{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_424931","title":"Beulah Bradford Nichols individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Nichols, Beulah Bradford"],"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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-12-14"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Beulah Bradford Nichols.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Beulah Bradford Nichols individual file"],"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/p15728coll3/id/424931"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_234","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1996-10-01"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/234"],"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":["124 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\n- Linle Rock School Dis1ric1 Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting October 24, 1996 LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE The Biracial committee for LRSD continues holding monthly established meetings. The committee completed the election_ of officers at the October 1, 1996, meeting. The officers are: Jerome gundue - Chairman Jack Gilbert - Co-Chairman Ann Scoggins - Secretary At the October meeting the Bi-racial committee received an overview of the monitoring process by Dr. Ed Jackson. Director of Planning, Research. and Evaluation. along with Dr. Paul Smith, LRSD monitor. Attached (attachment 1) is a copy of an addendum added to the 1996-97 Monitoring Instrument used by the Biracial Committee. The Office of Desegregation and Monitoring suggested that the recruitment section of the plan be covered during the monitoring process, therefore, the committee accepted the addendum. The next meeting will be on ovember 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m .. LRSD COUNTS The official October 1, 1996, count submitted to the State Department is attached (attachment 2). This official count compares the 1996-97 with the 1995-96 count. An enrollment report (attachment 3) shows enrollment by school and grade at all LRSD schools on October 1, 1996. (Note: The report shows \"LRSD Internal Report\" because the official report submitted to State Department does not include totals. The grand total submitted to the State Department is 47 students less than our count shows due to the \"special schools\" which are Elizabeth Mitchell, Easter Seals, and a NLR facility for children with disabilities.) Attached (attachment 4) is the 4 year old count for schools that provide a 4 year old program. This count indicates the number enrolled as of October 1, 1996, the number of vacancies at each school, and capacities. I From: ,i:1?-- Return D Keep or Toss 131- [ Post-II 7668 03M 1993 ADDENDUM TO LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHECKLIST 1996-97 STUDENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM ATTACHME1N T SCHOOL: ___________ PRINCIPAL: _________ _ MONITORS:--------~--- DATE: ______ _ 1. A student recruitment plan is in place. YES NO EVIDENCE: --------------------- 2. A student recruitment committee is in place. YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ 3. Total number of students recruited in the school during the last quarter._ Black__ White YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ 4. Number of students newly recruited during the last semester. __ _ Black__ White YES NO EVIDENCE: _______________ _ ADDENDUM TO BIRACIAL COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHECKLIST STUDENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM Page2 5. Total number of parents who have toured your school for possible enrollment of students. -- Black -- White YES NO EVIDENCE: ___________________ _ Att Ii\u0026gt; /J /~,/ //o./ c\n~::S 1?'77 _P, ~ J\n,,JI - ~I -/ C) -~.\n:)- /07..3 \u0026amp;,~ -' ,iill' /?-0 e,/?. ~ -/,J ~p\nt-d1I ~? /?7 __\nJl J?~.3 d/.,,YJ::, - /3 -..3 0 - /t\n, ..5Y,I /9-y .:\n'7] FO?' 7\n.l .. - I 0 -------------------------------------- 0 ' 95-96.XLS Little Rock School District October 1. 1996 Comparison Comparison - October 2. 1995 to October 1 1996 October 2. 1995 II October I. 1996 \"\" ... .'!, ... 0. . 2 QJ : \"0 \" \"0 \" 2 QJ .\n~ .c .. .. ~ .c ------- --- cii\n::. cii cii 0 ~ central Hs  1017 543 31 1591 63.92% !1().J0,..,,635 38 1777 Fair HS --- 651 246 8 905 71.93% -Me\\} 168 6 813 Ha!JHS - - - --- ----- 626 262 40 928 67.46% 597 197 29 823 McCteitan fis0 - - 727 6 S0A2% 766~ 151 171 90~ 9 926 ---------- - Parl\u0026lt;ViewHs -1-17 373 35 855 52.18% 458h'f 385 36 879 Sob-Total 3468 1595 120 5183 66.91% --..665 1536 118 5218 w/o Magnets 3021 1222 85 4328 69.80% -1151 82 4339 Cloverdale JH 527 73 9 609 86.54% 553~ 70 16 639 Dunbar 1w -1-lO 279 13 732 60.11% 451 ~ 299 25, 775, forest Heights JH 576 165 16 759 76.15% 485 135, 10 6301 Henderson JH .. 623 152 17' 792 78.66% 610 116 15 741 -- Mabe/vale JH 363 125 3 491 73.93% 347 116 5 468, Mann JH 451 382 14 847 53.25% 443 395 16 854 Pulaski Heights JH 447 327 7 781 57.23% 462. 314 9 785 Southwest JH 512 84 16 612 83.66% 466 113 15 594 Sub-Total 3941 1587 95 5623 70.09% 3817 1558 111 5486 w/o Magnets 3490 1205 81 4776 73.07% 3374 1163 95 4632 Badgect 166 -1-l 0 210 79.05% 185 32 2 219 Bate 243 85 19 347 70.03% 266 94 15 375 Baseline 247 75 5. 327 75.54% 241 56 5 302 ffooker 316 267 21 6().J 52.32% 313 272 18 603' Brady 250 124 20 394 63.45% 236, 103 32 371 Carver 326 290 13 629 51.83% 311 i 274, 19 604 Chicot 345 99 8 452 76.33% 3641 127 27 518 I Cloverdale 384 64 5 453 84.77% 439 51 10 500 Dodd 190 97 7 294 64.63% 156 82 4 242 Fair Park 211 53 6 270 78.15% 1931 55 7 255, Forest Park 205 222 8 435 47.13% 2181 227 4 449 Franklin 400 24 7 431 92.81 % 4141 31 7 452 FU/bright 255 254 9 518 49.23% 265 227 8 500 Carland' 235 2 18 255 92.16% 2541 6 17 277 Geyer Springs 231 71 8 310 74.52% 233, 69 8 3101 Gibbs 165 132 10, 307 53.75% 1601 146 I 6, 312' Jefferson 210 285' 6 501 41.92% 207 282'. 81 4971 King- 289 230 12' 531 54.43% 332 279 11, 6221 Mabe/vale 318' 139 3, 460 69.13% 308f 1041 6 4181 McDermott 259 213 151 487 53.18% 277[ 196 16 4891 Meadowcliff 3051 931 2: 400 76.25% 285[ 82 6 373I Mitchell' 2501 7' 01 2571 97.28% 248 12 21 262I Ottercreek 1391 193' 7' 3391 41.00% 132[ 1701 81 310[ Putaski Heights 1891 207 10. 406 46.55% 245 2001 91 4541 RightseW 210, 6' 31 219 95.89% 237 SI 41 2461 Rockefeller 259 131' 161 406 63.79% 266 1551 151 436 Romine- 213\n80 9 302 70.53% 201 82[ 21 ! 304I Terry 2391 279 18, 536 44.59% 231 2661 181 515I Wakefield 368 51 JO! 4291 85.78% 3851 381 131 4361 washing ton - 422 210 241 656, 64.33% 392 2721 44, 708 Watson 353' 84 7' 444 79.50% 394 801 51 479 Western Hills 2081 106 1 315 66.03% 219 92[ 1 I 3121 Williams 264 232' 12, 508 51.97% 2591 2261 16[ 501 Wilson 304' 72' 8, 3841 79.17% 294 57[ 11 I 362 woodruff 1701 81 ! 31 254 66.93% 185 SOI 31 268 Special Schools 17i 291 01 46 36.96% 16 311 0I 47 Sub-Total 9155 i 4631 330114116, 64.86% 9361 I 4561 I 406 1 14328 I w/o Magnets 8067: 3681 274 12022 67.10% 83021 36121 3471122611 .'!, \"\" 0. . cii 62.13% 78.72% 72.54% 82.72% 52.10% 68.32% 71.61% 86.54% 58.19% 76.98% 82.32% 74.15% 51.87% 58.85% 78.45% 69.58% 72.84% 84.-17% ~0.93% 79.80% 51.91 % 63.61% 51.49% 70.27% 87.80% 64.46% 75.69% 48.55% 91.59% 53.00% 91.70% 75.16% 51.28% 41.65% 53.38% 73.68% 56.65% 76.41 % 94.66% 42.58% 53.96% 96.34% 61.01% 66.12% 44.85% 88.30% 55.37% 82.25% 70.19% 51.70% 81.22% 69.03% 34.04% 65.33% 67.71% Grand Total 16564 7813 545 24922 66.46% :l\u0026amp;Ui I 7655 I 635 1 25032 [ 66.89%  Magnet  Magnet Program 11 Incentive - lnterdistrict Office of Student Assignment ATTACHME2N T II :?:- :?:- .u. .u. .C. . .C. .' 0 o'\n- 1891 -114 954 -141 1291 -468 1199 -273 1000 -121 6335 -1117 5335 -996 868 -229 812 -37 858 -228 907 -166 614 -146 0 850 4 745 40 737 -143 6391 -905 5541 -909 257 -38 401 -26 390 -88 656 -53.., 467 -96 613 -9 558 -40 492 8 328 -86 351 -96 399 50 434 18 540 -40 0 298 -21 328 -18 353 -41 492. 5 728 -106 515 -97p 517 -28 465 -92 298 -36 351, -41 ~ Q ~t-1~' t~ 374 80 258 -12 469 -33 487 -183 515 o_ 492 -56 .. 836 -128 492 -13 328' -16 '\\.Q. j ~ ~l- ~~ \" ~f 517, -16 394 -32 324\n-56 \", 15717 -1389 13578 I -1317 28443 -3411 ~\\ c) ~ ~,Jy,,'j_ ,,. - v ~ 0 --- z / C~)/\n\" I ~I I 3_\n 97 ~/4 /3 e: /\u0026lt;:, R/ C 0 / / 77 , ATTACHME3N T October I State Department Enrollment Report (LRSD I~TER:\\Al REPORT) -- - - - - --- - ---------- - - - - -- --- - All Enrolled Students: /JI-( lct-W, ---------- -- - ------------ --------- 001 CE 'TRAL Grade Classes Wi\\l \\VF BM BF Hl\\1 HF :\\:\\ 1 AF li\\1 IF Total -:\n\u0026lt; I J ID 125 128 2:!7 249 3 2 5 5 (I () 7-U ~I ~ II 106 94 146 170 () 5 4 () 527 0 12 73 108 112 155 () 2 -+ 6 (I () 460 ~ KF 2 0 I 15 16 () () () () 0 0 32 97~ s 0 0 11 3 () () () 0 () () 14 TOTAL FOR CENTRAL 304 331 511 593 3 5 14 15 0 1 1777 002 HALL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~ 3\n) 10 22 26 104 96 -+ 2 3 0 0 258 11 35 39 103 93 2 -+ 2 0 0 279 /::\n1%\u0026gt; 12 24 43 77 95 2 2 5 0 0 249 0 KF 2 7 6 0 0 0 () 0 0 16 / s 4 1 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 '?I A TOTAL FOR HALL 86 111 303 294 8 4 11 6 () 0 . 823 003 MANN MIS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 56 84 70 78 2 0 2 0 \"294 08 49 75 57 92 1 2 2 0 1 280 09 62 69 60 86 0 2 0 0 0 280 TOTAL FOR MANN MIS 167 228 187 256 3 4 4 3 0 2 854 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total -,\u0026lt; 0 w 10 72 70 82 80 2 3 0 0 311 / .\n$. 13 11 56 82 56 102 4 5 2 0 0 308 0 12 50 55 57 68 3 4 2 5 2 247 / ::J KF 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 ,1G!V ?a TOTAL FOR PARKVIEW 178 207 202 256 8 10 6 9 2 1 879 006 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF BM HF AM AF IM -IF Total 01 5 16 17 19 23 2 0 2 0 0 0 79 02 3 18 16 21 23 0 2 0 0 0 81 03 3 23 16 19 22 0 1 0 0 0 82 04 4 23 23 26 22 0 2 I 0 0 98 05 4 14 32 27 21 1 0 0 0 97 06 4 21 20 24 28 0 1 I 0 0 0 95 KF 4 13 20 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 TOTAL FOR BOOKER 128 144 152 161 3 7 7 l 0 0 603 007 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 51 45 80 91 3 2 2 2 0 0 276 08 58 48 78 59 3 1 2 2 0 252 09 38 59 68 74 3 3 0 0 0 246 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR DUNBAR 147 152 227 224 7 6 7 4 () 775 LRSD Information Senices Department I -- -- - - ------------- -- - - All Enrolled Students: ///-( le 1-'H, ---- - ------ - -- - --------- ----- - 008 F:\\IR Gradr Classrs \\\\\n\\I \\\\F B\\1 BF II \\I II F .-\\ \\I .-\\F 1\\1 IF Total - -- --- - - - - - --- ----- -- ~ ---tl- -tr + _j.). -tr --- -ti --11 H- -tt- 'y1 Ill 21 -'1' - l :\n5 12(, (I () () () JI(, 11 2  31 103 lll\u0026lt;J () () () 270 12 27 27 71 7  I) II () () () 200 s  2 l  7 (I () () () () () 27 TOTAL FOR FAIR 76 92 ~16 2 0 2 2 0 0 ~ti 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM -WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 07 25 16 79 73 (I () 0 0 195 08 26 19 82 87 2 () () 0 218 09 19 22 80 70 0 2 () 2 0 0 195 s 4 4 12 2 0 0 () () 0 0 22 TOTAL FOR FORST HT 74 61 253 232 2 3 3 2 0 0 630 010 PUL HT J Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 51 52 91 68 0 3 0 0 267 08 58 59 7  77 0 0 0 0 270 09 -+3 47 78 65 I 0 () I 0 0 235 s 3 I 5 -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 TOTAL FOR PUL HT J 155 159 2-+8 21-+ 1 2 :z -+ 0 0 785 011 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 29 25 84 54 I 4 0 0 0 198 08 14 10 83 85 2 2 0 0 0 197 09 11 21 81 65 3 0 0 0 0 182 s 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 TOTAL FOR SOUTHWST 56 57 261 205 6 7 0 2 0 0 59-+ 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~ 0 cJ 10 29 21 155 150 0 2 0 0 0 358 /.:5 \u0026amp;\u0026gt; 11 19 20 109 126 3 1 0 0 0 279 L- 12 27 31 88 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 /~ KF 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 )6 s 2 2 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9-fl., TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 77 74 375 391 3 i 2 0 1 0 926 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 19 12 110 88 2 1 2 0 () 235 08 22 9 101 96 1 0 0 0 231 09 28 24 87 106 5 0 0 0 0 251 s 2 0 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 TOTAL FOR HENDERSN 71 45 315 295 7 2 4 1 0 741 015 CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 9 11 91 89 4 () () 0 0 205 08 8 9 97 99 3 I 2 () 0 220 ] LRSD Information Services Department -----  -------- ------------ ---------- --- . ------- - - . All Enrolled Students: 0 /-( h 1-96 ------------ -------- ----------- - ---- -- ( I') 17 15 'S. - 'S -' () 2 (I (I :!05 s I (I 7 (I () () (I () (I ') TOTAL FOR CLOVR JR 35 35 282 271  6  2 0 II (,39 016 MABELJR Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF 81\\1 BF Hl\\1 HF :\\1'1 AF 11\\1 IF Total 07 21 11 5-l 62 () 0 () () 2 () 150 08 25 1-l  8  6 {) () () () () 13  09 17 22 68 GO () 0 0 () 169 s 3 3 3 6 () () 0 () 0 () 15 TOTAL FOR MABEL JR 66 50 173 174 1 2 0 (I 2 0 468 1117 BALE Grade Classes WM \\VF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 8  19 17 0 () I 0 0 50 02 3 4 6 22 16 0 l 0 () 0 0 49 03 5 2 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 () 38 O  2 8 7 15 15 0 I 0 () 0 47 05 3  5 17 14 0 0 0 () 0 41 06 5 2 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 41 E  5  0 0 0 0 0 0 14 KF  10 4 15 25 3 2 0 0 0 0 59 PK 10 5 9 9 0 0 0 36 V TOTAL FOR BALE 55 39 141 125 4 5 4 1 0 375 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 IO 12 18 13 0  0 l 60 02 3 8 5 20 18 0 0 0 0 53 03 3 8 9 18 8 0 3 2 0 0 49 04 3 7 4 20 12 0 2 0 0 47 05 8 0 8 6 2 I I l 0 0 27 06 2 5 6 24 13 0 2 0 I 0 0 51 E 4 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 4 3 10 23 20 2 l 0 0 0 0 59 PK 2 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR BRADY 52 51 141 95 4 9 10 8 0 t 371 019 BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 3 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 02 1 2 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 03 l 3 2 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 3 0 4 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 26 05 0 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 06 2 2 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 E 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 KF 2 3 2 20 IO 0 0 0 () 0 0 35 PK 3 3 17 8 0 0 () 0 0 0 31 TOT AL FOR BADGETT 14 18 107 78 II 0 0 0 II 2 219 0211 MCDERMOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Scnices Department 3 --- - - ---- -- - -- ---------- -- - --- --- ----- - -- - - All Enrolled Students: (/ /-( ). 1-'J(, --- --- -- --- ----- ------ ---- -------- -- !ii I 'J 12 IX 24 (I II II II II 74 112 12 I:, 2X Ii II II II i~ o:\n3 17 17 20 17 (I () 2 () () H 04 3 Ll 12 19 25 () () () (I () 70 05 3 11 11 22 22 () () 2 I) () () 68 0(\u0026gt; 3 18 10 18 21 () 2 () () () 70 u 3 16 13 19 7 () () () 58 TOTAL FOR MCDERMOT 106 90 1-U 133 3 3 6 4 0 0 489 021 CARVER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 3 17 13 17 18 () () 2 () 0 68 02 4 21 17 24 19 0 0 2 0 0 84 03 4 23 14 33 16 I I 0 3 () 0 91 04 3 26 19 32 18 0 1 0 0 98 05 4 23 24 24 29 0 () () 103 06 4 33 17 32 20 0 0 0 0 0 103 KF 3 17 10 17 12 0 0 () 0 0 57 TOTAL FOR CARVER 160 114 179 132 I 4 6 8 0 0 604 022 BASELINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 16 20 0 0 0 0 () 0 40 02 5 17 17 0 0 I 0 0 0 41 03 2 4 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 04 2 4 2 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 2 1 1 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 06 1 3 8 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 E 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 4 6 9 25 17 0 0 0 0 1 59 PK 7 4 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR BASELINE 27 29 124 117 I 1 I 0 0 2 302 023 FAIRPRK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 2 2 16 10 0 0 0 0 32 02 2 2 3 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 2 5 2 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 04 2 3 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 28 05 2 2 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 06 2 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 KF 2 7 5 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK 10 6 7 IO 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR FAIR PRK 32 23 102 91 4 I I 0 0 255 024 FORST PK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 21 17 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 73 02 4 17 21 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 17 18 13 18 0 0 0 I 0 0 67 04 2 14 16 12 JO 0 0 () 0 0 53 LRSD Information Senices Department -I -------- -- - - ---------------------- --- - ---- - --- ,\\II Enrolled Students: 0/-Clu-'II -- ------ - - -- --- --- ----- O:i 2 11 II I Ir, Ir, II II ii II ll ='-+ 11(, ' I-+ I 'J 15 20 II II () () 11 (I (,X KF 3 19 13 16 12 II () (I () () () (,11 TOTAL FOR FORST PK I 13 11-+ 106 I I::? 0 I) 3 0 0 -+-+') 025 FRANKLIN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Ai\\1 AF IM IF Total 01  2 28 \"? '- () () 0 0 () () 63 02 3 0 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 () 63 03 3 2 27 19 1 () 0 0 () 0 50 0-+ 3 () 2 8 18 0 () 0 0 0 0 28 05 3 () 18 23 0 2 0 0 0 0  06 2 () 17 21 I 0 () 0 () () .JO E 2 I 7 4 0 () 0 () 0 0 14 Kf 5 3 5 32 37 () 0 0 I 0 0 78 PK 5 4 24 37 I 0 I 0 0 0 72 TOT AL FOR FRANKLIN 16 15 193 221 3 2 1 0 0 452 026 GARLAND Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 I 17 17 3 l 0 0 0 0 39 03 2 0 0 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 29 o .. 3 0 0 19 16 3 0 0 0 0 39 05 2 0 0 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 06 2 0 0 16 15 l 2 0 0 0 0 34 E 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Kf 2 l 14 21 2 0 0 0 0 40 PK 0 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR GARLAND 3 3 128 126 10 7 0 0 0 0 277 027 GIBBS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 10 11 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 2 12 6 14 10 2 l l 0 0 0 46 03 2 9 12 17 8 l 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 2 12 13 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 11 8 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 06 2 13 9 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 KF 2 10 10 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR GIBBS 77 69 81 79 3 1 1 1 0 0 312 028 CHICOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 8 9 22 25 3 4 0 0 0 () 71 02 4 13 5 24 26 4 0 0 0 0 73 03 5 5 6 26 24 l 0 0 0 0 0 62 04 2 5 9 25 21 3 () 0 0 0 0 63 05 4 9 7 23 23 0 2 I 0 0 0 65 06 3 5 3 26 25 2 0 0 0 63 E 7 4 7 6 0 0 0 0 () 25 LRSD Information Senices Department 5 ------- - - -- - ---- -- -- All Enrolled Students: (1/.()((.')f, ----- --- ------- - --- . -------- KF IO s ,, IX , - (I () () (I II (,0 PK -+ !() 1(1 II () () I) (I (I J11 TOTAL FOR CHICOT 66 61 185 179 15 8 J () 0 51S 029 WEST HIL Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF Bl\\l BF HI\\I HF Ai\\1 AF li\\1 IF Total ---------- 01 3 7 8 13 18 0 () 0 I) () -0 02 -+ (, 16 19 () () 0 0 () () -+5 03 3 7 2 21 11 () () 0 () 0 0 -+I 0-+ 2 11 7 17 17 () () () 0 () 0 5:? 05 2 6 JO 12 13 () 0 () 0 () () -+ 1 06 6 6 16 18 0 0 () () () () 46 KF 2 -+ 8 18 JO () () 0 () () () .rn TOTAL FOR WEST HIL -+5 -+7 113 106 0 0 0 1 () 0 31:? 030 JEFFRSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 28 18 1-+ 1-+ 0 0 0 0 0 75 02 3 17 13 1-+ 11 0 0 0 () 57 03 3 16 23 18 16 0 0 I 0 0 75 04 3 21 25 16 1-+ 0 0 0 0 0 77 05 3 22 16 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 06 3 29 19 JO 10 0 0 I 0 I 0 70 E 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF -+ 17 15 9 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 TOTAL FORJEFFRSN 153 129 101 106 0 1 4 1 2 0 -+97 031 CLOVREL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 3 38 .io 2 0 0 0 0 91 02 2 3 3 28 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 67 03 2 3 2 28 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 04 1 3 2 21 26 0 0 0 0 0 53 05 2 0 24 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 06 2 5 3 25 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 5 3 4 36 36 0 2 0 0 0 0 81 PK 4 5 10 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 TOT AL FOR CLOVR EL 29 22 211 228 2 8 0 0 0 () 500 032 DODD Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 9 6 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 02 2 2 2 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-+ 03 2 8 14 9 1 0 0 0 0 35 04 2 8 9 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 -+5 05 2 7 10 7 0 I 0 0 0 0 26 06 8 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 E 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO KF 3 II 5 9 5 I 0 0 0 () 0 31 TOTAL FOR DODD 42 40 86 70 2 2 0 0 0 () 242 LRSD Information Seniccs Department 6 ------ - -------------- -------------- All Enrolled Students: ()/.()((.\u0026lt;){, -- __ ,._ ---- ----- --- -- - - ---- - - -- ----- - ---- .. - .. OJJ J\\IE.-\\DCLIF Gratk Classl'S \\DI WF 13\\1 BF II \\I II F .-\\ \\I AF rn IF Tot.ti ----- - --------- - - - ---- --- . ------ --- --- - -- .. ------ ---- - -- UI :\nX  2X I 7 II ll (I I) II ='S 112 2  7 22 I  () I) II () ()  8 113 :\n7 5 2') 13 () II () () 0 55 II  2 8 3 15 17 () () I () 46 05 2 8 3 22 20 () (I () () () (l 53 06 2 6 9 16 2  () () () ll () () 55 KF 3 4 6 2  2  () 0 () () () 0 58 TOTAL FOR MEADCLIF 45 37 156 129 1 1 2 (I 2 (I 373 034 MITCHELL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 () 20 17 0 () () 0 0 0 38 02 2 0 17 14 0 0 0 () 0 0 32 03 2 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 () 0 32 04 3 2 0 12 9 0 0 0 0 () 0 23 05 2 0 2 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 06 2 0 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 E 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 2 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 2 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR MITCHELL 7 5 123 125 0 0 0 0 1 262 035 ML KING Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 26 26 21 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 02 4 14 27 22 20 0 0 0 0 0 84 03 2 13 13 19 21 0 0 2 0 0 69 04 3 19 13 26 16 1 0 0 2 0 78 05 2 16 13 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 51 06 3 12 11 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 59 E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 5 25 17 35 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 PK 14 20 24 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 71 TOTAL FORM L KING 139 140 178 154 2 0 3 5 1 0 622 036 ROCKFELR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 6 9 13 23 0 0 2 0 0 54 02 3 12 8 21 13 0 0 0 0 56 03 2 6 3 13 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 44 04 3 9 10 16 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 51 05 2 10 8 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 3 6 13 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 KF 3 13 9 14 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 52 PK 20 23 25 28 0 1 0 0 99 TOTAL FOR ROCKFELR 79 76 128 138 7 3 2 3 (I 0 436 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ()) 2 2 5 14 24 0 0 0 () 0 46 LRSD Information Senices Department 7 -- -- - . --- ----- - . ------ -- -- - -. --- - - All Enrolled Students: (//.( ict-'lf, --------- . -- -- - -- - --- - ------- ------- -- 02 2 7 I:, 21 (I II (I ii II .j:, o.~ 2 .j I 7 2b (I II (I (I (I II :,() (l.j 2 3 II 10 ,- (I (I () () () 27 (15 5 7 20 7 () 2 () () () () .j) ()(, 5 2 8 12 () (I () () () () 27 KF 2 3 6 15 12 () () (} () 38 PK 8 7 12 9 () () () () () () JC, TOTAL FOR GEYER SP 29 40 112 121 3 4 0 0 0 3 Ill 038 PUL HT E Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 19 1-l 16 ')' _., () (} () () (} () 72 02 3 18 12 18 ')' _., 0 () () (} (} 0 71 H 03 3 19 20 17 13 3 0 0 0 0 73 r, ().j 3 16 13 21 20 0 0 0 0 0 71 ' 05 2 8 16 16 15 () 0 0 0 0 0 55 06 2 12 9 14 16 () 2 0 0 0 0 53 KF 3 9 15 19 14 0 0 () 0 59 TOT AL FOR PUL HT E 101 99 121 124 4 4 1 0 0 0 45-l 039 RIGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 0 14 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 03 0 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 2 0 21 12 2 0 0 0 0 37 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 06 2 0 0 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KF 2 2 0 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 PK 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR RIGHTSEL 4 1 118 119 1 3 0 0 0 0 246 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 7 5 17 14 0 1 0 0 46 02 3 6 5 18 11 2 I 0 0 0 0 43 03 2 4 8 12 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 40 04 2 6 5 10 8 I 0 I 0 0 0 31 05 3 3 12 7 2 0 0 0 0 28 06 3 2 8 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 20 E 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 KF 4 5 4 21 15 0 0 0 0 47 PK 9 4 11 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR ROMINE 45 37 116 85 7 7 5 2 () 0 304 042 ,11.., cu,rrT,r Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 'f'f\"'-oJ,.1.J.,VA ,, 01 6 16 13 43 32 4 2 0 0 () 111 02 5 20 16 29 26 2 0 0 3 () () 96 03 3 24 II 25 22 0 3 () (} 87 LRSD Information Scnices Department \u0026gt;5 --------- -- - - - --------- ---- ---- --------- - - All Enrolled Students: --- ---- ------- ---- - --- 0I-Oct-9fi II  5 2.