose of resolving the parent's concerns. Resolution was achieved. 27. The ombudsman answered questions of concern at the NAACP meeting on November 13. Care was taken to ensure that only public known information was given. Confidentiality was maintained. 28. A parent phoned for information about transfer options.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 6 29. The parents of a Dodd elementary student phoned to complain about the poor relationship between the home and their child's resource teacher. They also believe that the school and a staff member of the Division of Exceptional Children failed to act in their best interest. Several meetings were held and as a result, an acceptable recommendation was implemented. 30. A patron phoned for information about referral options to several social agencies for help with a foster child in our district. 31. The grandparents of a Western Hills student called to complain about letters being given to the parents of students asking for their written support to the ombudsman. As a result, their child has become the victim of harassment and threats of violence. An acceptable recommendation was implemented after the investigation. 3'2. The ombudsman volunteered to read at Terry Elementary School. Two books were read - wanted to start on No. 3. Ran out of time. 33. The ombudsman interviewed staff members with allegations of mistreatment of CBI students. The principal was present and contacted proper administrators and agencies. The teacher and staff members were interviewed by the principal and she outlined appropriate behavior. She reported that she will monitor the situation. 34. The ombudsman visited Hall to discuss the parking areas for busses with students confined to wheelchairs in response to a complaint about the inaccessibility. Parking for the handicapped was also reported to be inadequate. The complaints were found to be substantiated. The principal in cooperation with the Director of Plant Services initiated the proper correctives.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 7 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. The ombudsman met with the principal to follow-up on the allegation of mistreatment of CBI students at Forest Heights. The ombudsman attempted to attend the Senate Interim Committee on Education. District responsibilities took priority - late for meeting. The ombudsman participated in the court-ordered mediation between the resource officer at Southwest and a student with multiple handicaps. There was an incident at the end of the session that motivated the ombudsman to make a change in placement recommendation for the student. The recommendation was approved. The ombudsman met with the grandparents of the Western Hills child to discuss the final report of his investigation. The ombudsman made follow-up visits to Southwest and Dodd. A guardian contacted the ombudsman for an answer to her request for information about her grandson. A parent phoned for information about transfer options. The ombudsman attended an intervention activity for black male students at McClellan. The ombudsman met with Western Hills grandparents to implement transfer process as a result of problems at school, note investigation There were complaints received about a McClellan teacher's use of a racial slur. Complainants were interviewed. The complaints were substantiated. Recommendations were given to the principal. 45. The school security officer at McClellan was consulted about gang note delivered to a student that may cause unrest among students. 46. A parent phoned to follow up on her complaint about due process at Otter Creek with respect to her daughter's suspension.James Washington Month Report - November 1999 Page 8 47. The aunt of a Henderson student filed a complaint about a personal conflict between the child's teacher, the parent, and herself. It was noted and communicated that the situation had been addressed. 48. 49. 50. 51. A staff member phoned regarding an expulsion recommendation for student at Metropolitan for assistance. Due process was followed. a There was a teem meeting for a Southwest student for a change in placement. The change was approved. There was a meeting to finalize the transfer process for a Western Hills student. Parents were accompanied to transfer school to assist in the enrollment. The principal at Bale requested assistance with a parent who had failed to cooperate in an effort to have her child assessed for resource assistance. The parent agreed to proceed. 52. A parent phoned for transfer assistance for his son from Mitchell. He alleges that the school has not responded to his request for help in stopping boys from fighting his son. The principal was contacted and supported the transfer request. The request was granted as a result of the ombudsman's support. 53. A copy of an investigation request was received from the Joshua's lead counsel. It was reported to the ombudsman by an associate superintendent that the incident had been reported to the proper authorities. 54. A complaint was given to the ombudsman by a guardian who wanted the bus stop changed to the front of her home. The process was explained. The parent accepted the information. 55. Laidlaw was contacted about a complaint stating that a bus is late more often than not.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2032 JAMES L WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN \u0026lt;Otpig^ Introduction Ombudsman's Monthly Report December 1999 RECEIVED a JAi4 212080 The Essential Characteristics of the Ombudsman OfflCECF OESKREGATiQN MONITORING The original 1969 American Bar Association resolution contained characteristics there were deemed essential for the ombudsman. 