\nI  ,- 12 , , II , - I - - - II () H2 115 IX 2  I'! l\u0026lt;J (I (I 2 II () HJ ()(, () l\u0026lt;J I 'J )X 27  2 () I) () 1111 E 2 () (l I) () () (I 0 4 \"-F 5 17 15 16 29 2  () () () o 83 PK 11 10 12 14 2 (l 2 0 0 52 TOTAL FOR WASHNGTN 150 122 210 182 18 10 4 12 0 II 7118 043 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 17 13 17 20 0 () 0 0 69 02 3 13 18 16 18 () 0 0 I 0 67 03 3 14 21 18 18 o 0 () 1 0 0 72 04 3 18 20 18 20 () 0 () 0 0 0 76 05 3 17 18 28 13 0 0 o 2 0 79 06 3 16 15 18 24 0 0 4 0 0 78 KF 3 13 13 12 19 0 () I 0 60 TOTAL FOR WILLIAMS 1()8 118 127 132 1 II 4 8 1 2 501 044 WILSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 4 3 15 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 02 4 6 4 14 28 2 0 0 0 0 I 55 03 3 I 5 28 19 I 0 0 0 0 55 04 2 2 3 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 40 05 2 3 4 18 11 I 0 0 0 0 0 37 06 5 I 8 13 0 I 0 0 0 0 28 E 0 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 KF 3 3 3 30 16 2 0 0 0 0 55 PK 2 7 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR WILSON 27 30 155 139 5 5 0 0 0 1 3(\u0026gt;2 045 WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 3 6 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 5 5 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 03 2 2 3 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 2 8 3 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 05 1 8 1 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 06 5 4 7 5 0 0 (j 0 0 22 KF 2 6 5 11 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 PK 4 12 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 36 TOTAL FOR WOODRUFF 41 39 105 80 0 2 1 0 0 0 268 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 12 5 31 18 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 3 8 3 23 18 0 0 0 0 () 53 03 2 6 5 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 04 2 7 20 19 I 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 6 6 15 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 LRSD Information Sen\"ices De11artment 9 ._ - -- -- - -- -- ------------- - --- -- ----- - All Enrolled Students: {}/-\u0026lt; !, 1-'H, ------------- - ---- ----- - ()(, J() 12 ::o 2(, II ti II 11 II (,') E (I 5 () II ti II () II I) (, f..:.F -I ') 7 1-1 2(, 2 I) () () () (I 5X Pf..:. 2. -I 7 -I () () () (I () I) 17 TOTAL FOR MABEL EL 55 49 156 152 4 0 0 0 418 on TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Al\\1 AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 4 20 28 18 I-+ () () () () () 81 02 3 19 17 17 16 0 () () () 2 72 03 3 23 16 JO 17 1 () 0 0 69 0-1 3 29 12 17 20 () 0 2 () () () 80 05 3 13 18 17 20 () () 2 () 0 71 06 3 I-+ 16 15 1-+ 0 () 2 (} 63 KF -+ 23 18 19 17 0 0 0 2 0 () 79 TOTAL FOR TERRY 14 I 125 113 118 0 7 7 2 515 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 -+ 14 2-+ 20 19 0 0 0 0 79 02 3 14 21 23 12 0 2 0 0 () 73 03 3 15 16 18 ?~ _j 0 0 0 () 0 0 72 04 3 9 JO 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 60 05 2 18 I-+ 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 06 3 12 16 23 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 E -+ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 6 12 27 17 20 0 l 0 0 0 78 TOTAL FOR FULBRIGH 98 129 141 124 1 1 5 0 0 500 050 OTTER CR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 15 15 9 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 13 12 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 2 13 15 JO 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 47 04 2 11 11 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 42 05 2 5 12 6 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 39 06 2 18 8 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 KF 2 13 9 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR OTTER CR 88 82 71 61 1 2 1 0 3 310 051 WAKEFIEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 3 31 24 0 0 0 0 0 60 02 2 7 2 29 31 2 1 I 0 0 74 03 5 4 29 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 04 2 1 29 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 53 05 2 4 3 21 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 06 2 4 1 28 30 0 0 0 0 () 64 KF 4 2 3 27 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 60 TOTAL FOR WAKEFIEL 23 15 194 191 5 5 2 0 0 436 052 WATSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department JO ---- ----- ----------------- All Enrolled Students: 0/-()((_I)(, ------- ---- Ill 5 .:\n\u0026gt;t, 2i {I (I () (I -5i ll2  2 8 '' ~i () II (I ll {I ii 03 I 5  2  20 II (I II () {I =-  O  2  8 19 ,') () (l () () () () 53 05 J 5 (, 25 2  () () () () () () 60 06 2  3 26 16 () () () () () () 49 E () I () () () () () () () () KF 5 5 3 ~') .)_  O () 0 () () () () 80 PK 6 6 8 15 () 0 I () 0 () 36 TOTAL FOR WATSON 36 44 203 191 2 2 () () () 479 GRAND TOTAL 3826 3798 8482 82  5 173 164 139 125 17 1784986 ,. ,/ ) ~Ctfj LRSD Information Senices Department JI - --- --  - - - --- -- -- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: () /-( ), /-'/(, ------------- - --- ------------ 11111 CE\\TR.-\\L Grade Classes \\\\:\\I \\\\F 8\\1 BF ~1:\\1 II F .UI :\\F I\\I IF Total ----- .. --- -- -- -------- -- -- - Ill 7 17 tl tl II ti , - ti II II :2(, 11 9 8 () () () I) () () () IS 12 12 11 l () () () () () () 25 TOTAL FOR CENTRAL 28 36 2 0 0 2 (I 0 0 69 002 HALL Cratic Classes WM WF Bi\\1 BF Hl\\1 HF AI\\I AF ll\\1 IF Total JO () () () () () () () () () 11 -+ 2 () () 0 0 () () () () (i 12 2 7 () 0 () 0 0 () () () 9 TOTAL FOR HALL 6 10 () 0 0 () () () 0 0 16 003 MANN M/S Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\l IF Total 07 20 3-+ ._,.~, 31 0 0 0 () 0 109 08 25 29 15 -+0 0 0 I l () () 111 09 29 28 18 32 0 0 0 0 () 108 TOTAL FOR MANN M/S 7-+ 91 56 103 0 0 l 328 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 3-+ 20 26 29 0 0 0 0 0 110 11 19 36 ,~., 31 3 l 0 0 0 0 113 12 21 19 19 20 2 0 0 l 0 0 82 TOTAL FORPARKVIEW 74 75 68 80 5 1 0 2 0 0 305 006 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 10 5 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 31 02 3 11 6 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 35 03 3 14 11 9 7 0 0 0 0 43 o .. 4 9 10 7 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 33 05 4 6 22 ~ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 06 4 10 12 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 KF 4 7 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 26 TOTAL FOR BOOKER 64 81 51 55 2 4 1 0 0 0 258 007 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 08 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO 09 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 TOTAL FOR DUNBAR 9 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 () (i TOTAL FOR FAIR 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 (I 11 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Scniccs Department /] . ---- -- .. -- - ------------ --- - ----- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: li/-Uo-W, -- ----- --- ---- -- --- ------ (Ii () II (I II () II II II 2 ox () () () (I II II II () I) s () 1 () I) () () () () () II TOTAL FOR FORST HT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 010 PUL HT J Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Ai\\t AF IM IF Total 07 () () () () () () () () () 08 2 3 (} (} (} () () (} () 6 09 () I I 0 () () 0 (} 0 3 s 1 0 () () () 0 0 () 0 0 1 TOT AL FOR PUL HT J 4 4 2 (I (I () 0 () () 11 1111 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 07 0 0 () 0 () 0 () 0 0 1 TOTALFORSOUTHWST 1 () 0 0 () 0 0 (I 0 0 1 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 09 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 TOTAL FOR HENDERSN 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 015 CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR CLOVR JR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 016 MABEL JR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 08 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOTAL FOR MABEL JR 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 017 BALE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR BALE 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total o .. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR BRADY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 019 BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department /3 - -- . - -  ------ - - - -- --- --- . Students who live outside LRSD hut attend an LRSD school: () /-(}, r-W, ---- - - - --- Pl--: II II II II It II II ii : TOT.-\\L FOR BADGETT (I (I (I (I (I II II (I ~ --- - - - -- - 020 I\\ICDERl\\lOT Graue Classes \\\\'M \\\\'F B1\\1 BF H:\\1 II F .-\\:\\1 .-\\F 11\\1 IF Total ------- - ----------- ------- - ------ --- ------ ()3 3 () () () (I (I (I () (I () 05 3 t) () () () () () () () () 06 3 I () () () () () () () () 2 D\" 3 () () () () () () () () () TOTAL FOR MCDERMOT 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 021 CARVER Graue Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF 11\\1 IF Total 01 3 9 10 8 6 () () () 0 () 3  02  12 8 7 7 0 () () () 0 0 3  03  16 10 10 6 () () 0 () 0 0  2 o  3 20 10 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 50 05  15 17 7 15 0 0 0 () 0 0 5  06  25 12 13 6 0 0 0 () 0 () 56 KF 3 8    0 0 0 0 0 () 20 TOTAL FOR CARVER 105 71 65  7 (I 0 0 0 290 022 BASELINE Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total KF  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PK 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR BASELINE 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 3 023 FAIRPRK Graue Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL FOR FAIR PRK 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 024 FORST PK Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 02 -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR FORST PK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 025 FRANKLIN Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR FRANKLIN 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 2 027 GIBBS Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 4 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 02 2 5 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 03 2 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 04 2 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1, 05 2 4 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 06 2 6 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 KF 2 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 TOTAL FOR GIBBS 31 25 20 32 2 0 0 0 0 (I 110 028 CHICOT Gracie Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Senices Department I-I --- - - -- - -- ---- -- ---- Students who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: II/-\u0026lt; lcr-W, -- - - --- - Ill 2 (I II II II 11 II {l II II 02 -I II II II II Ii II 11 II II o\n5 () () (I () II (I () ll (I 05 -I () () (I () II () () () II l)(i 3 () () () (I (I () () () () E I (I (I () () () () () (I 2 K.F 3 0 () () () () () () () (I PK () I () () () () () () () (I TOT AL FOR CHICOT -I 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 029 WEST HIL Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF Al\\l AF IM IF Total 05 2 0 () () () (I 0 () () () K.F 2 () () 0 () 0 0 () 0 () TOTAL FOR WEST HIL 2 () () 0 () () 0 0 () () ::? 030 JEFFRSN Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 06 3 0 0 () 0 0 () 0 0 0 KF -I 0 0 () 0 () 0 0 0 () I TOT AL FOR JEFFRSN 1 1 0 0 0 () 0 () 0 () 2 032 DODD Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 () () 2 0-1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 05 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR DODD 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 033 MEADCLIF Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 03 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOTAL FOR MEADCLIF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 035 ML KING Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 02 4 7 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-1 03 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0-1 3 13 10 0 0 0 0 1 () 0 25 05 2 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 13 06 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 12 KF 5 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 PK 11 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 () 19 TOTAL FORM L KING 71 77 0 2 0 () 2 (I 0 153 036 ROCKFELR Gratle Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 -I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 3 02 3 2 1 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 5 03 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 () 5 0-1 3 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 () 2 05 2 2 () 0 () () () 0 () -I LRSD Information Sen-ices Department 15 - - - Sllldents who live outside LRSD but attend an LRSD school: // I -UU- W, -- ---- ---- --- - - --------- - . 11(, 2 I) II II (I fl I) It (I II KF 5  II II II fl II II II 111 PK  12 I) I) II (I () () () () I(, TOTAL FOR ROCKFELR 15 23 J 2 0 0 0  (, 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes Wl\\1 WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Ai\\l AF 11\\1 IF Total K.F 2 () () () () 0 () () () 0 I PK () () () () () () () () 2 TOTAL FOR GEYER SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 038 PUL HT E Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 () () () () () () 0 0 2 02 3 0 () () () 0 () () () 0 03 3 0 I () 0 () 0 () () () () O  3 0 0 0 0 0 () () () () 05 2 () 0 () () () () () () 2 06 2 2 () 0 0 0 0 0 () () 0 2 TOT AL FOR PUL HT E 5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 039 RJGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total D  2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 () 2 PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FOR RJGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 3 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 03 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PK 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 TOTAL FOR ROMINE 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 042 WASHNGTN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 02 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 03 3 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 JO O  5 7 4 0 0 () 0 0 1 0 0 12 05 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 06 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 5 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 9 PK 3 3 () 0 0 0 0 0 () 7 TOTAL FOR WASHNGTN 42 28 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 73 1143 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 9 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 () 0 28 02 3 6 9 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 2/i 03 3 9 9 7 6 0 0 0 1 () () 32 04 3 IO I  2 7 0 0 () 0 () () 33 05 3 8 9 7 6 0 0 0 () 32 06 3 7 5 6 8 () 0 0 () () () 26 LRSD Information Seniccs Department /f, -- - - Students who live outside LRSO hut attend an LRSD school: (I I-Ou-'Jfi -- - . -- -- -- - -- . -- ------ 1--:.F ~ - 111 () ' () (l (I II :?7 TOT.-\\L FOR WILU.-\\,1S 57 59 35 4X (I (I 2 2ll4 044 WILSON Grade Classes WI\\I WF Bi\\1 BF H,1 HF .UI .\\F li\\1 IF Total - ------ - --- 05 2 (). () (I () () () () () () Iv 3 () () () () () () () () () PK 2 () () () () () () () () () 2 TOT AL FOR WILSON 2 2 (I (I 0 0 (I (I (I (I 4 1145 WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM -WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 02 2 () 0 () () () 0 () 0 0 1 04 2 l () () () () 0 () () 0 2 Iv 2 2 () () 0 () () () () () 3 PK 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL FOR WOODRUFF 5 3 0 (I (I 0 I) 0 0 9 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total PK 0 0 0 ll 0 0 u 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR MABEL EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 047 TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 06 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR TERRY 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 05 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 E I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR FULBRIGH 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 050 OTTER CR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 04 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR OTTER CR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 GRAND TOTAL 637 657 302 377 14 11 7 12 1 2 2020 LRSD Information Senices Department 17 Last Year's Graduates: l:i-\u0026lt; I. 1-Yf 1101 CDTRAL Gradl' Cla~~o \\DI \\\\'F 13'1 BF II \\I II F :\\ \\( .-\\F 1\\1 IF T11tal G 'X' - 11-1 I 1., 171 -I II II -l')-1 TOT AL FOR CE\\TR.-\\L 8J I I~ I IJ 171  II II -''J.t --- ------- --------- . --- ------ -- - ------ - - 1102 HALL Grade Classes Wi\\1 WF Bi\\1 BF H\\1 HF .-\\\\1 AF 1\\1 IF Total - ----- ------------ G .t7 -12 77 9(, (l () () 271 TOT.-\\L FOR H.-\\LL .t7  2 77 9(, 0 J J J 0 II ::?71 005 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\l HF Ai\\! AF IM IF Total G 51 .t5 58 8-t () 5 () 0 () ll HJ TOTAL FOR PARK\\'IEW 51 .t5 58 8-t 0 5 0 () 0 0 HJ 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF A\\1 AF IM IF Total G 33 50 73 83 () Ii 2 {) 0 2-t::? TOT.-\\L FOR FAIR 33 50 73 83 () 0 ::? 0 () 2-t::? 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF Hl\\1 HF Ai\\l AF IM IF Total G 29 26 6-t 89 () () 0 0 210 TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA 29 26 6-t 89 0 () () 0 210 GRAND TOTAL 2.t3 277 385 523 10 IJ 8 () () 1  60 l!:J LRSD Information Scnices De11artmcnt SCHOOL BLACK WHITE Badgett 25 6 Bale 18 IS Baseline 25 11 Brady to 6 Chicot 21 14 Cloverdale 25 9 Fair Park 17 16 Franklin 61 9 Garland 15 1 Geyer Springs 21 IS King 36 34 Mabelvale 11 6 Mitchell 13 3 Rightsell 16 I Rockefeller 27 26 Romine 19 13 Washington 26 21 Watson 23 12 Wilson 9 9 Woodruff 19 16 Total 437 243 Little Rock School District FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT OCTOBER 1, 1996 OTHER TOTAL OPENINGS 0 31 3 36 0 36 2 18 I 36 2 36 3 36 2 72 2 18 0 36 1 71 0 17 2 18 I 18 0 53 4 36 5 52 I 36 0 18 I 36 30 7IO 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 to % BLACK CAPACITY  -8\"io\" 36 50% 36 ~~ -%'% 36 56% 18 ss -59% 36 C.7 -'ffl\"% 36 ~1 --48-o/o 36 85% 72 ~ -84-% 18 ~'g -59'f.,f- 36 51% 72 65% 18 7~ /J 10 18 89% 18 51% 54 53% 36 50% 54 64% 36 50% 18 53% 36 62% 720 10/03/1996 15:55 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM ~.. :2 .~....... ....................... . DiRaooRf SrudooA niGNME MLi mR od ScliooDl ismicr SOI S~ l.JmREo ckA, R7 2202  Tdq\u0026gt;kO~NoE1 ., 242109  fAie ~o1 -}2 4228 1 re -() D fY'l 3?/-0/00 NUMIEA 0, 'AGts. INCl.UCINCi COVER PAGE 01 ------------- 10/03/1995 15:55 50132\u0026lt;!2281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGN~l SCHOOL Ce.tral Hall Pad(view Magnet Fait McClellan To(a)Sr. Hl2h Mitm Mamet Jr. Duhbar Jr. Foriest Hciahts Jr. Pulmki Heilhts Jr. So~diwcat Jr. HendersonJr . Cl\u0026lt;JYCrdaJlre. Mabelvalc Jr. To4al Jr. Rlllh ~tcr Munet Bale Badactt Budine Bract,, Caivcr MallDCt Chb,t ClctverdaleE lem. ~d Fait Park Folillt Park Frahklin Fulbriaht Oailand L/1TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, 1996 IJLACK WHITE OTHER 1104 620 53 597 195 31 458 373 48 639 167 7 766 140 20 3564 1495 159 443 380 31 451 294 30 485 134 11 462 312 11 466 110 18 609 114 18 553 53 33 347 115 6 3816 1512 158 313 261 29 266 90 19 185 30 4 241 51 10 236 100 35 311 267 26 364 124 30 439 48 13 156 81 5 193 53 9 218 225 6 414 26 12 265 227 8 2'i4 2 21 TOTAL. 1777 823 879 813 926 5218 854 775 630 785 594 - 741 639 468 5486 603 375 219 302 371 604 518 500 242 255 449 452 500 277 10/03/1996 15:55 50132,f2281 L.RSD STU[ 1ENT ASSIGl'-IM PAGE OJ Ge~ Springs 233 67 10 310 Gibba Maltl\\Ct 160 138 14 312 Jcfft:tson 207 281 9 497 Klnli: 332 270 20 622 MabelvaleE lem. 308 98 12 4}8 Mcbermott 277 191 21 489 Medowcliff 285 82 6 373 Mittbell 248 8 6 262 Ot* Creek 132 169 9 310 Pululd Heiihts Elem. 245 191 18 454 Ridluell 237 4 5 246 Roqb:fcller 266 145 25 436 Roipine 201 75 28 304 TertY 231 258 26 515 Wabficld 385 28 23 436 Waih.intton 392 247 69 - 708 Wa~ 394 75 10 479 WCJ1CmHi lls 219 90 3 312 WiBlams Ma2ne1 259 220 22 501 WU.On 294 54 14 362 Wobdruff 185 75 8 26B TotiaEl lem. 9345 4351 585 14281 To611LRSD 16725 7358 902 24985  I Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grade 1-6 Percentages Totals 47 64 47 49 47 56 49 359 ~i7 312 '. North Little Rock Public Schools Amboy Elementary 6002-050 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 19 8 11 7 2 14 16 17 15 2 1-2 16 12 7 0 19 14 7 8 1 12 19 7 7 1 23 13 10 10 0 26 8 8 7 0 125 94 72 61 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 34.8% 26.2% 20.1% 17.0% 1.7% 0.3% di\u0026lt;? 13~ 7 106 86 61 54 4 1 34.0% 27.6% 19.6% 17.3% 1.3% 0.3%\n. ~::.  l,  - : . ~ .:  .  '., , . ~ . J  t   ' ' . . _,  0 1\nI\n.,? ,,1 ,-  0 .,    Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ! 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% i ! . 0 0 10 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I  f Jf: ::f : 1 . ' ,, . ,.,  l Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages ..\n . .,,. Totals 25 19 26 18 27 19 30 164 .J/'I o/.o 139 North Little Rock Public Schools Belwood Elementary 6002-053 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 9 7 4 4 0 1 6 1 7 4 0 1 6 3 9 7 1 0 6 1 5 6 0 0 3 9 9 6 0 0 7 5 4 3 0 0 7 9 5 7 1 1 44 35 43 37 2 3 26.8% 21.3% 26.2% 22.6% 1.2% 1.8% 71 g-o -5 35 28 39 33 2 2 25.2% 20.1% 28.1% 23.7% 1.4% 1.4% ( ,,\n,'\": : .. ,  /,.-\"'.' 1\"1-,. ~- 1 ,.-:V  .: , . :,f~ ,' ti ,j ,.\n~ \u0026gt;. '  l ,\n/! . Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Ami/Ats M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% I i, . I I I '. ! I I ' ' 1 I .~~~ ~ ,. ,\n\\\n~J ,\n\nl .:\n,,\nr Grade Totals J 34 K 114 01 84 02 75 03 73 04 71 05 62 06 78 Totals 591 Percentages \u0026lt;g/J.. Grades 1-6 443 Percentages . . ,, '\u0026lt;.\nf., _.-~ '\n: North Little Rock Public Schools Boone Park Elementary 6002-054 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 3 12 16 0 0 7 7 45 54 0 1 10 7 34 30 3 0 9 5 35 26 0 0 8 6 33 25 1 0 10 3 35 22 0 1 5 7 25 25 0 0 9 9 30. 29 1 0 61 47 249 227 5 2 10.3% 8.0% 42.1% 38.4% 0.8% 0.3% 10\"6 -'/Jc\n, 7 51 37 192 157 5 1 11.5% 8.4% 43.3% 35.4% 1.1% 0.2% . ,  I  ~~/:-: . /}~~,1. . :~:~\n~._\n:\n, ~   ,, .~.:, \n~.-.,,:. I  Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 .\n ' j t 1 _.,. . :\n~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% . 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' i\n l  I  ' Grade Totals J 36 K 84 01 55 02 37 03 I 40 04 39 05 46 06 49 Totals 386 Percentages 7-Yl~ Grades 1-6 266 Percentages -. ' North Little Rock Public Schools Central Elementary 6002-059 K-6  October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 2 14 15 0 1 4 6 41 33 0 0 3 7 24 21 0 0 5 3 19 10 0 0 8 5 15 12 0 0 7 6 13 12 1 0 7 9 20 8 1 0 4 13 17 13 2 0 42 51 163 124 4 1 10.9% 13.2% 42.2% 32.1% 1.0% 0.3% 93 ~C?7 (p 34 43 108 76 4 0 12.8% 16.2% 40.6% 28.6% 1.5% 0.0% I . '', , I  ~ ~: . . ' I . : ~J .\nf le \n . : -: '\\te:? i\n-_. ?i~. _ .. __ t:~::~LJ{,/L Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .I 1 0.0% 0.3% 0 ' 1 0.0% 0.4% ':'j . j .,.\n~ ~ ' . ~' '.. I I i:\n.)'.ff ... i. i \\(l ,_ Grade Totals K 25 01 38 02 37 03 34 04 26 05 51 06 49 Totals 260 Percentages -f,\n)-]. Grades 1-6 235 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Crestwood Elementary 6002-055 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 7 11 4 3 0 0 11 7 9 11 0 0 9 9 10 9 0 0 8 13 8 5 0 0 7 8 5 5 0 1 25 8 10 8 0 0 13 13 10 13 0 0 80 69 56 54 0 1 30.8% 26.5% 21.5% 20.8% 0.0% 0.4% ).J/'1 //{) I 73 58 52 51 0 1 31.1% 24.7% 22.1% 21.7% 0.0% 0.4% i .,, . . Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% '' I , I I, ,  I . ! i . ,.. ... '\n. ' . . .'. Grade Totals K 30 01 25 02 25 03 24 04 28 05 23 06 32 Totals 187 Percentages 7'il,. Grades 1-6 157 North Little Rock Public Schools Glenview Elementary 6002-056 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 3 13 11 0 0 4 2 8 11 0 0 2 4 10 9 0 0 1 2 12 9 0 0 4 7 7 10 0 0 4 0 6 13 0 0 3 3 16 10 0 0 21 21 72 73 0 0 11.2% 11.2% 38.5% 39.0% 0.0% 0.0% -J/\n).- J-'/5 0 18 18 59 62 0 0 11.5% 11.5% 37.6% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ',. r  ,,_ .'i.,f: fJ, t ~{t, ~t,~ ~-!, /:i!,  1 .:ji~ ~ r}::' .. 1\n. , . '\n, Grade Totals K 53 01 76 02 56 03 50 04 50 05 46 06 48 Totals 379 Percentages ~i'- Grades 1-6 326 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Indian Hills Elementary 6002-057 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 14 25 5 7 0 0 14 19 20 19 1 1 16 12 12 15 0 0 9 11 16 13 0 0 13 7 13 15 1 0 9 6 10 20 0 0 8 7 17 16 0 0 83 87 93 105 2 1 21.9% 23.0% 24.5% 27.7% 0.5% 0.3% I.,,.,'? /Ci,. // 69 62 88 98 2 1 21.2% 19.0% 27.0% 30.1% 0.6% 0.3% ,,.,  .: ' . . '  '  f'.: . .J :z/  :, : 1~{,.,~u,,\n,N.)}.: \\ :: .f. .  ,. :? Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% ' 2 3 1 0 0.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% ' I I ,~-.., . ...... .t.{.. ~.{@~: ,,. . . ~ Grade Totals K 16 01 29 02 33 03 34 04 27 05 30 06 43 Totals 212 Percentages _,SJ//,. Grade 1-6 196 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Elementary 6002-058 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 4 6 2 0 0 8 5 10 6 0 0 10 6 5 12 0 0 10 4 9 11 0 I 0 5 4 9 9 0 0 8 9 6 7 0 0 7 12 11 12 1 0 52 44 56 59 1 0 24.5% 20.8% 26.4% 27.8% 0.5% 0.0% 9i II~ I 48 40 50 57 1 0 24.5% 20.4% 25.5% 29.1% 0.5% 0.0% I  '1 . '' Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ,. Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 'I). ' \u0026gt;,' 14 \n:if ',., .t,, , } : ,, '1V: '_. \" .,~. Grade Totals K 59 01 62 02 57 03 66 04 57 05 63 06 78 Totals 442 Percentages l.~/4 Grades 1-6 383 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lynch Drive Elementary 6002-060 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 9 12 16 21 0 1 10 9 21 22 0 0 9 12 24 12 0 0 10 15 21 20 0 0 12 . 12 18 15 0 0 12 14 23 14 0 0 19 13 23 23 0 0 81 87 146 127 0 1 18.3% 19.7% 33.0% 28.7% 0.0% 0.2% l~'-6 ~73. I 72 75 130 106 0 0 18.8% 19.6% 33.9% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% . I Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% I' I I .\".:'{I ,''. I _(\n~y ,.~ I Grade Totals K 24 01 28 02 37 03 33 04 20 05 29 06 41 Totals 212 '7C1 Grades 1-6 188\n: ' North Little Rock Public Schools Meadow Park Elementary 6002-061 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 2 11 8 0 0 2 7 8 11 0 0 1 7 17 11 0 0 6 3 13 11 0 0 6 3 6 5 0 0 5 6 6 12 0 0 6 6 10 19 0 0 29 34 71 77 0 0 13.7% 16.0% 33.5% 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% u?\u0026gt;\n-ri / 26 32 60 69 0 0 13.8% 17.0% 31.9% 36.7% 0.0% 0.0% , .. I . . ,'.,' ._. .\u0026gt; I'. :i :,: .' '  Jli~i,, ...i .. . :  Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , .. ' 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / .fj- ' 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .. . I I' !\n,\n. I . . ~ ' 'Y, ' ' I . : I . . I ' ! ~ ., ! ' tl'\n'' I , }, I .. ~.,~-I\ni  I i i\n.. \"' l .. '. -~~ !:1 ,. '  t ~\\ . . -'t.:\n. ' !. Grade Totals K 67 01 64 02 75 03 66 04 65 05 51 06 73 Totals 461 Percentages ~~l-- Grades 1-6 394 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools North Heights Elementary 6002-063 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 27 16 10 9 2 3 16 18 16 11 1 2 25 13 15 15 3 4 18 17 7 18 2 4 14 20 15 11 3 2 15 10 8 12 3 3 23 18 14 13 1 4 138 112 85 89 15 22 29.9% 24.3% 18.4% 19.3% 3.3% 4.8% ,.\n.so 17- ~1 111 96 75 80 13 19 28.2% 24.4% 19.0% 20.3% 3.3% 4.8% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 '. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% . i I  I I ' . ' ' ' ' 'f. . 1:: ] ' . ,  t,. J,  '.. ~,:~ . ' . \\ .. I ' .\n.\\S, ...\\ F...~. . ~\n.t.\n~ ~ :~ _~hJ%f:1 1\u0026lt;_,   ,? .... _,,\n,,.__ it. .' r l ,l,1 ,,, . ' I,, ,:r..'t'r , . .. i  .J ) \u0026gt; ' Grade Totals K 41 01 49 02 44 03 41 04 36 05 48 06 23 Totals 282 Percentages ~TJI) Grades 1-6 241 PercentaQes i.:\n 'I North Little Rock Public Schools Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 10 15 11 4 0 1 6 18 15 10 0 0 12 7 11 13 0 0 10 9 6 16 0 0 13 6 9 8 0 0 14 14 13 7 0 0 4 9 4 6 0 0 69 78 69 64 0 1 24.5% 27.7% 24.5% 22.7% 0.0% 0.4% JJ/7 133 ~ 59 63 58 60 0 0 24.5% 26.1% 24.1% 24.9% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.4% 0.0% 1 0 0.4% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% .. '' \"''\" k  '.  . JI ' . ~. .\u0026lt; ..!~ -.:' ... North Little Rock Public Schools  Pike View Elementary 6002-065 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hisoanic Asian/Pl Grade Totals M F M F M F M F K 61 16 11 16 16 1 0 0 1 01 67 15 9 23 20 0 0 0 0 02 59 15 10 19 15 0 0 0 0 03 31 7 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 04 49 11 16 14 7 1 0 0 0 05 62 14 13 13 22 0 0 0 0 06 47 14 6 16 10 1 0 0 0 Totals 376 92 70 111 99 3 0 0 1 Percentages 24.5% 18.6% 29.5% 26.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% ,,5? /~\nJ- ~/\u0026lt;) ..J/ Grades 1-6 315 76 59 95 83 2 0 0 0 Percentages 24.1% 18.7% 30.2% 26.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% '-I' . . ' . ,,-\nt~tI \\:JL..Ii. i ~::1ll:~t::.t..?,  .J..,t, .j : f \u0026gt; Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% I ' i. I!.:\nI . ~Jo,, .  i}:t , ~- .:J.,~ '~t~ii:. .., .\u0026gt;. l ,~.. . l   i  . L -'~f  '!(' .. ' , . f, ., -:':,(.\n:1 .. ., ~ \\ , !~,?~ l ~ f  ' .. / :{1.: J~  '' Ii.-~' . i':'.tf\nt:\u0026lt;~- ,. ~t:I I \u0026lt;I.  \n1~~j~ f ~ ..\\\n.~\nrir 1\\- : ',\\}:1 ~. .  \"i'i! i ~ ')''t,9, I  ', .... , '/ ::.\"' \"1 '~ :',t Grade J K 01 02 03 ' 04 05 06 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Redwood Elementary 6002-067 K-06 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic Totals M F M F M F 25 1 0 13 11 0 0 39 0 1 20 18 0 0 29 0 0 14 15 0 0 39 0 2 21 16 0 0 25 1 1 11 12 0 0 26 1 0 15 10 0 0 23 0 1 8 14 0 0 24 1 1 10 12 0 0 230 4 6 112 108 0 0 1.7% 2.6% 48.7% 47.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9~\n,. JO ~\n2.a 0 166 3 5 79 79 0 0 1.8% 3.0% 47.6% 47.6% 0.0% 0.0% I,. 1  ~ : ::~_}{/~ ::'::\\\n~t'l -~:-:::j\n,:I .i. (::}\n,\n' Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I I ' ! I ! ' i . I ' I, , . I 1 . '\u0026lt; ' --',u', ' ...,.. . i ' ~.-,)J . ''' .)I' .: . \\\n:\nr'. \" 0  if,:\n_\n\\~, -,' ,!, - ' ,\"i.\nI '\niP, . . f. ~ -\nl } I   :(~ ,~-~ :  I {  JJ-. ,I. ' -z.~. Grade Totals K 39 01 48 02 40 03 48 04 35 05 47 06 70 Totals 327 Percentages l'..O\nJ. Grades 1-6 288 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 K-6 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 0 0 14 25 0 0 6 6 14 22 0 0 6 5 20 9 0 0 11 11 13 11 1 n2 5 12 9 9 0 0 11 17' 13 5 0 1 18 21 18 13 0 0 57 72 101 94 1 /K 17.4% 22.0% 30.9% 28.7% 0.3% 0.6%\n.\n2._'-f\n\u0026lt;16 .?, 57 72 87 69 1 2 19.8% 25.0% 30.2% 24.0% 0.3% 0.7% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 0 I 0 1 .. 0 0.3% 0.0% 1 ,. 0 0.3% 0.0% i: I  i i i.' l : I. j 1 ! i i 1. i Grade Totals 07 264 08 243 Totals 507 Percentages M North Little Rock Public'Schools Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 79 71 56 53 1 2 95 66 40 42 0 0 174 137 96 95 1 2, 34.3% 27.0% 18.9% 18.7% 191 ' ' 0.2% 0.4% \" '.i . _, , j).t : ,,.,, l~~\nt{ ~h,.j .r _,_.,,J,J\\ r~i'i!~J,.:.,,..-:,.i. 1~~- -4.~i:\": :_.+k~t,1i\n.. ' .{f:r'Uio  ~,--:.,:,.ff~ I \u0026lt;t(r-. Asian/Pl . ~ .. Aml/Als M  F. -, .. M F 0 '2 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 2. 0 ' 0 0.0% ,0.4% 0.0% 0.0% . \"! \\ \\ \\ \\ 1 ' ,I \nI 1  ' Grade Totals 07 305 08 300 Totals 605  I l . , L.\\:.:~. . . - M North Little Rock Public Schools Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 65 56 85 90 3 5 67 58 86 81 5 2 132 114 171 171 8 7 21.8% 18.8% 28.3% 28.3% 1.3% 1.2% .. , \\ Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% . !  ... l , '. :1.\n.. ! . ' , ..... ' J -~ :1:~{,'.  ' ~~- ~ ~'/?. .: l/:,-,~ \\~ ..  t,1 .\u0026gt;.:.? ,_ .\n.(' !\\\n'.'t~' .... ,. ~. \n. .-:r:'. ~:~ \\.\n ~I  / ( , \\l:~..,.  :/(}X I V l Grade Totals 07 149 08 163 09 4 10 2 11 1 12 2 Totals 321 Percentages a,J ..  I' M North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 30 24 44 46 3 2 36 32 46 48 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 68 58 92 96 4 2 21.2% 18.1% 28.7% 29.9% 1.2% 0.6% 1 , _. ..  ' . '  I ':., I : : , ~ '.  f . ,\n_.,~\n.., ..... Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.3% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ' 0 0 , 0 0.0% 0.0% I  : i~t ~ ., , _\n: I~ /~\" .'I:.\\:.-~ .~~ f J\" Grade Totals M 06 2 07 9 08 14 09 35 10 25 11 ' 17 12 .20 Totals 122  North Little Rock Public Schools Argenta Academy 6002-076 06-12 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 4 1 8 1 0 8 0 15 10 1 2 2 17 4 0 2 1 10 4 0 3 3 9 5 0 21 7 66 25 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Percentages 17.2% 5.7% 54.1% 20.5% 0.8% 0.8% qi '\n. ~ .\n). ~ ~ -. ~ ~\n- ~... : ?- . ,\n,: ... : t/ bL . ,.ti.'.J? f Ji:izr ~t:f.':\n.\n: (:t it '.:  ... Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Aml/Als M F 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.8% 0.0% i I ,i ' I' ' ! I i 1 i ' ! ' .. . ,,., \\ ( .f ~,., t~~:.,'iAt . . {. ~ .\n::~ '! ~ ... 'j-\\Y.\" ._., Grade Totals 09 691 10 680 Totals 1371 Percentages ~ . ) ' .. .. North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 156 141 179 200 6 7 163 162 159 186 1 4 319 303 338 386 7 11 23.3% 22.1% 24.7% 28.2% 0.5% 0.8% / I ,  ..'. .. -~  ' . \\\n'. _. .......\" ~ol : :'t ~\n'~ ' ._ _.,,! , I I :.t~,,-i.\n~J -!:,:. l.\n: Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% I  ' ,. i 1 I I ' ' ,\n, \nI . ' -\n_ t,\n, .: \u0026lt;'.~\nJ ,/rt ' . ' .. . ,=._,,\n.. '-\u0026lt;'' .\n~\n, - ,. '. ' Grade Totals 09 38 10 70 11 577 12 574 Totals 1259 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus 6002-076 11-12 October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 4 15 14 1 0 19 11 24 16 0 0 161 137 133 132 4 5 146 165 118 135 5 2 330 317 290 297 10 7 26.2% 25.2% 23.0% 23.6% 0.8% 0.6% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 4 o '\n0 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% ., . ,:\ni : i I I ! I I I, I I. .I .\n,1 : . ,\n,, ' ' ~ ' :.'!., . . ~-  '\u0026lt; ... ~:..-t~\", .. ':\",\\ .,  \\~ r:\n:1. \\(\\\u0026lt;\n{ ,t1~1:\".~~~)' ~JI .,__. ,,- :'  ,J:.)'  ~., ,\nV t ~!:- ' .:,I .. North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic Grade Totals M F M F M F Elementary 4868 978 907 1499 1398 39 34 Percentages 20.1% 18.6% 30.8% 28.7% 0.8% 0.7% Grades 1-6 4049 838 774 1233 1134 34 26 Percentaoes 20.7% 19.1% 30.5% 28.0% 0.8% 0.6% Secondary 4185 1044 936 1053 1070 31 30 Percentages 24.9% 22.4% 25.2% 25.6% 0.7% 0.7% District Totals 9053 2022 1843 2552 2468 70 64 Percentages 22.3% 20.4% 28.2% 27.3% 0.8% 0.7% District 1-12 8234 1882 1740 2286 2204 65 56 22.9% 21.1% 27.8% 26.8% 0.8% 0.7% /-IZ ~J_?,t/ I\u0026lt; 7 Z'f ,t\nI''~ )\nI '7 t? 1Jirmlt..r7 iW,J~ CJ5 'f ~ y'J t) I ~~ ,1?~ uol~ ... I i' . , ..  ... . ,_, ~ \" ,: '.\\\n- ' ,. ~ ,. ..\n#  _,..\n .,. , ~--l., -,~\\~ ~ :'\"\nt \"r .. :._ Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 4 4 4 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 3 3 3 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 8 10 2 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12 14 6 \" 2 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 11 13 5 2 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%\n)eC.- J. ,q~o P Id). \"?r\n- fd\"\"' ~ .. ~- ~\nf~  glf J  I . ,, . ~  I' : ' ' ~ , ,_ ...  ~ ':,,.:~~\n'  f 'j '~  .. ~\n,_r ' .. . ~ ,\n. \\ t .. : .... .,.  ,-ct ~r\nr . 8. ', , Grade Totals Pre-school 95 ::. Kindergarten 724 01 737 02 687 03 632 04 603 05 656 06 736 07 727 08 720 09 768 10 777 11 595 12 596 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY BY GRADE October 1, 1996 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 8 5 39 42 0 1 8.4% 5.3% 41.1% 44.2% 0.0% 1.1% 132 128 227 222 5 7 18.2% 17.7% 31.4% 30.7% 0.7% 1.0% 125 131 240 228 7 4 17.0% 17.8% 32.6% 30.9% 0.9% 0.5% 137 114 239 186 4 4 19.9% 16.6% 34.8% 27.1% 0,6% 0.6% 132 117 186 186 5 5 20.9% 18.5% 29.4% 29.4% 0.8% 0.8% 123 132 184 151 7 5 20.4% 21.9% 30.5% 25.0% 1.2% 0.8% 159 132 175 180 4 4 24.2% 20.1% 26.7% 27.4% 0.6% 0.6% 163 148 210 203 7 5 22.1% 20.1% 28.5% 27.6% 1.0% 0.7% 175 151 191 190 7 9 24.1% 20.8% 26.3% 26.1% 1.0% 1.2% 202 157 180 172 6 2 28.1% 21.8% 25.0% 23.9% 0.8% 0.3% 170 146 209 225 8 8 22.1% 19.0% 27.2% 29.3% 1.0% 1.0% 184 176 200 206 1 4 23.7% 22.7% 25.7% 26.5% 0.1% 0.5% 163 138 143 137 4 5 27.4% 23.2% 24.0% 23.0% 0.7% 0.8% 149 168 129 140 5 2 25.0% 28.2% 21.6% 23.5% 0.8% 0.3% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0.1% 0.1% 0 2 0.0% . 0.3% 1 1 0.1% 0.1% 1 0 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 0.0%  0.0% 0 2 0.0% 0.3% 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 4 2 0.5% 0.3% 2 3 0.3% 0.5% 2 1 0.3% 0.2% Aml/Als M F 0 '' 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 i 0 0.1% 0.0% 0 ,\n0 0.0% 0.0% 0 .\n0 0.0% 0.0% 1 :i 0 0.2% 0.0% 1 ' 0  0.2% 0.0% 0 : 1 0.0% 0.2% 0 1\n0 0.0% 0.0% 2 ,\\ 0 0.3% 0.0% 0 : 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 :1 1 0.0% 0.1% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 I 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ' I, Figures in columns 2 thtu 14 should be to the nearest whole number C. Resident pupils sent to other c5st(s) Lndet \"M to M\" transfers List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County Pulaski County P4 North little Rock 0. Total C cf colurT'JlS 12. 13. 14. These wiD be u,ed for MF?/Transp. A.Kpi urposes E. Non-re:i:ident pupils received from other district(s) unde\u0026lt; \"M to M\" tnnsfers. list Districts LEA HO. Pulaski County North Little Rocle Pulaski County - P4 G. Total E ADT - ADA - ADM Thiirq,ortis due \"ithin fifte:a(l~l ch)\"Sa ftCTthcm d ofthc qmru-r( ,,vk. Cock Am. 6-J\u0026amp;,-213S, upp 1991). Sc:i::douecopylO~ office of Loal Fisa.l Scniccs., it.( Capi~ ~lall. Room 202-A. Lialc Rod.. Mmsu r...20 I md ooc copy to the Coumy Board o(Edacatioa. Ea:h quzrur ts 10 ~ 00 !cu dim fem (40) .mdo o mOR thzDf iftv {!lOld a\"'- I I l I l I  s  1 I  I  KINDERGARTEN GRADES DAYS [N A'TTE-.l\u0026gt;A.l'\\CE DAYS ADM 0 .. .\\Y S IS ATJ'D'DA.~CE DAYS ABSE:s'T' TOTAL TOTAL ~ TOTAL COL TOTAL T COL4+5 011l T' ?,\n\"'r 2+3 .I.!'-,( /COL I T ,T COLL~C,..--S 43 4023 4023 160 97 43252 43252 43 2042 2042 90 50 42 6226 6226 -- 40 1927 1927 24 49 15377 15377 40 80 80 2 1576 1576 40 1923 1923 57 50 40 2007 2007 24 51 16953 16953 H. Number ot kindergarten ptJpa enroned this quiirtet: full-rime: il Add:itioaaJiasttua:ioasOlltac:k. I 10 11 11 1l I \" 1 -12 C0\"13C-.cD TOTAL DAYS GRADESK-12 ABSE?,T TOTAL ADT -~A \"\" TOTAL T+Nl COL 9+10 /COL COL. 2+7 JCOL COL 4.,.9 .'COL COL 4-ST 7-!-\u0026amp; I I I 9-10.COLI 1955 1051 1099 1099 1149 358 157 148 - 148 157 1,248 1,248 1,.305 526 398 433 446 77 41 41 43 ' 603 439' 474 489 PlN-09--00-0055 /91 W/P4 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage west Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 NOV 1 2 1996 Officeo f DesegregatioMn. ornto110~ In response to your memorandum of October 28, 1996, requesting our school capacity figures for 1996-97 school year. Please note the capacity changes for the following four schools: Arnold Drive - Oakbrooke - Sylvan Hills El. - Mills Hi. 420 to 390 555 to 475 519 to 469 780 to 850 I hope this information will help aid you in your report. Sincerely,\n!\n.cf?-1'--- Assistant Superintendent EH:bh c: Mr. Billy Bowles Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: October 28, 1996 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Pulaski County Special School District From: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: School Capacity Figures for 1996-97 We are currently at work on the 1996-97 Racial Balance Report. This year, as last, we plan to include a chart that makes the comparison between each school's enrollment and its capacity. A copy of the 1995-96 PCSSD chart is enclosed. Please review the information and notify us if any of the capacities have changed. We need any notice of change by Tuesday, November 12, 1996. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that all capacities remain unchanged, and we will publish the figures you furnished last year. Thank you for your help. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: October 28, 1996 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Pulaski County Special School District From: Subject: Melissa Guldin~tsociate Monitor School Capacity Figures for 1996-97 We are currently at work on the 1996-97 Racial Balance Report. This year, as last, we plan to include a chart that makes the comparison between each school's enrollment and its capacity. A copy of the 1995-96 PCSSD chart is enclosed. Please review the information and notify us if any of the capacities have changed. We need any notice of change by Tuesday, November 12, 1996. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that all capacities remain unchanged, and we will publish the figures you furnished last year. Thank you for your help. Elementary Schools Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson Total aae 64 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRENT YEAR ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Oct 1, 1995 1995-96 Percentage Junior High Oct 1, 1995 Enrollment Capacity Filled Schools Enrollment 343 420 82% Fuller 879 380 420 90% Jacksonville North 631 318 328 97% Jacksonville South 508 485 768 63% Northwood 980 635 664 96% Robinson 464 552 600 92% Scott Alternative Sch 47 661 800 83% Sylvan Hills 848 309 340 91% Total 4,357 790 820 96% 462 465 99% 381 526 72% 325 525 62% 752 785 96% Senior High Schools Oct 1, 1995 Enrollment 484 599 81% Jacksonville 996 308 365 84% Mills 751 451 476 95% North Pulaski 815 455 555 82% Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 892 498 440 113% Robinson 358 579 656 88% Sylvan Hills 803 387 500 77% 136 280 49% Total 4,615 463 492 94% 444 519 86% 420 444 95% 544 570 95% 11,562 13,357 87% Grand Total Oct 1, 1995 for PCSSD Enrollment 20,534 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 945 93% 737 86% 727 70% 1,014 97% 514 90% 125 38% 925 92% 4,987 87% 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 1,025 97% 780 96% 900 91% 935 95% 506 71% 998 80% 5,144 90% 1995-96 Percentage Capacity Filled 23,488 87% r C:~..._ P.1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr DixoN ROAD LITTLER oa\u0026lt;.A, RKANSAS7 2206 (501) 490~2000 Date: I I I ~I:\n(,J Time: To: () From: Number of Pages /\n(including cover sheet): ------'\nL~. __ _ Message I ., POST 0rnCE Box 8601 LrITLER oa\u0026lt;, ARKANSAS 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 LI/') IV\\_ From: ~ Return D Keep or Toss\u0026lt;t'.J [ Post-11\"7668COM1 993 ___:-- ~ t.J / t'../:.,,-\u0026lt;-,-2./ ()J./t\\../j v~j/J--i.,T7\\_ s I J NOV 05 '% ~19: -1'3 OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIA.NI P. ISL.!\\:'.1[ SCHOOL BJy'S GIRLS rois cm.s 8JiS Gill[$ BJiS GIRLS Fuller Jr. High 267 -)~9 188 ,B8f96 /,Es l 4 2 J'ville North i19?\n~.\n/3/ /~ 213 86 117 127 6 2 2 J'ville South 1.3I~ ~00 II 160 158 101 99 3 1 3 J'ville High 352 ~\n1~0 161 ~61 /3/ 2 l 7 4 Mills High -Yc:?S ..J/OtJ 246 179 224 176 I/ 2 l l 7 North Pulaski 289' !?C\u0026gt; ~\n}-, /6 281 113 89 3 6 2 3 Northwood (,, 1J' i.\n,18' ,3d- 363 315 108 110 2 8 7 3 Oak Grove 371 ~81310 114 ~.l2 /..\ni., 5 1 2 4 Rob Jr. High ~i60 /d I 161 56 57 l Rob. High ~I(,, ./~- I 160' 156 83 39 l S.Hills Jr. . ~~69 ~9 .5 308 155 734 2 1 l S. Hills High ~'2so [.\n,17 /,..).., 301 106 l J' . l 6 4 l l TOTAL SEC. ~i1'5'.:i C ~,1~7 1~1 3,191 1 .,763 1,526 1 , 4.ll 27 32 28 31 fc~3~l: ~ ~~o .\n,,t. 'if' DIST. TOTAL 7,077 o,320 3,425 ,.., .,, -?Q -:, 76 58 46 62 P.3 (11-4-96) M--1.lmf'ESGMJ EOtS Grn:S l 3 l l 1 l l 5 4 ! Tor.~\n: 843! ~ ~7 a\u0026amp; I 653 7 529: I 978: ~ ~ 1-1, : 836: 7871 918' ~ 9.i9 -'. .-.\n-):-J ~~9 ~ ,l, i s,1i ~cg ~~ -a7 ~~ : 8i0 9,Qigj 15 11 I 20,295 63 1 (NOTE: Students attending the Alte=~ative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) ~ ~/4,,::s ' /(,_\n/..!,1)~\n) ~ C -r 1tJ ~') / /{) g C) /J ~ (] ~,)70 -35 .a  7~ -17 ~ (?L/ d// =1Ct, ~5 0 I ~, t\\1~V' ?'-'J /..::\n_,/ ,/4 ~ 9 d\"G, 0 ~ ~ --\"\"\") ) ~ ~~K (o~ v --19 ~3 0 7, .9~ ~S( :ii )?1 /.:2? //~ :::::H'f -11 1o - 2 - F.2 OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT ( 11-4-96) SCHOOL lv'HITE BLACK HI SPA'\\ilC ~ P rq .ll1\\n Lll\\f Thr'~ I BJ.iS GIN.S EDYS r.,rns ~ GIR[S EUiS I GrRl:S Fn,a::\nr.\nn:\nrc:\n'ltJll-L / Adkins /'!O //9 ..3 93 97 60 59 312 I , ... l l Arnold Drive 149 r{['7 44 f3 39 ~, , ..... 381 Baker ~3'/ 76 --Y2 124 115 39 36 l 1 318 Bates 112 ::)1/ 99 129 ..is-'123 I 1 464 Bayou Mete (,0~ It\n, /0 310 292 9 7 6 1 l 1 l 628 Cato 225 i\n,'/,5 190 63 1/8' 55 9 2 4 2 1 542 Clinton 207 :1167 156 .::?-6189 ,::3() 6 5 4 4 I l 739 College Station 102 /717 83 1.3-f 51 /0 2 l 3 4 323 Crystal Hill I-IIG, 14~f1s .3 209 207 181 2 l 778 I ~I~ //~ o/ I Dupree 169 147 58 55 l l 3 l 3 438 , Fuller Elem. 76 /13 llO ~~ 112 ~ l l l l 375 Harris 73 1.a0, 76 /(,/ 85 7 6 , ... 303 I rf''v ~oS ,If\u0026amp;) J'ville Elem. 202 214 161 144 2 3 l 3 l 731 Landmark 147 \u0026amp;ia-s 138 122 dlo/ 97 504 Lawson 138 ~..i/1 109 21 ~11 26 294 I Oak Grove Elem. ~14 /0/ 7 160 156 so 51 ? l l 421 ~35 /10 g Oakbrooke 185 150 59 51 1 2 l 2 1 1 41\n- _,j Pine Forest l..3#8' n ID 189 159 46 52 3 l 2 4 456 Pinewood a,,ID 191 I~ 164 176 94 97 5 l 5 l 54.3 Robinson Elem. 30\n,..,. iO 157 145 40 40 382 Scott r~ 46 36 24 -i5 21 127 Sherwood 169 31-..'.\n,~ g 60 10(, 46 .\n1., 2 416 Sylvan Hills Elem. 1~9 I~/ II 161 .59 42 6 5 422 ..:)30 /G,5 .\nJ- Taylor 117 113 98 67 l 1 397 1 Tolleson -yo~ /..,1\u0026amp;\" 202 200 57 71 530 l ~~ ~(,,)'~ TOTAL ELEM. 3,886 7 1,899 1,794 \"1..1,9/ ! 26 18 31 I 10 7 ll,27i _ _,,:iCT 30 \"?13 11 : lb P. 1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EA.s0rt xON RoAO I.mu Roa\u0026lt;, ARKANSAS 72206 (501) 490-2000 Date: IO /_30/f/ /\nI Time: To: From: Number of Pages (includingc overs heet): --=0:a._.._.. .., _ ( I I Message POSTO FFICEB ox 8601 LTILE Rea:, AR.KANSAS 72216 FA,.X(S01)4900483 '\\ 1, I I ! : SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meta Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Elem. Harris J'ville Elem. Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Elem. Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Elem. Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Elem. Taylor Tolleson TOTAL ELEM. OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLMENT REPORT 93 97 60 39 149 147 44 39 124 115 39 36 112 99 129 123 310 292 9 7 190 63 56 208 168 l56 190 77 83 51 209 207 181 1-17 58 55 76 73 llO l I ::.12 73 62 76 I 85 I 202 161 144 147 138 122 138 109 21 26 160 156 so I 51 185 150 59 51 I 1asi 159 46 52 164 176 94 98 157 l.45 40 40 46 36 24 21 169 139 60 46 161 1~9 59 42 117 113 98 67 202 200 57 71 3,887 3,558 1,899 1,797 1. l l 2 6 6 l - I .r. I 2 3 5 2 6 l, 49 l l l l 5 1 I ll ., -r l 2 , .J.. 1 26 l 4 3 l 1 I 2 , .J.. 18 l l ..I. . s ,.., ~ I..:.. ( 10-29-96) 4 4 3 l l 2 1 -, , 3.:sl l l 2 4 2 3 l l 2 4 5 3.\nJf 377 72:3 I ~201 '--1 l.L ! 530 I 31 l.1.. .5. ..- ol ~30 P.: OCTOBER 1, 1996 ENROLLME!'IT REPORT ( l0-20-96) WiI'Y::: 8._t.C.{ - nLSEllNIC ASi!l-VP .IS!:)N). A.:::!'D':::S:.\n?0 SCHOOL l:::!.J.!.., \\=_\"\u0026lt;1 :--, ~l::S ll.L::) aJ't'S Gl.RTS invs c::~.S ~ GIH(S Fulfer Jr. High 267 179 l8~ .i% ,eJ :\nl 4 2 4 2 J'ville North .. 211 182 115 127 sl 2 .., 2 2 ~ J' ville South 160 160 :01 99 3 .L 3 l 3 J'ville High 353 290 161 163 .., .. 1 7 4 7 4 Mills High 246 180 2?' -C _,/-Q , . 2 1 .l ,_ i l I 7 North Pulaski 289 281 114 89 3 6 2 .) 2 3 Northwood 363 315 108 111 .., .:. 8 7 3 7 3 Oak Grove .-:.:-,1/_ 310 114 112 5 1. I 2 I ~ I 4 I I I Rob Jr. High l60 loO 57 :-) .I, I - I ' ' Rob. High 15S ~53 78 39 I l I l ! I S.Hills Jr. 309 269 155 lj4 2 I ' , l I I I s. Hills High 301 2s1I 105 I lll C ., l , .., - l I l TOTAL SEC. 3,189 I 2,760 , -...-. 1,.~:4 r 7, I - , :)L,j -I ,.j_ 28 3: 28 31 DIST. TOTAL 7,076 I ,'j I j- 13 3,422 3 ., ,., 76 s7 I '46 , ..... ,.c...:...!. c~ 46 62 (The srudents at che .U~emat:ive Leam.irlg Ce.11te:c-had to be lcf\u0026lt;'.)rt~ .i..\". the figures for their tare schcols) . .') .. '!Crr.\n.~. s~~, 6~3 I ~31 S\\S:2 en :~.:. (\nl\"_\"-\nI C - - ....~ : I 42tS ~..)..:,. I a-:-2 C .. .