12 These characteristics have been distilled here and applied. The core qualities are independence, impartiality and neutrality, and confidentiality. The characteristics are:  Functional autonomous  Operationally independent from administrative branch  Legally established  Investigative specialist  Administrative expert  Non-partisan   Client centered, not anti-administration  Accessible and visible  High status  Serves everyone Summary of Complaints and Activities: 1. The ombudsman received an anonymous complaint about the alternative room teacher at Brady. According to the complainant, some staff report that he is guilty of mistreating the children. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that there was no substance to the complaint. 2. A parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about his son's grade depending on the class fundraiser. The principal was contacted. There was no evidence to support the allegation.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 2 3. The ombudsman was contacted on behalf of the parent of a student at Mann who had been charged with possession of a weapon on school property. He wanted to ensure that the process was followed. The administration was contacted and the case was reviewed. Due process was followed. 4. The guardian of a foster child contacted the ombudsman for payment assistance. DHS was contacted and visited on 3 occasions. The foster parent received her payment. 5. The aunt of a student at Rightsell phoned to complaint about an alleged comment made by the principal. The aunt was offended by the racial overtone of the comment. The principal was contacted and she explained that the comment was not spoken as explained by the aunt. The aunt refused to meet with the ombudsman and principal to mediate the dispute. 6s There was an EMT meeting at Badgett for a student experiencing behavior problems. The parent asked the ombudsman to serve as an advocate. 7. The ombudsman was contacted to assist the parents of a Dunbar student who had been recommended for long-term suspension for use of profanity directed at staff. The disciplinary recommendation was modified because of a mistake in the due process. 8. The parent of a Southwest student contacted the ombudsman to complain about the alleged mistreatment of the student during the process when her child was recommended for a long-term suspension. The school was contacted and it was confirmed that she was not mistreated. The ombudsman explained the process. The school modified the suspension and the child returned. 9. The ombudsman accompanied the student from Hall and his parent to the interview for a placement at the ACC. Questions were answered and circumstances were explained. He was admitted to the program. 10. The ombudsman attended a meeting at Mitchell to offer his services during their efforts to keep the school open. A brief presentation was made. 11. There was a follow-up meeting with the former Hall student to monitor his progress.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 3 12. A parent phoned to complain about cruel and unusual punishment at the Step-One Alternative School. The principal was contacted and steps were taken to ensure that there would not be a repeat of the incident. 13. The principal at Romine was visited to follow-up with a complaint from the previous month. Things are in order. 14. The employer of two students involved in a car accident was contacted and the situation was explained. Rather than terminate the students they were placed back on the payroll. 15. The ombudsman was inaccurate in a letter mailed to a parent explaining the outcome of a recent inquiry. Accurate information was forwarded to the parent after a conference with the principal. 16. There was a meeting at Dodd to review the findings of a recent inquiry. Present were the teacher and principal. 17. The ombudsman provided information about school ID pictures to a parent in heed for her child to get a job. 18. The parent of a Forest Heights student complained about unfair treatment. The parent reported that her child was punished for his role in a fight but nothing happened to the other students. The allegation was false. A behavior manifestation meeting has been scheduled for her child. 19. The principal at McDermott met with the ombudsman to discuss mentoring five of her male students who were having behavior problems at school. There are no males in their lives and she believes the ombudsman can fill a void that could result in an improvement. 20. The ombudsman met with parents at Badgett and then with the principal in an attempt to have them come together and discuss their issues. 21. An administrator at Hall asked the ombudsman to provide assistance for a student and parent who would like to attend the ACC. The director was contacted to schedule a meeting after the holidays.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 3 22. The counselor at Badgett was contacted to discuss the progress of the \"Badgett Bunch.\" 23. The ombudsman met with the parent at Hall for an on-site visit to verify accessibility for her child in a wheelchair. 24. The principal at Badgett was met to discuss the issues and a complaint from the parents of one of her students. 25. The ombudsman investigated a complaint that alleged that the counselor at Badgett choked a student. 