\n9 ,G-~2 20,J-\n-6 ' I\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_601","title":"Program planning and budgeting process","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":["1996-08"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Program planning and budgeting process"],"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/601"],"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":["139 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\nAUG 3 0 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Office of Desegregation I I PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS H August 1996 M H ^5 Little Rock School District PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING August 1996 to General Concept A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process (Process) improves the Districts ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the District. Linking program objectives and program expenditures assures that money is being spent appropriately. This document serves as an explanation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process. During the Process, the following will occur: q 1. The needs of the District, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans, will be determined. 2. Goals and objectives will be defined. 3. Programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans, will be defined. 4. Performance standards and expenditures will be established and measured. q 5. Information for corrective decision-making will be prepared. q Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process q q q q q q q I. II. Key Players - The Superintendent leads the Process with direct support from the Cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision-maker for the Process. Description - The Process is led by the Superintendent with direct support from the Superintendents Cabinet. The Process is coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager for Support Services, who both serve on the Superintendents Cabinet. A. B. c. A Management Tool (described later in this document) serves as a Planning Budget Calendar. The Calendar allows the Board to continuously monitor progress of the Process. The Director of PRE is the lead planning person. He/she ensures that the planning process is conducted according to established time frames, provides technical assistance, coordinates the planning process, collects appropriate reports, coordinates the preparation of related documents, and advises the Superintendent and Board on the Process. In addition, the lead planning person is responsible for ensuring that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the Process. The Director of PRE is to be assisted by a Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility is District wide planning. III. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (see Attachment 1). The primary planning and budget qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 IV. development tasks are finalized and included on a Project Management Tool by July (for the July Court submission). Time frame - The organizational chart is reviewed/revised by August to ensure that the configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments are made as needed. 4 Program Inventory Prior to the Needs Assessment period, which starts in September for the next budget year, the Program Inventory process begins in July\ncurrent desegregation and non-desegregation programs are identified. I. HI II. III. IV. Key Players - The Superintendent provides overall direction, and the Board reviews the findings. The lead planning person coordinates the collection of basic data and prepares the data into appropriate documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff collect the necessary data. Description - The list of current programs and services is revised if necessary. New programs and services are identified and merged with the Program Budget Document as necessary. Likewise, programs that are no longer in place or that have met legal obligations are removed from the Program Budget Document. The desegregation plan and court orders are reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons are identified for each program or service. Outcome - A Program Inventory Report is generated and used during the goals and objectives development process\nthe program addition, modification, and deletion-process\nand the budgeting process. Time frame - The Program Inventory process begins in July. A list of all desegregation and non-desegregation programs is compiled by August. The Program Inventory may be revised as needed. q q q q q q Program Evaluation Program evaluation provides an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. q I. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent with assistance from the Cabinet, as recipients of the extended evaluations, use the information from the evaluation of programs q to guide programmatic direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person q II. q coordinates the program evaluation process. The Manager for Support Services provides assistance with supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff prepare all reporting documents falling within their areas of responsibility. Description - Each program is evaluated through the Districts regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations may be directed by the Superintendent. q Programs may also be identified for fast-track evaluation on an as needed basis if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the District. qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 III. IV. Outcome - Program evaluation information enables the District to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modifications, additions, and deletions and resource allocation, which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Time frame - The program evaluation period for each budget year begins in July and continues through mid-November, leading up to the point of program development (i.e.. Business Cases). Program evaluations are conducted on programs that were operating during the most recently completed school year. Needs Assessment q The needs assessment is a process for comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. I. I Key Players - The Superintendent provides leadership and direction for the Needs Assessment process. The lead planning person coordinates the process. The Superintendent and the Cabinet identify the needs. directina the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendents Cabinet is responsible for II. I Description - Utilizing a combination of district wide perceptual and objective instruments, data are collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information is collected through broad-based input sessions such as Town Hall meetings and District Dialogue sessions. A. B. I c. q q q q At least three Town Hall meetings are conducted. One town hall meeting each for area schools, magnet schools, and incentive schools are scheduled. Every effort is made to locate strategically the sessions to encourage maximum participation. Additional Town Hall meetings may be scheduled if needed. One District Dialogue is conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. Additional District Dialogues may be scheduled if needed. An administrative work session is conducted to review and analyze various District wide reports and objective data. The following kinds of data are reviewed: 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. Stanford Achievement Test Results Planning, Research, and Evaluation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Court Orders Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results District wide Facilities Study/Report Proportional Allocation Formulas Study Program Inventoiy q q J lLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 D. A comparison between identified needs and the Program Inventory is conducted to determine whether or not programmatic gaps and areas of need exist. III. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work session, town hall meetings, and district dialogue sessions is a list of needs. District desegregation and non-desegregation programs are also evaluated for needs information. The Superintendent and Cabinet identify program(s) in need of an extended evaluation. HI V IV. Time frame - The Needs Assessment process begins in September with a review of the types of data that will be collected. A Needs Assessment report is generated by the end of November based upon findings from the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, studies or reports, and the results of program evaluations. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in town hall meetings and district dialogues (as a counterpart to the Needs Assessment process). Every effort is made to include other interested groups, if appropriate. HI 1. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for broad-based feedback. The Director of Communications, with assistance from the lead planning person, I UI will develop a plan for disseminating information. II. Description - Broad-based feedback sessions are designed to provide planning and budgeting process information to the community and LRSD employees. Target populations are the same as those at the broad-based input sessions conducted in September and October. III. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process may be generated. IV. Time frame - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted the following March and April. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process guides all actions of the administration, expected outcomes for a specified period of time. The process defines the m I. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. The Cabinet provides assistance and support by defining m II. objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process is coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board conducts a work session. After reviewing the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory' Report, the Board: A. B. Reviews and revises, if necessaiy', the mission statement. Establishes written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the next fiscal year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan are not adopted. II HLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 5 n q q q q q q q q q C. D. E. Reviews and provides guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). Establishes written priorities. These priorities guide staff in program modification, addition, or deletion, as well as help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. Considers strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet works to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. in. Outcome - At the conclusion of the Board Work Session, the Board publishes: A. A written mission statement B. c. Written goals A list of priorities IV. The staff revises program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these are incorporated into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The goal setting process is dependent on the Needs Assessment and Program Inventory. The Board Work Session is conducted in mid-December. Program objectives and evaluation criteria are subsequently revised as needed by appropriate staff. Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support the needs of the District, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. Any additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by a business case (see Attachment 2) as outlined in II, A below. I. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifyin\nIS. and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead II. planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may be modified to meet objectives. Some programs may be eliminated. The District establishes a framework for Program Development, framework includes, where appropriate, the following: The A. Business Case q 1. 2, q Executive Summary Background Problem Definition 4. Analysis of Alternatives q qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Recommended Alternative Objective Impact Analysis Resource Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan B. I Appropriate changes to a Program Budget Document (see Planning Document in the Budgeting section) will be made as a result of program additions, modifications, or deletions. III. I ll IV. I V. Program Development - (i.e., program additions, modifications, or deletions) is conducted by staff with the appropriate Cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet review Program Development cases to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such Program Development. Outcome - A business case for each program that is added, modified, or deleted is written. As with existing programs, programs that are added or modified to satisfy a need include all of the elements for budget development and may be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The Program Development phase begins in November and concludes in February. However, some programs may be identified or recommended for possible addition, modification, or deletion al an earlier or later date (or as part of an ongoing process, if appropriate). q q q Budgeting I. q q q II. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent ensures that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Support Services coordinates the budget preparation process, and the lead planning person ensures that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers provide input relative to his or her area of responsibility. The Manager for Support Services will produce the budget information. Description - Funds, personnel, and facilities are allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation are issued by the q III. Superintendent with assistance provided by the Manager for Support Services. These directions include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document is developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component that links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements is a priority. q IV. Time frame - qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 7 I Month Task 1 I November December January Februarv March May July August Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels Budget managers begin to submit requests for next school year Begin budget development Continue budget development__________________________ Revise financial forecast\nPrepare Proposed Budget Prepare Tentative Budget Prepare Final Budget Board review and adoption of Budget\nSubmit budget to ADE Guidelines for Proposed. Tentative, and Final Budget Development I I The following guidelines help define the format and expectations, to the extent possible, of what is included in the Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budgets. I. Proposed Budget I I A. B. C. I D. The Proposed Budget should be at the detailed level. The Proposed Budget should reflect a revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. IL ll Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.) n i q 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING E. Page 8 The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. I I V III. Final Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level. The Final Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that the District intends to make during the fiscal year. These additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. The Final Budget should reflect what the District intends to deliver to the State Department of Education. Monitoring Reporting The Program Budget Document provides the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. I. II. III. Key Players - The Superintendent provides guidance for the maintenance of the Program Budget Document. Program Managers provide program information for their respective areas. The Manager for Support Services provides financial information for each program. The lead planning person coordinates the updating of the document. The Board and I Superintendent are the recipients of the reports to assist them in oversight and decision-making. The lead planning person coordinates the process and prepares the O' 4 4 4 Program Budget Document. Program Managers prepare all reporting documents within their areas of responsibility. Description - The Program Budget Document is the basis for monitoring and reporting and follows an established format and design. The Program Inventory provides the divisions within the Program Budget Document. Program managers, as primary leaders, are assigned responsibility for identified programs. Secondary leaders are assigned also. Program managers are responsible for accomplishing program objectives, for coordinating the required activities or strategies, and for the preparation and submission of the Program Budget Document. The document reflects both program performance and expenditures quarterly. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems may be addressed by corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. Outcome - A Program Budget Document is maintained that becomes the basis for monitoring and reporting and also serves as a guide for interim decision-making. The result is a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the District, supported with expenditure information. 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 IV. Time frame - Reports are generated quarterly beginning with the first quarter of the fiscal year. Reassessment of Process and Organization HI q Planning and budgeting is a continuing process (see Attachment 3, Planning and Budgeting Cycle). As such, the Program Inventory' begins in July, while the Needs Assessment begins in September. A review/revision of the Program Inventory for the future budget year is completed by August. The Reassessment of Process and Organization begins in July of the current year and concludes by August of the following year. The review process requires an examination of the Process for possible changes that prove beneficial to the Districts Program Planning and Budgeting Process. The reassessment requires a review of the Districts organizational structure to ensure that it is of the best configuration to meet the Districts needs. The lead planning person reviews the process and makes recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, when appropriate. The lead planning person ensures that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinates the activities. q q Management Tool The Management Tool is submitted to the Court by the end of each calendar month. The q q q q Management Tool serves as an instrument by which the District may monitor established timelines which are cardinal to the Planning and Budgeting Process. The Management Tool identifies the responsible person(s), activities, and timelines required ofand also serves asa Planning Budget Calendar. The Management Tool, in addition to the Program Budget Document, is an outgrowth of the concepts described throughout this document. Further, items of significant importance to the District, but not necessarily directly linked to Program Planning and Budgeting, may be added to the tool, at the direction of the Superintendent, to allow the District to monitor additional issues or topics. The Management Tool is numbered to coincide with the Fiscal Year budget for which it is associated. The eight major components of the Management Tool include the following: 1) Program Inventory\n2) Program Evaluation\n3) Needs Assessment\n4) Planning and Budget Goals\n5) Program Development\n6) Budgeting\n7) Monitoring and Reporting\nand 8) Reassessment of Planning Process and Organization. q q q q Summary One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the Program Inventory, Needs Assessment, and quarterly reporting serve not only to strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but also to increase the communitys awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the Districts carefully thought-out process designed to meet those commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the Districts Position Control Inventory System q q inQLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 software yields valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, are provided. This process, plus the program linkages serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. The intent of these steps and procedures is to identify those programs which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for fundin\nFurther, by achieving a 'o- greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the Districts resources toward those programs which demonstrate track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or eliminate its reliance q on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long-range planning and budget process is the key component of the Districts strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. q q q q q q q q q q q q qq LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 q q ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Organizational Chart q Attachment 2: Business Case Format q Attachment 3: Schematic Planning and Budget Cycle q q q q q q q q * 1 q q q q q2  s s  B JI Ji fi S f a 5\" a 'a 5 cn O Little Rock School District Organizational Structure [ -0 o a Board of Diraclora ] E Or Don Roberts IrMoran Si4\u0026gt;ennlar\u0026gt;denl r \u0026gt; Leon Modesle Spacial Assislani to Superintendeni I I X I o IBA Assoc Supi Brady Gadberry Labor Relations TBA Manager for Support Services 1 TBA Asst. Supi Curriculum Support Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Granta * Margaral GramiHion Aaal SupI Elamanlary Sadie Milchelt Asam Superntartdanl Elementary Dr Victor Anderson Aaaid Superkitendeni Secondary O aa Suelien Vann Communications Director Dr Richard Hurley Human Resources Director Mark Milhollen Finanoal Servicas Gena Parker Reading/Foreign Ads Dr Lmda Walsort Acting Aast Supi Sludenl Hearing Principals 13 Schools Prmapali 17 Schools Principals 13 Schools n' Nancy Acre Student Assignment Director Or Pally Kohler Di of Exceptionai Children Director Charlia Naai Proouramanl Dannia Glasgow Sciance/Mathematica SuperviBor Lmda Young New Futures David Beason Information Services Principals S Incentive Schools Carol Green Vocational Education S Bechy Rather Parent I\u0026lt;ecru\u0026lt;er Coordinaior Jo Evelyn Elston PupiJ Services Director Doug Eaton Plant Services Mane A McNeal Social Studies Supervisor Paulelle Mailin Aduli Educiiliun n -J CO c o o n Ur Ed Jackson Planning Research \u0026amp; Ev-ikialton Diiectof Bobby Jonei Bacurity/Ritk Managemertl Catherine Gill Parent involvement Coordinator Johnny Neeley Alleiiialive (eaiiiing Conlei Marvin Schwartz Grama VAiler Mary Jane Cheatham Director of Transportalion Starling Ingram Staff De\u0026lt;Mlopmanl Director Ray G'lluspie Athletics Oebbia Milam Vokrnleart m Public Schools Morlin McCoy Food Services Director Pal Price Early Childhood Coordinator X 1 o n \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; n o Lucy Lyon Technology/Media Services Coordinator Manan Shead-Jackaon HIPPY SuperviBor -0 cr rsLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 STCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 ATTACHMENT 2 1. SHORT TERM PROJECT - BUSINESS CASE GLftDELlNES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE n 4 m n I. BACKGROUND A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same . . . decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered w'hen developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale . . . SELL YOUR IDEA. EXECUTING SUMMARY n A. n n. RI n n The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. B. Background. 1. 2. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. Problem Definition. nLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 R I 1. Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem or situation. There may be a need to 2. R c. q q q q q D. n H E. 1 I I M q q convince the reader that a problem exists. Only one problem should be addressed at a time, avoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. Considerations. What seems to be the real problem? What are the causes of the problem? To what extent are they known? Who is affected? What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? Analysis of Alternatives. 1. 2. J. Process. Provide a written description of how you generated and analyzed your alternatives. Be sure to include the participants. Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in factual terms. REMEMBER ... the do nothing alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on requirements, impact on legal obligations, impact on personnel, impact on finances. The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. Each analysis should be brief, but should clearly make its point. While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. Recommendation. 1. 2. Action recommended. The recommendation follows from the analysis of alternatives. The action recommended should be written in brief, clear, positive statements. Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. Objective. 1. 2. J. Objective of the recommendation. Define the objective of the recommended action, not the immediate physical outputs. Goal support. This section should include statements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the District. It is important to establish a direct relationship. Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. These will become a major component of your future plan. There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) b) c) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 15 4. F. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria going to cost more than it will yield? Expected benefits. This analysis should include an explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they are expected to be realized. It should also identify the recipients of the expected benefits. Impact Analysis. 1. q 2. q q 3. 4. Program. Describe the impact of the program, both positive and negative. Call in the Expected Benefits above. If you execute this recommendation, how will it impact other programs...will something fall off the table[?] Who will be the primary actors impacted? Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan' Coun Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? Political factors. Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? implementation plan' Are your strategies in the q 5. 6. q q q G. q q q q q H. Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. Timing. What are the major timing issues, and how will you deal with them? Resources Analysis. 1. 2. Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support stafT required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? Training requirements should be included. Financial analysis. AH of the financial considerations should be examined at this a) b) c) point. All operating costs, including personnel and benefits, for each of the next 1-5 fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. q qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 16 1. 2. Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation' Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? Forces Against. Who will be the primary detractors of the recommendation? Why will they oppose the recommendation? How can you minimize their influence or win them over? J. Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. I. General Implementation Plan. q 1. q 2. 3. N4ilestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. This should not be a detailed project plan. Timelines. Each milestone event should have a timeline associated with it. Tasking. Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by q 4. name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan q should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. \" q quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly or q 1 q q q q q J rLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 ATTACHMENT 3 q Planning and Budgeting Time Line q JUL AUG SEP OCT I NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR [ APR I MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGFW.1 INVENTORY q 2 PROGRW1 EVALllftnON T 3 NEEDS ASSESS^TEhfT q 4 GOALS q  f 5 PROGRAf.l DEVELOPMENT 6 BUXETING 7 I q MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORUNG I 8 REASSESSfAENT OF PLANNING PROCESS \u0026amp; ORGANIZATION q q q q q q q q q  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4I I \u0026gt; 09 RECEIVF AUG 3 0 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Office of Desegregation Moimw.u.w I PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS August 1996 Jc.' Mp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with this court's order of August 26, 1993, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District's August 1996 Program Planning and Budgeting Process (\"The Grey Book\") and the Little Rock School District's August Program Planning and Budgeting Tool for FY 1996- 97 and FY 1997-98. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 BY: ^N C. FENDLEY, JR. Wo-3323 f:\\hanBUendlcyUnd\\KN-fiU30CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing a co .. the United States mail on this day of copy of same in\n, 19 : Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (MAILED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) f:'haTncV/cndkyUfd\\aM-fil.83O -2- Little Rock School District PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING August 1996 General Concept A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process (Process) improves the Districts ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the District. Linking program objectives and program expenditures assures that money is being spent appropriately. This document serves as an explanation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process. During the Process, the following will occur: 1. The needs of the District, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans, will be determined. 2. Goals and objectives will be defined. 3. Programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans, will be defined. 4. 5. Performance standards and expenditures will be established and measured. Information for corrective decision-making will be prepared. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process I. II. III. Key Players - The Superintendent leads the Process with direct support from the Cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision-maker for the Process. Description - The Process is led by the Superintendent with direct support from the Superintendents Cabinet. The Process is coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager for Support Services, who both serve on the Superintendents Cabinet. n A. B. c. A Management Tool (described later in this document) serves as a Planning Budget Calendar. The Calendar allows the Board to continuously monitor progress of the Process. The Director of PRE is the lead planning person. He/she ensures that the planning process is conducted according to established time frames, provides technical assistance, coordinates the planning process, collects appropriate reports, coordinates the preparation of related documents, and advises the Superintendent and Board on the Process. In addition, the lead planning person is responsible for ensuring that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the Process. The Director of PRE is to be assisted by a Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility is District wide planning. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (see Attachment 1). The primary planning and budgetLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 development tasks are finalized and included on a Project Management Tool by July (for the July Court submission). IV. Time frame - The organizational chart is reviewed/revised by August to ensure that the configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments are made as needed. Program Inventory Prior to the Needs Assessment period, which starts in September for the next budget year, the Program Inventory process begins in July\ncurrent desegregation and non-desegregation programs are identified. I. Key Players - The Superintendent provides overall direction, and the Board reviews the findings. The lead planning person coordinates the collection of basic data and prepares the data into appropriate documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff collect the necessary data. II. Description - The list of current programs and services is revised if necessary. New programs and services are identified and merged with the Program Budget Document as necessary. Likewise, programs that are no longer in place or that have met legal obligations are removed from the Program Budget Document. The desegregation plan and court orders are reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons are identified for each program or service. III. IV. tr Outcome - A Program Inventory Report is generated and used during the goals and objectives development process\nthe program addition, modification, and deletion-process\nand the budgeting process. Time frame - The Program Inventory process begins in July. A list of all desegregation and non-desegregation programs is compiled by August. The Program Inventory may be revised as needed. A A Program Evaluation Program evaluation provides an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes a I. II. as Key Players - The Board and Superintendent with assistance from the Cabinet, a: recipients of the extended evaluations, use the information from the evaluation of programs to guide programmatic direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person coordinates the program evaluation process. The Manager for Support Services provides assistance with supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff prepare all reporting documents falling within their areas of responsibility. Description - Each program is evaluated through the Districts regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations may be directed by the Superintendent. Programs may also be identified for fast-track evaluation on an as needed basis if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the District.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 III. Outcome - Program evaluation information enables the District to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modifications, additions, and deletions and resource IV. allocation, which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Time frame - The program evaluation period for each budget year begins in July and continues through mid-November, leading up to the point of program development (i.e., Business Cases). Program evaluations are conducted on programs that were operating during the most recently completed school year. Needs Assessment The needs assessment is a process for comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. 1. II. Key Players - The Superintendent provides leadership and direction for the Needs Assessment process. The lead planning person coordinates the process. The Superintendent and the Cabinet identify the needs. The Superintendents Cabinet is responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. Description - Utilizing a combination of district wide perceptual and objective instruments, data are collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information is collected through broad-based input sessions such as Town Hall meetings and District Dialogue sessions. A. B. At least three Town Hall meetings are conducted. One town hall meeting each for area schools, magnet schools, and incentive schools are scheduled. Every effort is made to locate strategically the sessions to encourage maximum participation. Additional Town Hall meetings may be scheduled if needed. One District Dialogue is conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. Additional District Dialogues may be scheduled if c. Ml needed. An administrative work session is conducted to review and analyze various District wide reports and objective data. The following kinds of data are reviewed: HI 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Stanford Achievement Test Results Planning, Research, and Evaluation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Court Orders Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results District wide Facilities Study/Report Proportional Allocation Formulas Study Program Inventoiy b N M MLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 D. A comparison between identified needs and the Program Inventory is conducted to determine whether or not programmatic gaps and areas of need exist. III. IV. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work session, town hall meetings, and district dialogue sessions is a list of needs. District desegregation and non-desegregation programs are also evaluated for needs information. The Superintendent and Cabinet identify program(s) in need of an extended evaluation. Time frame - The Needs Assessment process begins in September with a review of the types of data that will be collected. A Needs Assessment report is generated by the end of November based upon findings from the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, studies or reports, and the results of program evaluations. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in town hall meetings and district dialogues (as a counterpart to the Needs Assessment process). Every effort is made to include other interested groups, if appropriate. I. II III. IV. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for broad-based feedback. The Director of Communications, with assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for disseminating information. Description - Broad-based feedback sessions are designed to provide planning and budgeting process information to the community and LRSD employees. Target populations are the same as those at the broad-based input sessions conducted in September and October. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process may be generated. Time frame - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted the following March and April. ni Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process guides all actions of the administration, expected outcomes for a specified period of time. The process defines the bh I. UI II. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. The Cabinet provides assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process is coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board conducts a work session. After reviewing the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report, the Board: w UI A. B. Reviews and revises, if necessary, the mission statement. Establishes written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the next fiscal year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan are not adopted. I'l1 in w n 11 01 11 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING III. IV. C. D. E. Page 5 I Reviews and provides guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). Establishes written priorities. These priorities guide staff in program modification, addition, or deletion, as well as help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. Considers strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet works to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. Outcome - At the conclusion of the Board Work Session, the Board publishes: A. B. c. A written mission statement Written goals A list of priorities The staff revises program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these are incorporated into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The goal setting process is dependent on the Needs Assessment and Program Inventory. The Board Work Session is conducted in mid-December. Program objectives and evaluation criteria are subsequently revised as needed by appropriate staff. Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support the needs of the District, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. Any additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by a business case (see Attachment 2) as outlined in II, A below. I. II. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may be modified to meet objectives. Some programs may be The District establishes a framework for Program Development. framework includes, where appropriate, the following: eliminated. The A. I. 2. 3. 4. Business Case Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Analysis of Alternatives i s I ! J 1 1 i S i ! S ! I ! s s I I SiLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 B. III. IV. 4 If V. N H H Ml Ml 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Recommended Alternative Objective Impact Analysis Resource Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan Appropriate changes to a Program Budget Document (see Planning Document in the Budgeting section) will be made as a result of program additions, modifications, or deletions. Program Development - (i e., program additions, modifications, or deletions) is conducted by staff with the appropriate Cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet review Program Development cases to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such Program Development. Outcome - A business case for each program that is added, modified, or deleted is written. As with existing programs, programs that are added or modified to satisfy a need include all of the elements for budget development and may be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The Program Development phase begins in November and concludes in February. However, some programs may be identified or recommended for possible addition, modification, or deletion at an earlier or later date (or as part of an ongoing process, if appropriate). Budgeting I. II. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent ensures that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Support Services coordinates the budget preparation process, and the lead planning person ensures that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers provide input relative to his or her area of responsibility. The Manager for Support Services will produce the budget information. Description - Funds, personnel, and facilities are allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation are issued by the III. Superintendent with assistance provided by the Manager for Support Services. These directions include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document is developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component that links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements is a priority. IV. Time frame -LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 7 Month 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bl November December Januai'y February March May July August Task Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels_________ Budget managers begin to submit requests for next school year Begin budget development__________________ Continue budget development_______________ Revise financial forecast\nPrepare Proposed Budget__________ Prepare Tentative Budget__________________ Prepare Final Budget_____________________ Board review and adoption of Budget\nSubmit budget to ADE Guidelines for Proposed. Tentative, and Final Budget Development The following guidelines help define the format and expectations, to the extent possible, of what is included in the Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budgets. I. II. Proposed Budget A. B. C. D. The Proposed Budget should be at the detailed level. The Proposed Budget should reflect a revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.)LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1 E. Page 8 4 The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. 4 4 4 4 4 III. Final Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level. The Final Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that the District intends to make during the fiscal year. These additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. The Final Budget should reflect what the District intends to deliver to the State Department of Education. 4 4 Monitoring and Reporting The Program Budget Document provides the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. I. Hi II. III. 4 d d Key Players - The Superintendent provides guidance for the maintenance of the Program Budget Document. Program Managers provide program information for their respective areas. The Manager for Support Services provides financial information for each program. The lead planning person coordinates the updating of the document. The Board and Superintendent are the recipients of the reports to assist them in oversight and decision-making. The lead planning person coordinates the process and prepares the Program Budget Document. Program Managers prepare all reporting documents within their areas of responsibility. Description - The Program Budget Document is the basis for monitoring and reporting and follows an established format and design. The Program Inventory provides the divisions within the Program Budget Document. Program managers, as primary leaders, are assigned responsibility for identified programs. Secondary leaders are assigned also. Program managers are responsible for accomplishing program objectives, for coordinating the required activities or strategies, and for the preparation and submission of the Program Budget Document. The document reflects both program performance and expenditures quarterly. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems may be addressed by corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. Outcome - A Program Budget Document is maintained that becomes the basis for monitoring and reporting and also serves as a guide for interim decision-making. The result is a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the District, supported with expenditure information.n LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 IV. n Time frame - Reports are generated quarterly beginning with the first quarter of the fiscal year. 4 4 4 Reassessment of Process and Organization Planning and budgeting is a continuing process (see Attachment 3, Planning and Budgeting Cycle). As such, the Program Inventory begins in July, while the Needs Assessment begins in September. A review/revision of the Program Inventory for the future budget year is completed by August. The Reassessment of Process and Organization begins in July of the current year and concludes by August of the following year. The review process requires an examination of the Process for possible changes that prove beneficial to the Districts Program Planning and Budgeting Process. The reassessment requires a review of the Districts organizational structure to ensure that it is of the best configuration to meet the Districts needs. The lead planning person reviews the process and makes recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, when appropriate. The lead planning person ensures that the plannin. designed and coordinates the activities. 4 4 process is implemented as ig Management Tool The Management Tool is submitted to the Court by the end of each calendar month. The Management Tool serves as an instrument by which the District may monitor established timelines which are cardinal to the Planning and Budgeting Process. The Management Tool identifies the responsible person(s), activities, and timelines required ofand also serves asa Planning Budget Calendar. The Management Tool, in addition to the Program Budget 4 4 4 Document, is an outgrowth of the concepts described throughout this document. Further, items of significant importance to the District, but not necessarily directly linked to Program Planning and Budgeting, may be added to the tool, at the direction of the Superintendent, to allow the District to monitor additional issues or topics. The Management Tool is numbered to coincide with the Fiscal Year budget for which it is associated. The eight major components of the Management Tool include the following: 1) Program Inventory\n2) Program Evaluation\n3) Needs Assessment, 4) Planning and Budget Goals\n5) Program Development\n6) Budgeting\n7) Monitoring and Reporting\nand 8) Reassessment of Planning Process and Organization. 