26. The \"Badgett Bunch\" met with the ombudsman to follow-up on reading strategies and behavior goals.JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON XLARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Deceived FEB 2 2 2000 OfflCECi- DBffiRE6AWHOSgJS Via Facsimile - 324-2281 February 18, 2000 Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Babbs: J I have spoken with ?vlr. Billy Bowles of the Pulaski County Special School District and he has informed me that you all will be meeting sometime early next week to discuss whether Mr. James Washington may enter the Pulaski County School District to address complaints by m to m students from Little Rock. I also gleam from your letter to Mr. Walker dated February 17, 2000 that at this meeting you will be discussing the procedure for Mr. James Washington, the Little Rock ombudsman, to enter a PCCSD school. Mr. Bowles assured me that as it now stands, Mr. Washington can come to any Pulaski County school as a parent advocate if the parent so chooses him to do so. He further indicated, however, that Nir. Washington can not come into the Pulaski County as a Little Rock School District representative or ombudsman. I do not understand the latter statement by Mr. Bowles given the previous statement. As I recall both Districts plans, there is nothing in either plan regarding this, nor do I believe that allowing Mr. Washington to investigate complaints by Little Rock parents of mistreat in the County is contrary to each Districts commitment to cooperation and collaboration with one another. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the results of your meeting. Sincerely, /O (^y C. Springer On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Billy Bowles Ms. Ann Brown Mr. James WashingtonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: icbabbs@.stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us February 28, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 2000 Mrs. Joy Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 OffICEOF iWBEGATlQN MONITORING Dear Ms. Springer: In an attempt to follow up on prior communication, Mr. Billy Bowles, PCSSD Associate Superintendent of Desegregation, and I met this afternoon to review procedures on investigation of complaints and/or alleged raced based mistreatment. Recognizing the role of Mr. Janies Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, it was agreed on that as students transfer between districts, appropriate policy is then enacted within the receiving district. While attempting to work cooperatively through issues that develop, I was assured of commitment toward prompt and fair resolution of complaints and/or instances of race based mistreatment. PCSSD policy was acknowledged that included resolution through appropriate staff, Mr. Bowles and/or respective PCSSD officials. Taking into account good faith, collaboration and cooperation with one another, we all share concerns of student mistreatment and will continuously work to remedy such instances that will help to assure fair treatment for ALL students. Sincerely, Jimious C. Babbs cc: Billy Bowles Ann Brown James Washington LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 Phone: (501)324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2260 a JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN I. Initial Callers Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 received SEP 6 2000 OfHCEOf oesesimojiiomG African/American Male 17 Female 153 White Male I 4 Other Male 1 Anonymous Female 4 Female 30 Male 0 Female 0 Out of District 10 Percentage of Callers by Race/Gender 80% 7 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 70% 2% 0/Vrican/Mierican Male  African/American Female  White Male  White Female  Other Male 14% E1 Other Female  Anonymous Male 0% 0% 0% 2% 5%  Anonymous Female  Out-of-District 1 Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 2 IL Information/Assistance Academics Agency Referrals Athletics Attendance Co-curricular Desegregation Case Discipline Extracurricular Guardianship Juvenile Court Magnet Program PCSSD Runaway Child Safety School Assignment/ Transfer Special Education Transportation 8 5 1 1 1 1 17 0 2 2 1 2 1 5 41 12 10 45 40 B Academics a Agency Referrals 35 30 5i5\u0026gt;J \\ 4 Tjl- 'V'''\" \"'  '................  .  Athletics  AtterxJance' 25 20 15 10 5 0 a Co-curricLdar M- B Desegregation Case w .X V-'X'sfcJ. -:,\nJ a Discipline j\u0026lt;HsS^Sw?WS i' SSj SB5 ' J'  Bctracurricular sa a Guardianship a Juvenile Court W1 . ______\n__i ,J 5*^ feij^A'eV^  Magnet R-ogram  PCSSD a Runaway Child  Safety  School Assignment/Transfer B Specal Education 1 a TransportationOmbudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 3 III. Complaints Substantiated Unsubstantiated 30 T 25 20 15 10 5 0 Academics Agency Referrals Athletics Co-curricular Discipline Extracurricular Guardianship Race Religion Safety School Assignment/ Transfer School Climate School Rules Special Education Staff Conduct Transportation Totals Elaine, AR -2 Hot Springs, AR - 2 PCSSD z 43^ z ja -6 1 0 2 1 5 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 9 13 1 43 3 1 6 4 24 0 66 j a Substantiated\na Unsubstantiated 4 z Z X s X*  z \u0026lt;3^ 5P' o'- O' 0 Z z .8^Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 4 IV. Personnel Categories Principal Black Male 8 Black Female 8 White Male 4 White Female 14 Teacher Black Male 9 Black Female 8 White Male 2 White Female 12 StefL(Custodian, Secretary, Security Officer, etc.) Black Male 1 Black Female 2 White Male 0 White Female 0 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 *\u0026lt;v iii- L Black Male A 4s Black White Male Female 1 White Female E3 Principal  Teacher  Other StaffOmbudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 5 VIL Activities Agency Referrals Biracial Committee Circuit Court City Hall Conventions (National Ombudsman) Dropout Prevention Dr. Terrence Roberts Faculty Meetings Future 500 Scholarship Program Hearings Home Visits Intervention Activities Job Corps Advisory Board Joshua Intervenors Juvenile Court LULAC Mediation Meeting with Mitchell Parents Meetings with Principals Meetings/School Tours - Dir. Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission Municipal Court NAACP ODM Office of Civil Rights (Visit) Parent Conferences PCSSD PTA Meetings 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 6 11 2 16 7 3 7 1 83 3 4 4 3 1 243 3 4Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 6 School Conferences (Parents \u0026amp; Staff) Senate Interim Committee Shadowing Experience Special Education Meetings Transported Students to Find Job Watershed Project 11 1 1 13 2 4\\ I Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 7 f/ a Agency Referrals  Circuit Court a Conventions (National Ombudsman) a Or. Terrence Roberts a Future 500 Scholarship R'ogram  Home Visits a Job Corps Advisory Board a Juvenile Court a Mediation  Meetings w/R'incipals  Municipal Court  OOM a Parent Conferences  PTA Meetings a Senate Interim Committee a Special Education Meetings a Watershed Project a BIracial Committee  City Hall  Dropout R-evention  Faculty Meetings a Hearings a Internvention Activities a Joshua Intervenors BLULAC  Meetings w /Mtchell Parents  Meetings/School Tours - Dir. Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission  NAACP  Office of Civil Rights aPCSSD  School Conferences (Parents \u0026amp; Staff) a Shadow Ing Experience  Transported Students to Find Jobs5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 434 16:38 /r/t JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 3, 2000 OCT 3 . 2000 Dr Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 CffICEOF DESEBMlOfl MONITORINS Re: LRSD Ombudsperson - Section 2.5.3 of Revised Desegregation Plan Dear Dr Carnine: I am writing on behalf of all parents in the District who seek to obtain the services of the Districts ombudsman. This office has received at least two complaints in the last two weeks from parents stating that school district officials have refused to provide the ombudsman information necessary for him to investigate their respective complaints. Your revised plan contemplates that district officials would give full cooperation to the ombudsman to ensure equitable solutions to student and parent complaints. May I suggest that you and/or Mr. Babbs have a conference with Mr. Washington to determine whether he believes that he has had the full cooperation of district administrators in the last several weeks regarding his investigations. May 1 also suggest that he identify specific instances whereby he believes that he did not have the full cooperation of your staff persons. If asked to do so, 1 will be happy to share the instances that I am aware of. By copy of this letter to Mr. Washington, I am requesting that he share a copy of his job description with this office including any other administrative directives, district polices and procedures which guide him in the performance of his duties as ombudsman. Since 1 am charged with monitoring the Districts good faith plan implementation of its revised plan, would please share with this office all documentation which supports the premise that Mr Washington has the full cooperation of your staff when investigating student and parent complaints. Thank you for your cooperation.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 434 P03/03 OCT 03 00 16:39 merely, Springer On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc\nMr. James Washington Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Gus Taylor 10/06/2000 16:44 501-324-2281 LRSD SRO RASE 01/01/ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT October 5, 2000 Mrs. Joy Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Springer: complaintsthadisWaoffi'XlsSto^Melh^Omtud *regarding attempt to assist a parent to view th*, ci does reflect a void resulting ir a parent to view the students Individual Education Plan (lEP). PP-Pnate follow up ,p pa^ep records, improved clarity and understand^^! confidentiality of student enacted tdat wit, help to provide the Ombudsman with necessary , dfto fte s mJ  I _I. . t  , and in an are In response to requested information under separate cover. your attention however, we enJouradTtS'SfJ^ 70u refer\ninquiry. exists and seek continued The compliance philosophy is based performance responsibilities of the r-fully expected to comply. | assure Employees are with the provisions and philosophy of the Revis^erf n co^niitment to compliance sopny or the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. on internalizing the Revised Plan through the respective organizational divisions Sincerely, Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools cc: Junious Sabbs Ann Brown Gus Taylor James Washington 810 West Markhatn Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) J24-2012\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":28,"next_page":29,"prev_page":27,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":324,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}