4 Summary One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the Program Inventory, Needs Assessment, and quarterly reporting serve not only to strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but also to increase the communitys awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the Districts carefully thought-out process designed to meet those commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the Districts Position Control Inventory SystemLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 1 4 4 4 software yields valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, are provided. This process, plus the program linkages serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. The intent of these steps and procedures is to identify those programs which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the Districts resources toward those programs which demonstrate track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long-range planning and budget process is the key component of the Districts strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 kLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Organizational Chart H Attachment 2: Business Case Format Attachment 3: Schematic Planning and Budget Cycle 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 (I TBA Assoc Supt I Suelien Vann Communications Director Nancy Aoe Student Atsignmenl Director Becky Rather Perent KecruSei Coordinator Or Ed Jackson Planning Research \u0026amp; Ev.iluaiion Dll actor MaiMn Schwartz Giania tMitar Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools Little Rock School District Organizational Structure [ Board of Dtrodora ] I Brady Gadbarry Labor Relaltons Dr Richard Hurley Human Resources Dwecior Or Patty Kohler Ohr Of Eiceptional Children Oireaor Jo Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Director I TBA Manager for Support Services Mark Milhollen Fmanoal Servicoa Charbe Neal Procuremanl Doug Eaton Plant Servtcas Bobby Jones 8ecurily/Rish Management Mery Jane Cheaiham Oiracior of Transportation Morlin McCoy Food ServKos Director Dr Don Roberts Intarsn Si^enntortdenl 1 Loon Modesto Spedol Aasiatanl to SupenrMondani 1 TBA Asst. Supt Curnoilum Support Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants I - Margaret GramiBion Asai Supi Elementary Sadia Mitchell Assist Superintendenl Elementary 1 Dr Victor Anderson Assisi Si\u0026lt;\u0026gt;erintendenl Secondary Gene Partier Reading/Foraign Arts Or Lmda Watson Acting Asst St^l Student Hearing Pnnctpals 13 Schools Pmapals 17 Schools Principals 13 Schools Dennis Glasgow Science/Mathematics Supervisor Mane A McNeal Social Studies Supervisor Catherine GiN Parent Involvement Coordinator Sterling Ingram Staff Development Director Pat Price Earty Childhood Coordinator Lucy Lyon Technology/Media Sarvicas Coordinator Menan Shead-Jeckson HIPPY Supervisor Lmda Young New Futures David Besson Information Services Prmcapais S Incentive Schools Carol Green Vocational Education Paulette Marlin Aduil Educiilion Johnny Neeley Alleriialive Learning Centei Ray Gilluspie Athletics * * s o OQ \u0026gt; \u0026gt; O 3\" n -i r 50 CZI O -0 ?3 o o z3 0 r \u0026gt; \u0026gt; o C3 G o o (IQF n LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 H 4 ATTACHMENT 2 STCASE02 4 REVISED 21 APR 93 4 SHORT TERM PROJECT - BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE 4 I. 4  4 4 4 I. BACKGROUND A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a stafT paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same . . . decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale . . . SELL YOUR IDEA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 A. 4 4 IL The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level.. .what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background, 4 1. 2. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition.4 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 q 1. q q 2. q c. q q q q q D. q q q E. q Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem or situation. There may be a need to convince the reader that a problem exists. Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. Considerations. What seems to be the real problem? What are the causes of the problem? To what extent are they known? Who is affected? What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? Analysis of Alternatives. 1. 2. 3. Process. Provide a written description of how you generated and analyzed your alternatives. Be sure to include the participants. Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in factual terms. REMEMBER ... the do nothing alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on requirements, impact on legal obligations, impact on personnel, impact on finances. The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. Each analysis should be brief, but should clearly make its point. While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. Recommendation. 1. 2. Action recommended. The recommendation follows from the analysis of alternatives. The action recommended should be written in brief, clear, positive statements. Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. Objective. 1. 2. Objective of the recommendation. Define the objective of the recommended action, not the immediate physical outputs. Goal support. This section should include statements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the District. It is important to establish a direct relationship. 3. Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. These will become a major component of your future plan. There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) b) c) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used.I n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING F. G. H. 4. Page 15 d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria going to cost more than it will yield? Expected benefits. This analysis should include an explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they are expected to be realized. It should also identify the recipients of the expected benefits. Impact Analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Program. Describe the impact of the program, both positive and negative. Call in the Expected Benefits above. If you execute this recommendation, how will it impact other programs...will something fall off the table[?] Who will be the primary actors impacted? Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan' Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? Political factors. Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? implementation plan? Are your strategies in the Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. Timing. What are the major timing issues, and how will you deal with them? Resources Analysis. 1. 2. Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? Training requirements should be included. Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) b) c) All operating costs, including personnel and benefits, for each of the next 1-5 fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1 I 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 4 Page 16 I. 1. 2. 3. Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? Forces Against. Who will be the primary detractors of the recommendation? Why will they oppose the recommendation? How can you minimize their influence or win them over? Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. General Implementation Plan. 1. 2. 3. Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. This should not be a detailed project plan. Timelines. Each milestone event should have a timeline associated with it. Tasking. Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4. Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly or 4 4 4 4 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 ATTACHMENT 3 Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I  3 NEEDS ASSESSfVlENT 4 GOALS T 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I 6 BUDGETING I I I I I I 7 I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I I 8 REASSESSMENT OF PLAfMING PROCESS \u0026amp; ORGANIZATION il II Dl II IIhl fl DI H II\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_1178","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1996-07-18/1996-12-19"],"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 board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes"],"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/1178"],"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":["126 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.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 18, 1996 NOV b - 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Monitonn9 ....... , The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting at 5 :00 p.m. on Thursday, July 18, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Ms.Beverly Griffin\nRecorder of Minutes CALL TO O,RDQt:- . Board President, Li:n:da Pondexter, called the meeting to,ot.der at 5:02 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence,.Df all Board members. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 18, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of accepting the report and recommendations of the contingency committee regarding the Superintendency of the Little Rock School District. Members of the contingency committee were present and are listed: Rett Tucker Roosevelt Brown Debbie Glasgow Marian Lacey ACTION AGENDA Betty Mitchell Skip Rutherford John Walker Mr. Rett Tucker provided a brief summary of the findings of the contingency committee. A copy of their report and recommendations are attached to these minutes. The committee's report included two recommendations: 1) to appoint a five member management team to lead the district until the appointment of an interim superintendent, and 2) to appoint Dr. Don Roberts as interim superintendent, effective August 15, 1996. Members of the recommended management team are: Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools Marian Lacey, Principal of Mann Magnet Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan Skip Rutherford, member of the LRSD Board of Directors from 1987-1991 Mr. Tucker reported that the committee recommended Dr. Roberts' appointment for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two years in order to give the LRSD Board the time necessary to find a permanent superintendent. He also stated that John Walker had agreed to a two year moratorium on any further legal action related to the Desegregation Plan and the settlement agreement. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 18, 1996 Page2 Executive Session Dr. Mitchell moved for the Board to convene in executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 5:35 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. Mr. Riggs expressed appreciation to the members of the contingency committee and Ms. Pondexter thanked members of the Board for supporting her in the formation of the committee. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the recommendations of the contingency committee, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Price Gardner and Chris Heller, attorneys with the Friday firm, were asked to respond to questions of Board members regarding Dr. Williams' contract and the District's financial obligations to Dr. Williams. Mr. Gardner remarked that the contract was still in full effect unless Dr. Williams tendered a letter of resignation. He also stated that the Board could vote to terminate the contract \"for cause,\" but Mr. Heller suggested that the Board take no further action and allow the negotiations between Dr. Williams' attorney and Mr. Gardner to continue. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn at 5:55 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ~~?~~ ' Linda Pondexter, President APPROVED: g.J\n}., - 9 (, ~~ ,~k\u0026amp;,./J Suetricklan,Secretary CONTINGENCY COMMITTEE REPORT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY 18, 1996 Rett Tucker and Roosevelt Brown, Co-chairmen Debbie Glasgow, Marian Lacey, Betty Mitchell, Skip Rutherford, John Walker Members of the School Board and citizens of Little Rock, my name is Rett Tucker and I am Co-chairman of the Contingency Committee approved by this Board earlier this year. Other members, who are present, include Co-chairman Dr. Roosevelt Brown, PTA Council President Debbie Glasgow, Mann Principal Marian Lacey, CTA President Betty Mitchell, former school board president Skip Rutherford and attorney John Walker. On behalf of Dr. Brown~ let me begin by thanking the Board for putting your confidence and trust in us. We also want to thank the committee members for their dedication and hard work. We met numerous times in the spring and put together the framework of a contingency plan in the event it was needed. We have had almost perfect attendance at every meeting. We took this assignment very seriously. We considered it an honor and an opportunity to participate in this very important process. We resolved from the beginning that we would put our differences aside and work toward consensus. When we were notified Sunday that Dr. Williams was going to Kansas City, we were prepared. To finalize our recommendations, we have met every day this week and now come before you with a recommended plan of action. This plan comes to you with our unanimous support. In fact, I must say that our committee--with strong wills, strong personalities, strong views and all the diversity we prize in Little Rock--never once had a split vote and never met an issue that we didn't resolve in a civil and thoughtful way. I have been part of many committees both personally and professionally, but this one has represented the best and most gratifying experience I've ever had. Let's clarify first what we did not do. Although there has been a great deal of speculation, we did not consider the selection of a permanent Superintendent. That was not our assignment. We do believe, however, that this is a very important decision in its own right because it comes at such a critical time. We focused on the short-term, although we define short-term as one to two years. Tonight, we have two major recommendations. Our first deals with getting through the next several days and weeks. In this regard, we congratulate Dr. Williams on his new position and wish him well. We thank him for his leadership and his service. This is a tough job. We recognize that and appreciate all he has done. Although Dr. Williams will remain on the payroll until September 1, we know that he will be spending a great deal of his time, his talent and his energy--as he should--on Kansas City and the future. 2 While he will still be a very valuable resource for this school district, we propose--from tomorrow through August 14, the formation of a five-person management team which would report directly to the Board. This team would operate in the same spirit that our Contingency Committee has operated: successfully addressing a short-term assignment. We spent a great deal of time and thought on the membership of this team. We looked for people with experience, with dedication and who had the energy to take on extra assignments. We recommend the following individuals: Dr. Victor Anderson would serve as the daily operations officer. He brings a wealth of experience as a principal, an administrator and, more importantly, as a person who is recognized as both a consensus builder and a team player. He would be in charge of day to day administration. Joining him on the team will be Sadie Mitchell, a former teacher, a former principal, and now an administrator, who has worked very closely with the elementary schools. Also, Jodie Carter, the principal of McClellan High School, who from first hand experience understands both the challenges and the opportunities of our senior high schools. Sadie will be in charge of all elementary schools and Jodie will have the responsibility for the senior high schools. The two other members come from our Contingency Committee. Let me add that neither sought a position on the team. In fact, both had to be drafted. 3 e Marian Lacey is the principal of Mann Junior High School. She is a principal' s principal and was such a positive voice on our committee. Marian knows the junior highs and her outstanding record at Mann speaks for itself. She will focus on all aspects of the junior high schools. Skip Rutherford, the only non-educator on the team, understands the school board better than most. He served on the Board from 1987 to 1991, as its president in 1989 and 1990 and coordinated two victorious millage campaigns. He will supervise communication and student assignments and will serve without pay. All of these members will continue to perform their current responsibilities. Marian Lacey will still be the principal at Mann and Jodie Carter will still be the principal at McClellan. Skip Rutherford will still work at Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods. Vic Anderson and Sadie Mitchell will still be district administrators. All of them, however, for the good of the district, will work on the management team which means extra duty and long hours for each of them. Please note that all four educators are or have been successful principals and the non-educator is a former school board member and president. The team is experienced. It needs to be because much will be happening over the next four weeks--including the opening and beginning of school. We simply can't put this district on hold for that time period. This professional team addresses that issue. 4 The second part of our recommendation relates to the position of Interim Superintendent. We considered many people and possibilities. We listened to board members and to interested citizens. We wanted to recommend someone who could provide effective, steady, experienced leadership\nsomeone with local ties who understands Little Rock, Arkansas and state school funding\nsomeone who could help this district and the Board in its search for a permanent Superintendent. We believe we have found that person. Tonight, we unanimously recommend to you, Dr. Don Roberts--the former Director of the Arkansas Department of Education and the former Assistant Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Dr. Roberts is an Arkansas native and was educated at Henderson State and the University of Arkansas. He served as State Education Director during the administrations of both Governor Bill Clinton and Governor Frank White. He has been a successful Superintendent in three urban school districts. We recommend him to you as Interim Superintendent for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two. This will give you the time, the breathing room and the opportunity to find the best Superintendent possible. As we know from experience, finding a Superintendent is not always a quick process. Dr. Roberts can and will help you in the search. He is 61 years old and retired in 1994 after seven years as Superintendent of the Fort Worth School District. This is a district with 72,000 students and 9,000 employees. Since that time, he has been doing consulting work with school districts across the country. 5 e He loves Little Rock, loves Arkansas, knows Little Rock and knows Arkansas. We sought him out for this position. He has always been dedicated to high quality desegregated education and seeks to build cooperation across racial lines. He is known as a person who keeps his word and works in good faith. He is an educator, an administrator and, we believe, a healer. He did not seek the job. We went after him. Dr. Roberts can be here tomorrow to meet with you individually and as a group. He can be in Little Rock and on the job no later than August 15. We also recommend the following: When Dr. Roberts arrives on August 15, the management team will become an advisory team to him. Dr. Roberts would, of course, take over the day to day operations, but we envision the advisory team helping him on both a regular and as-needed basis. Their assistance in this transition will be invaluable. As I noted earlier, we believe Dr. Roberts should be given a oneyear contract with the possibility of another year if needed. He has indicated he is not interested in the full-time Superintendent's position, but, again, that subject is a matter for the Board to discuss at the appropriate time. We believe his compensation package should be comparable to that of Dr. Williams. 6 Dr. Roberts said it is extremely important to him that the city's leadership, the business community and other groups come together in support of the public schools. We've seen a great deal of that happening already and tonight we have with us Mayor Dailey, other elected officials, city leaders, school patrons, parents and interested citizens who are here in support of quality desegregated public education in our city. As chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, I can pledge to Dr. Roberts, the board, and the management team, the Chamber's continued support. The next two Chamber Chairmen, Doug Buford and Janet Jones, are here to back me up. Finally, and this is very important: to provide this district with stability as it works its way through some difficult problems and prepares for the 21st century, our colleague and fellow committee member John Walker, has agreed--in good faith--to a two-year moratorium on initiating any new legal action against the school district related to the settlement agreement. Dr. Roberts expressed reservations to our committee about accepting a position in a district embroiled in litigation and controversy. This offer was made by Mr. Walker to Dr. Roberts because of Dr. Roberts' past record in the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education. This means that the Board, Dr. Roberts and the employees in the District, for the first time in almost 40 years, can concentrate totally and fully on educating our children and on implementing and, if necessary, modifying the current desegregation plan and getting out of court. 7 These are our recommendations. We believe they serve as a sound and reasonable short-term plan. We also believe they serve as a new beginning for the district and a bridge to the future. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we work together. Madame President and members of the Board, the Contingency Committee respectfully requests your approval of these recommendations. Having discharged our duties and responsibilities, we have concluded our assignment and will disband as a committee following tonight's meeting. We thank you for this opportunity to serve our school district and our city. Dr. Brown and I as well as members of the committee are now available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. C:\\wpwin6 l lwpdocsltucker\\Superintendent. 78 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 R NOV 6 - 1996 Of/ice of DesegregatJon Monitonng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on July 25, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. The teacher ex officio, Dr. Jane Meadows, representing Hall High School, and the student ex officio from McClellan High School, Mitchell Moore, Jr., were also present. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Pondexter asked for a motion from the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a contract. Ms. Gee moved for the executive session, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 2 II. III. The Board returned from executive session at 6:20 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Ms. Gee made a motion to suspend the rules to consider an item that was not on the meeting agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion at it carried 6-0. Ms. Gee moved to accept a contract designating Dr. Don Roberts as interim superintendent. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of June 27, and from special meetings conducted on June 28, and July 11, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved 6-0, on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Magness. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Anderson presented citations to the ex officio Board members for the month of July: Dr. Jane Meadows, teacher from Hall High School\nand Mitchell Moore, Jr., McClellan High School student. B. PARTNERSHIPS There were no new partnerships presented for the month of July. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Ms. Pondexter invited Mr. Price Gardner to address the Board and answer questions regarding the status of superintendent Henry Williams' contract. He reported that effective August 1, or on the date that Dr. Williams signs a contract in another District, that action would effectively be a resignation from the LRSD and any further obligations to Dr. Williams would be measured as of that date. Mr. Gardner is continuing to negotiate with Dr. Williams' attorney. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 3 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported that ODM monitors had visited extended year (incentive school) sites and would be providing a copy of that report to the Board and administration within the next few weeks. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors Joy Springer introduced Sheree Peterson, a Hall High School graduate who will be attending the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff next school term. Ms. Peterson commented on the treatment of black students by police resource officers and school administrators at Hall High School. She asked that District staff members be provided additional training in sensitivity to the needs of black male students. Ms. Springer commended the Board for commissioning the desegregation committee. She asked the Board and the new administration to review the recommendations contained in the committee's report and base plan modifications on those recommendations. She also asked for hwnan relations committees to be formed in the secondary schools to include students and teachers from all backgrounds to increase interaction and goodwill. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Linda Pondexter expressed appreciation to the members of the desegregation committee and the contingency committee. She also thanked Dr. Don Roberts for accepting the appointment as interim superintendent. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page4 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Diane Douglas is the parent of a special education student who had been charged with assaulting his teacher at Henderson Jr. High in February, 1996. Ms. Douglas distributed copies of documents, including a summons from the Pulaski County Juvenile Court, and asked the Board to investigate why the teacher waited until mid-July to file charges against her son. Mike Campbell, transportation department employee, asked the Board to consider conducting an internal audit and suggested that they should start with the Transportation Department. Hafeeza Majeed expressed concern about communication between the contingency committee and the community. She questioned whether the community had any input into the recommendations made by the committee or the selection of the interim superintendent. Gwen Porter-Cole discussed the elimination of the truancy center and concerns about the students who would not have access to services previously provided by the truancy center staff. Mark Cole introduced himself as a former LRSD student and commended Sheree Peterson on the comments she made regarding treatment of students at Hall High School. He asked the Board to look for ways to better educate black children in our city. V. ACTION AGENDA A. 1996-97 Carl Perkins Application The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application to the Arkansas Department of Education for a two-year local plan utilizing Carl Perkins funds. The application requested $351,570 to implement vocational evaluation, training, and purchase of additional equipment. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the submission, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 5 B. Mini-Grant Submissions The Board was asked to approve the grant submissions listed in the following table. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the proposed applications, Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it passed 6-0. PROGRAM Develop a Web site for space/science/math education Establish a school greenhouse Install computer in Kindergarten C. Technology Grant SCHOOL Carver Magnet Mabelvale J. H. Fair Park Elem. AMOUNT REQUESTED $1,020 $1,000 $1 ,500 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION Ark. Space Grant Consortium Entergy/AP \u0026amp; L EDS The Board was asked to approve the submission of a grant application which had been forwarded to the Governor's Telecommunications and Information Technology Advisory Board in early July. The application requested $1,060,000 for the purchase of computers, network servers and printers, and would allow school media centers connection to the Internet. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the grant submission. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. D. ESEA, Title I District Plan, 1996-97 The ESEA, Title I, District Plan was prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by August 1, 1996. The Board was provided with copies of the Plan and the program abstract, which included a funding allocation of $4,258,731, based on 11,107 eligible students. Mr. Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs, was present to respond to the Board's questions regarding the application. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve submission of the application, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 6-0. E. ESEA, Title VI Application, 1996-97 The Board was also asked to approve submission of the ESEA, Title VI application for 1996-97. The program abstract was included in the Board agenda and requested $120,520 to support and enhance existing programs in the schools. Ms. Gee moved to accept the submission, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it passed 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 6 F. First Reading: District Employee Conflict oflnterest Policy A policy on Conflict oflnterest and Ethics in Business Activities was submitted for the Board's review and approval. Mr. Charles Neal, Director of Purchasing, was present to respond to questions from Board members, and stated that much of the policy text was taken directly from Arkansas purchasing law and procurement codes. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the policy on first reading. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. G. Educational Equity Monitoring Instrument, 1996-97 The Incentive School Monitoring instrument for 1996-97 was submitted for the Board's review and approval. Changes in the document had been suggested and approved by the LRSD Biracial Committee. Ms. Gee moved to approve the instrument, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried 6-0. H. Televised Forum for School Board Candidates Upon approval of the Board, administration will arrange for a live broadcast over the District's cable channel, of a discussion among candidates for school board positions in zones one and five. The telecast will be conducted and sponsored by the LR Neighborhood Coalition. Ms. Magness moved to authorize the administration to proceed with the broadcast. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. I. Student Transfer Request Dr. Ronnie Williams petitioned the Board to approve a transfer request for his son, Torre, from Conway to Little Rock Central High School. The Board was provided copies of Arkansas laws and codes that regulate acceptance of minority students into districts, such as LR, that are operating under court-ordered desegregation plans. Torre would not be prohibited from attending school at Central, if he were living with a relative in the attendance zone, but he would not be allowed to participate in sports without approval of the Arkansas Athletic Association. The Board took no formal action on the request, but referred Dr. Williams to AAA for further information. J. Personnel Changes Dr. Anderson recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda and transfers and promotions listed on a slip sheet to the agenda. The Board asked to vote separately on items previously submitted for approval and additional personnel changes and transfers that were included on a slip sheet to the agenda. Ms. Gee moved to accept the resignations and terminations listed in the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 7 VI. Executive Session Ms. Gee moved for the Board to conduct an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board remained in executive session from 7:20 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and returned to report that no action had been taken. Dr. Anderson recommended approval to transfer Dr. Walter Marshaleck to Southwest Jr. High School and Mr. Johnny Neely to the Alternative Learning Center. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve these transfers. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Pondexter abstaining. Administrative personnel changes were approved unanimously on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. They are listed in the table below. NAME Vernon Smith Kenneth Moore Jimmy Mosby Lloyd Sain Ann Blaylock Jerome Farmer PREVIOUS POSITION Asst. Principal/Fair Teacher/Hope High School Asst. Principal/Henderson Teacher/Hall Teacher/Pulaski Heights Teacher-Coach/Mann NEW POSITION Principal/Forest Heights Asst. Principal/Fair Asst. Principal/Hall Asst. Principal/Pulaski Hts. Pt. Time Asst. Prin./Pulaski Hts. Asst. Principal/Henderson Additionally, Dr. Mitchell made a motion to reinstate elementary assistant principals at six schools where those positions had been eliminated as a budget reduction strategy. Mr. Gadberry responded to questions from the Board and reported that reinstating these positions would cost approximately $160,000. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Financial Reports Financial reports for the month of June were unavailable at the time of the meeting. Mr. Milhollen responded to questions regarding the status of end-of-year closing progress. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Nancy Acre responded to questions from the Board regarding the report printed in the agenda. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 8 B. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen reported that court hearings that had been scheduled for review of the budget had been canceled by Judge Wright. After filing the budget, meetings will be held in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for review of the proposed budget. C. Transportation Update: LRSD/Laidlaw Joint Report Mr. Ed Streeter provided information on transportation operations after the first year of Laidlaw's service to the District. He reported that Laidlaw retained 82% of the former LRSD bus drivers, 71 % of the former mechanics, and 100% of former LRSD supervisors and dispatchers. He also reported that the on-time performance rate for Laidlaw was 97.6% compared with the previous LRSD on-time rate of 78%. A copy of the statistical charts were provided for the Board's review. D. Blueprint for Action Ms. Pondexter had asked for this item to be included on the agenda and indicated that she would provide the information to the Board at a later date. The Board took a briefrecess at 8:24 p.m. and returned at 8:35 p.m. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS Hafeeza Majeed commented on recent actions of the Board relating to the appointment of the management team and the interim superintendent. She questioned the formation of the desegregation committee, the contingency committee and strategic planning committees. She also suggested that Laidlaw provide training in human relations skills for the bus drivers. Lou Ethel Nauden expressed concerns about the teacher contract and the entire negotiations process. She stressed the importance of the fringe benefits to the total contract package. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY None. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 9 IX. HEARING: LIBRARY BOOK CENSORSHIP Ms. Dee Norton, parent at Pulaski Heights Elementary school, had filed a complaint about two books housed in District libraries\nFirst Date and Beach House, by R. L. Stine. She had appeared before the Board previously, asking that the books be removed from District libraries. The Board had asked for a review of the books, using the District's established procedure for reconsideration of fictional library materials. Ms. Lucy Lyon, Director of Technology and Media Services, coordinated the formation of a review committee, which met to review the books. That committee recommended that the books be retained in the library. Ms. Norton appealed that decision and asked the Board to reconsider the decision of the committee. Dr. Michael Daugherty requested placement of the appeal on the agenda for consideration. In addition to Ms. Lyon, Mr. Mark Burnette spoke on behalf of the committee and its' findings. Other committee members were also present to indicate their agreement with the decision to retain the books on the library shelves: Thelma Watson, Mary Gillespie, Lillie Carter, and Margaret Gremillion. Andy Turner, attorney with the Friday firm, addressed the issue of censorship and provided established precedent for lawsuits that could possibly result from removing library books. He recommended that the Board consider the committee's findings and possible legal exposure resulting in a challenge of the First Amendment. Dr. Anderson suggested that the Board allow the committee's recommendation to stand. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" vote. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, Dr. Mitchell moved for adjournment at 9:08 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: \u0026lt;Z-\n),\n).._q(.o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 AEcs NOV 6 - 1996 Office of Des egregar,on Mon,tormg The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting immediately preceding the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, at 5 :00 p.m. on Thursday, August 8, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. Also present were ex officio members of the Board: Thaddeus Leopoulos, a student at Parkview Magnet, and Rose Bogan, a teacher at McClellan High School. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Westside 2. Eastside 3. CTA Presentation 4. Administrative Staffing Reassignments 5. Recommended Personnel Changes 6. Approval of Secretarial Position 7. Briefing by Legal Counsel 8. Student Hearings 9. Employee Hearing ACTION AGENDA Westside Mayor Jim Dailey presented a letter requesting the Board's approval to donate Westside Junior High School to the Volunteers of America and the Central Little Rock Community Development Corporation. Representatives of VOA and the CDC, Belinda Snow and Jeff Arnett, were also present and requested support for development of their plans which include a three phase implementation. Phase I would be the development of 50 efficiency housing units for the homeless\nPhase II would develop office space for public and private non-profit service agencies\nand Phase III would renovate the 1000 seat auditorium for performance space for local arts groups and meeting space for community groups. Federal, state and city funds will be used to complete the project. The District had previously accepted an offer on the property with an August 1996 closing date. Ms. Magness moved to extend the previously approved closing date until October 20, and to authorize Doug Eaton to meet with representatives from the city to explore options for purchase other than actual cash. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Eastside Kay Hadley reported that she had met with VOA staff and had used information from their proposal to develop a similar plan for utilizing the now vacant Eastside building. She stated an interest in operating a vocational training center with a day care center. Mr. Eaton was asked by the Board to negotiate a possible lease and report back to the Board at a later date. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Page3 CT A Presentation Betty Mitchell, CT A President, introduced Rich Nagel who provided copies of a trend chart of the amount of District funds used to pay teacher salaries. Frank Martin commented on a possible crisis situation in the contract negotiations process and questioned the authority of the administrators who were bargaining on behalf of the Board and administration. He stated that if there was not a settlement of the contract this week, teachers would not return to work on the first day of school, August 19. Dr. Anderson remarked that the negotiating team had regularly briefed the management team on the status of the negotiations process. He stated that the negotiating team was operating strictly under the parameters allowable, taking into consideration the District's financial condition. He indicated that there was no reason to believe that the team was not operating in good faith and offered to schedule a meeting between Board members and the management team for further discussion or direction. Ms. Pondexter asked for the parties to continue negotiating and indicated that she would like for the contract issue to be resolved before the start of school. She recognized Mr. Skip Rutherford who also commented on the commitment of the management team to solve the issue positively. Administrative Staffing Reassignments The Board was asked to approve the reassignment of two assistant principals: Patricia McMurray to Henderson Jr. High School, and Gail Pitts to Forest Heights Jr. High School. Ms. Magness moved to approve the recommended reassignments. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Recommended Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve three assistant principals' assignments for the next school term. Action on this request was split for the purpose of voting. Unanimous approval was given to assign Mary Lou Kahler to the position of assistant principal at King Elementary School, and Thomas Voegele as acting assistant principal at Dunbar Jr. High School on a motion made by Dr. Mitchell and seconded by Ms. Magness. On the third request for reassignment, administration requested Board approval to assign Rhonda Dunn as a half-time assistant principal at Dunbar Jr. High School. Ms. Dunn would continue to serve as a classroom teacher for 1/2 day. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the recommendation, and Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Ms. Pondexter spoke in opposition to the motion and suggested that no additional positions should be approved by SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Pagei the Board until the teacher contract negotiations are final. The motion failed 4-2, with Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Magness voting in favor of the motion, and Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"no.\" Approval of Secretarial Position Administration requested approval for funding of a clerical position for the newly created office of the Athletic Director. Dr. Anderson spoke in favor of establishing the position and provided information regarding the cost of funding the position. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the recommendation and Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Ms. Gee, Dr. Daugherty, Ms. Pondexter and Ms. Strickland all spoke in opposition to the motion. They indicated that, although the position was probably necessary, they would not support creating a new position at this time and suggested that the clerical duties for the Athletic Director should be shared by someone currently employed, either a school-based employee or an employee of the central office. The motion failed 4-2. Briefing by Legal Counsel Mr. Heller was asked to attend the meeting to respond to questions regarding two separate issues before the Board: 1) the erection of a fence on District property during the renovation of adjoining property\nand 2) the pending motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 1. The City of Little Rock petitioned the Board to allow the City to construct a temporary fence 20 feet from the eastern boundary of the District's property at 501 Sherman Street for one to two years while Curran Hall is being renovated. Curran Hall will become the City of Little Rock's visitor's information center. There were no objections to this request. 2. Mr. Heller requested the Board's approval to appeal a decision on the issue of the \"pooling\" agreement regarding M-to-M payments from the State of Arkansas. Board members were provided with a copy of a Memorandum and Order dated July 30, 1996, wherein Judge Susan Weber Wright ordered the District to reimburse the PCSSD $345,294 in M-to-M costs for the period FY 1991-92 through FY 1994-95. Mr. Heller indicated he felt an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court was in order and necessary to limit current and future liability. Ms. Magness moved to accept Mr. Heller's recommendation to appeal the Order. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board recessed at 6:34 p.m.on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Magness. The regularly scheduled agenda meeting was conducted before reconvening at 7: 17 p.m. Ms. Gee made the motion to move into executive session for the purpose of conducting an employee grievance hearing. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 PageS\" EXECUTIVE SESSION Harold Jump, maintenance employee, requested a Board hearing to settle a dispute regarding his placement on the salary schedule for service employees. Brady Gadberry and Doug Eaton were present at the hearing. Mr. Jump felt that he was entitled to placement on the same salary schedule as another maintenance employee who was hired after him. Dr. Anderson recommended that the Board allow Mr. Eaton to review the two positions and make a recommendation based on the process used to set salary steps and grades for plant services employees. He was asked to return at the next Board meeting with his recommendation. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept Dr. Anderson's recommendation to continue the hearing at the next regular meeting. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session and reported that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, there was a unanimous motion to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. APPROVED: 9 -JJ, -f(\n~-~~ ~trickland, Secretary t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 15, 1996 r, ,I i I ,\nREc Nov 6 - 1996 ,i. Office of Dese i , g egation. Monitoring c,.,!':.I..., The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 15, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Interim Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Secondary Literature Textbook Adoption 2. Teacher Contract Negotiations Update SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 15, 1996 Page 2 ACTION AGENDA Secondary Literature Textbook Adoption The Secondary English Literature Textbook Adoption committee provided the Board with a memorandum which contained their recommendations for literature textbooks. Dr. Roberts recommended approval of their recommendation. Ms. Magness moved to accept that recommendation, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. Teacher Contract Negotiations Update Brady Gadberry reported on the progress of the negotiating team in reaching an agreement on the contract for teachers for the 1996-97 school year. He reported that the teachers had voted to ratify the agreement that afternoon and he asked for the Board to suspend the rules to also approve the contract. The one year contract would provide a 2.46% increase, plus the step increase on the salary schedule. There were also some revisions to the fringe benefit package. A copy of that agreement is attached to these minutes. Ms. Gee moved for a suspension of the rules to take action on the proposed contract, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the negotiated 1996-97 teacher contract. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. (Dr. Daugherty left the meeting during the voting and explained that since his wife was employed by the District he was abstaining to prevent any suggestion of a conflict of interest.) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Gee moved for adjournment at 6:17 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 8~\ni._? ~ C/k:.- f ,,,\\ 0\\ ~ rt\\'~\\  Salary:  LRCTA PROPOSAL August 15, 1996 - 3:45 p.m. 0 / Step+ 2.46% + topped-out stipend of $810 ~~0 .:. . ~ / ~ '\n. nur:tion: i f7 ~: --1 year  - Fringe Bene.fits: Insurance -Health $164.00 per month (1bis amount can be applied to any health insurance plan including the spouse and/or family plans.)~emium coverage will revert to the 1994-95 contract language at the end of the 97-98 contract year) Drop Long Term Disability Insurance. The savings are reflected in the salary schedule. . Employees who have health insurance from a source other than the LRSD who do not take any of the health insurance plans will receive a $550 stipend.  -\nfv_ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl.,,__ liCJ-4 ~ ~ lfti) N{)i. \\\u0026lt;5'\"'- ~cr1~~ M it ~~ c',~wtt.'f ...,,, M,,,, /l,yi,,\nl,.,i ~ ~? ~~ /i'J(,, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 R NOV 6 - 1996 Office of Des egrega11.o n Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on August 22, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Sue Strickland Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and stipulated a quorum without a roll call\nall members of the Board were present. The teacher ex officio, Rose Bogan, representing McClellan High School, and the student ex officio, Thaddeus Leopoulos, from Parkview Magnet High School, were also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of July 25, and from special meetings conducted on July 18, August 8, and August 15, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved unanimously, on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 2 III. PRESENT A TIO NS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts asked for the Superintendent's Citations script to be read by Ms. Pondexter. Mr. Riggs distributed the certificates of appreciation. Four of the District's school based security officers were recognized for exemplary service to the schools and the students they served during the 1995-96 school year. Those officers were: Robert Moore, from Pulaski Heights Jr. High School\nDonald McTyre, from Cloverdale Jr. High School\nBrian Anderson, from Forest Heights Jr. High\nand Don Allen, from Hall High School. Three of the District's teachers were recognized for their participation in the 1996 Reading/Language Arts Summer Institute at Tulane University sponsored by The National Faculty. They were Theresa Harris, Kathryn Thomas, and Tammy Frahm. Barbara Byrd and Gregory Harris, both teachers at M. L. King Interdistrict Elementary School, were recognized by the Arkansas Council on Economics Education by winning third place honors in the intermediate category of the Bessie B. Moore Arkansas Awards Program for Teaching of Economics. Citations were also presented to the ex officio members of the Board for the month of August\nRose Bogan, McClellan High School teacher, and Thaddeus Leopoulos, student at Parkview Magnet High School. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES There were no reports from citizens committees. C. 1. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported on ODM informal monitoring activities during the first week of school. When questioned by Mr. Riggs, Ms. Gulden offered to have Board Members visit the schools with ODM monitors. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 3 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin remarked on the negotiations process and expressed appreciation to Linda Pondexter for supporting the efforts of the CT A. He thanked all members of the contract negotiations team for their hard work in reaching a settlement before the opening of school. He welcomed Dr. Roberts to the District and pledged support for the new administration. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mike Daugherty read a prepared statement in response to recent media reports regarding his educational background and stressed his commitment to serving the LRSD. Pat Gee complimented the staff of the District, and parents of our students, for a good opening of school week. She also provided a reminder that the LRSD is a service business. Judy Magness expressed appreciation to the teachers, the staff, and the management team, for a good opening of school week. Ms. Magness introduced Larry Berkley, who is unopposed candidate for the Zone 5 Board position. Linda Pondexter offered congratulations to Mr. Berkley, who will be her replacement on the Board. She also offered as advice to fellow Board members to be true to their own conscience when making decisions that affect the District and the students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 4 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS V. Robert \"Say\" McIntosh commented on the recent sentencing of Governor Jim Guy Tucker. He remarked on the recent publicity surrounding the educational background of Mike Daugherty and noted that serving on the school board does not require a college degree. He also remarked on the improvements made to the campus of Shorter College under the direction of Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Roberts asked for a moment to provide comments before taking action on the agenda items. He thanked the staff for the opening of school week, and recognized the negotiations team for their work in reaching a settlement. He also expressed appreciation to all District employees who report to work each day with a good attitude. He asked the Board to recognize that all recommendations for action at this meeting were based on the recommendations of District staff and that he reserved the right to ask for modifications at a later date, if necessary. ACTION AGENDA A. Second Reading: District Employee Conflict of Interest Policy Mr. Charles Neal, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management, was present to provide background information and respond to questions from Board members. The policy providing guidelines for ethical operations of the District's purchasing process was provided for second reading. District attorney, Harry A. Light, provided a legal review of the proposed policy and his recommendations were incorporated into the drafting of the final documents. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the policy on second reading, and Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell spoke in opposition to the motion and stated that the document was too long, too impractical, not binding, and that she would vote against approval. The motion to approve the policy on second reading carried, 6-1. B. Strategy Three: Action Plan #1 - Policy Revisions First Reading: Promotion and Retention of Students - Regulation for Retention in K- 6 and Regulation for Student Promotion Strategic Planning Team #3 recommended adoption of a policy statement providing for intervention strategies for retention at the elementary level, and guidelines for promotion of elementary school students. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommended policy statement and regulations on first reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 5 First Reading: Comprehensive Intervention/Follow Up Remediation - Regulation on Intervention/Follow Up Remediation Also a part of the Strategic Plan was the recommended adoption of a policy statement on intervention, follow up remediation, and regulations for operation. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the policy statement and regulations recommended by administration and Strategic Planning Team #3. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. First Reading: Parent Involvement Policy Statement The Parent Involvement Administrative Team developed a statement which will serve to encourage active parent participation in District activities and was intended to convey the Board's belief in the importance of involving all parents in school activities. The Superintendent recommended approval of the statement on first reading. Ms. Gee moved to accept the statement on first reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. D. Student Crime Watch Program The Little Rock Police Department requested instituting a Student Crime Watch program in the schools. The program would operate similarly to the Crime Stoppers Program currently operated by the City and would provide rewards to students for reporting criminal activity or behavior at school or in the community. Sgt. Al Dawson, of the LRPD, was present to respond to questions from Board members. Ms. Gee spoke in favor of the program, and made a motion to accept the proposal. Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Pondexter spoke in opposition to the motion and after much discussion, Ms. Magness suggested amending the proposal to include a one-year trial period of implementation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion to amend. The motion to amend failed, as did the original motion, by identical 4-3 votes, with Ms. Gee, Dr. Daugherty and Ms. Magness casting the \"yes\" votes, and Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Strickland, Dr. Mitchell, and Mr. Riggs voting \"no.\" E. Arkansas Public Schools Week The Arkansas School Public Relations Association announced the theme for this year's observance, October 6-12, 1996, of Arkansas Public Schools Week. By proclamation of Governor Mike Huckabee, the theme is Arkansas Public Schools: Put Yourself in the Picture. The Board was asked to pass a resolution in support of this state-wide observance. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the resolution, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 6 F. Facilities Study Committee Ms. Strickland requested the Board's approval to add four additional persons to the Districtwide Facilities Study Committee. The Board was provided an updated list of the participants on this committee. The newly appointed members were: Lou Ethel Nauden, Gregg Stutts, Skip Marshall, and Brady Gadberry. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the additions to the committee. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Packard-Bell Computer/ Meadowcliff Elementary Monitor and Epson Printer Mary Mitchell Meadowcliff Elementary Sharp UX-185 Fax Sam's Club Machine Mann Arts/Science Magnet Computer/Monitor/Printer Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Stanley and Software Bauman, Jr. Chicot Elementary $50.00 cash Wal-Mart Store# 124 H. Personnel Changes Dr. Roberts recommended approval of personnel changes printed in the agenda and referred the Board to Dr. Hurley to answer specific questions. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the personnel changes, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. Financial Reports Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the financial reports for the period ending June 30, 1996. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 7 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. August 21, 1996 enrollment figures were provided for comparison with 1995 data. B. Budget Update Mark Milhollen was present and answered questions from the Board regarding the financial reports printed in the agenda. Later in the meeting, Dr. Roberts reminded the Board of the upcoming dates for filing the final budget and suggested that an extension would be requested so that the budget can be finalized. He indicated that the Board might be asked to hold a special meeting to approve the final budget prior to submission. C. Briefing by Legal Counsel Chris Heller, Attorney with the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm, provided a brief written report regarding two issues pending before the Court. 1) The North Little Rock School District's motion to close Baring Cross School\nand 2) a motion filed on behalf of school districts across the state to intervene as defendants in the Pulaski County School Desegregation case. Mr. Heller was not present at the meeting, but his report offered to provide additional information as needed. D. Transportation Update: LRSD/Laidlaw Joint Report Ed Streeter, terminal manager for Laidlaw, and Mary Jane Cheatham, from the District's transportation department provided a written report for the Board's approval. Ms. Gee asked several questions regarding safety stops, the costs involved in adding stops to existing routes, and adding additional routes. E. Update: Truancy Pick Up Procedures Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, and Officer Archie Adcock from the Southwest precinct, were present to answer questions regarding the revised truancy pick up procedures printed in the agenda. F. Status Report: Grants Writer The Board had no additional questions regarding the summary report provided by Marvin Schwartz, District grants writer. Ms. Pondexter commented that she wanted to ensure that the grants writer's salary was being paid from grant funding received. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 8 G. District Advisory Committees At Ms. Pondexter' s request, membership lists of subcommittees that developed as a result of the Strategic Planning process were provided as a part of the agenda. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Ten students were recommended for reinstatement to LRSD schools and two students were referred for placement at the Pulaski County Juvenile Justice Center by Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer. Dr. Roberts upheld those recommendations. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the recommended reinstatements and alternative placements, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. A list of the students is attached to these minutes. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Pondexter asked for a motion from the Board to go into an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. Mr. Riggs made the motion, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion was unanimously approved. The Board returned from executive session and reported that no action was taken during that session. Board President Pondexter asked for a motion and recognized Mr. Riggs. Mr. Riggs made a motion for the Board to accept Dr. Williams' resignation and, in exchange for service rendered to the District, allow Dr. Williams to retain those moneys already expended in Item 5 E of his contract, and the unused vacation for which he has already been compensated. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment at 8:03 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried un imousl .  #Liu APPROVED: C-f J\u0026amp;, -9\u0026amp;\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 NOV 6 - 1996  Offi~e of Deso r g eg lion Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, September 12, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Mari Flemons, Teacher Exofficio, Parkview Magnet High School Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and stipulated the presence of a quorum. Dr. Mitchell was absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Student Reinstatement Petitions 2. Student Appeal Hearings SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 Page2 Suspension oftlze Rules Mr. Riggs made a motion to suspend the rules in order to act on an item not included in the published agenda. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs made a motion to rescind a previous Board action. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. At a special meeting on August 8, 1996, the Board voted 4-2 to deny the administration's request to create a clerical staff position for the office of Athletics. Administration was given authority to proceed with staffing the position. ACTION AGENDA The Board moved into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer presented recommendations for placement and reinstatement of two students: Orlando Ellis was expelled from McClellan High School in March 1996, for participating in a gang-related disturbance. He petitioned the Board for reinstatement and the principal of McClellan agreed to his reinstatement there on strict probation. Janai Washington was expelled in November 1995, from McClellan High School. He had petitioned for reinstatement, but due to his age (17), it was recommended that Janai be given an assignment to the Alternative High School at the Job Corp Center. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the administration's recommendations for reinstatement and placement of these two students. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Three students were present to appeal their expulsions to the Board. Zainab Opurum was recommended for expulsion from Hall High School for possession of a weapon. She asked the Board to reconsider the administration's recommendation and allow her to return to school. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the Job Corp Alternative High School for the remainder of the first semester. She would be allowed to petition for reinstatement to Hall High School if she maintains a good record in the JC program. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 Page 3 Vinson Anderson was recommended for expulsion from Forest Heights Jr. High School on August 27, 1996. He had been charged with being in possession of a pocket knife. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the first semester. Vinson would be considered for reinstatement at semester if he maintains good progress. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommended placement, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Shakina Floyd, eighth grade student from Forest Heights Jr. High School, was recommended for long-term suspension for participating in a group fight in which she was charged with inciting to riot. Dr. Watson upheld the principal's recommendation for a long-term suspension and assigned Shakina to the Alternative Leaming Center for the remainder of the first semester of the school year. Shakina's mother objected to placement at the ALC and appealed to Dr. Vic Anderson and then to the Board when Dr. Anderson also recommended the ALC placement. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the administration's recommendation for placement at the ALC. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 4-2, with Mr. Riggs and Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" votes. Jabari Cummins had also been scheduled to appeal his expulsion to the Board, but did not arrive for the hearing. His parent phoned to ask for another hearing date. The Board returned from executive session at 6:43 p.m. and reported that the administration's recommendations had been accepted unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Gee moved for adjournment at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Pat Gee, Vice-President APPROVED: q. J.w  9 l.o ~~,he=-} Sue rickland, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 NOV 6 ~ 1996 Office of Deseg regat,.o n Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on September 26, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice-President, Pat Gee, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Gee Larry Berkley Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: I. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Judge Chris Piazza Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney CALL TO ORDER Prior to the call to order, Judge Chris Piazza administered the oath of office to Larry Berkley, newly elected Board representative from Zone 5. Board Vice-President, Pat Gee, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of five Board members\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6: 17 p.m. The teacher exofficio, Mari Flemmons, representing Parkview Magnet High School was also present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of August 22, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on September 12, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved unanimously, on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. III. PRESENT A TIO NS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Gene France from the Arkansas Allergy Society presented the District's physician, Dr. Chris Smith, with 51 epipens for placement in each school in the District. These pens are for use when a student suffers a severe allergic reaction. Use of the epipen allows nonmedical personnel to administer the proper treatment in an emergency. Ms. Linda Pondexter was presented with a plaque and gavel in recognition of her service to the LRSD Board of Directors, 1993-1996\nshe served as president of the Board for two years of her term. Mr. Wendell Redmond, math teacher at Mann Magnet Jr. High School was presented with a citation in recognition of his selection as an Entergy Outstanding Teacher of the Year. He will be honored by Entergy by receipt of a $500 cash award. The final citation was presented to Ms. Mari Flemmons, teacher at Parkview Magnet High School, who served as the ex-officio member of the Board for the month of September. B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts recognized Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator, who presented the partnership certificates to the following schools and local businesses: UALR Division oflnternational and Second Language Studies, partnering with Brady Elementary School\nAda Keown, principal, accepted the partnership certificates on behalf of UALR Staff, Dave McAlpine, Dr. Mary Garrett, and Professor Stephanie Dhonau, who could not be in attendance at the meeting. Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association, represented by Linda Heffington and Verleen Williamson, in partnership with Geyer Springs Elementary School, Julie Davenport, principal. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 3 C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Vice Mayor, Joan Adcock, presented information to the Board regarding the city's \"Cash for Trash Dash - 1996\" scheduled for Saturday, November 2, 1996. Vice-Mayor Adcock challenged the Board to adopt a neighborhood for clean-up and asked for participation from school groups within the District. Ms. Magness asked Ms. Gee to recognize Hafeeza Majeed for presentation of the Factfinding Committee's report on the Desegregation Plan. Ms. Majeed instead presented a petition requesting a special meeting of the LRSD Board for the purpose of presenting recommendations for modification of the current Desegregation Plan. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. SPECIAL REPORT Ms. Gee requested that Chris Heller, Attorney for the District, present information scheduled on the agenda under \"Reports\" at this time. Without objection from other Board members, Mr. Heller provided a briefing on two issues relating to the Desegregation case and on the Lakeview School District lawsuit. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Heller reported that Judge Wright acknowledged the Joshua Intervenors agreement at the time of the Settlement, and that the two million dollar fee paid by the District at that time was to cover future monitoring of the desegregation case by Joshua. She found, therefore, that the District did not owe any additional fees to the Joshua Intervenors for monitoring. With respect to the District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, Mr. Heller reported that school districts across the country are being dismissed from federal court supervision when they are found to be in substantial compliance with their desegregation plans. It is his belief that federal court jurisdiction over the LRSD should end because there is evidence to prove substantial compliance with our obligations. Judge Wright had rejected our argument that the desegregation plan was a six year plan, but did so without a formal hearing on the evidence. There are two motions pending in the Court concerning desegregation compliance issues, both filed by the Joshua Intervenors. One suggests that an independent party should be named to run the incentive schools\nthe other asks that the District be held in contempt for non-compliance with its obligations. Mr. Heller suggested that we ask the Judge to reconsider her decision on our motion, and to schedule a hearing in conjunction with the hearing Joshua is seeking so that we might have the opportunity to present our evidence. The District has thirty days from the date of the order to consider filing an appeal. Mr. Heller indicated that he would ask the Judge to reconsider the motion and to schedule a hearing unless there was objection from the Board. There were no objections noted by Board members. Regarding the lawsuit filed by the Lakeview School District, Judge Annabelle Imber ruled that the state school funding formula was unconstitutional and the state was given two years to propose a constitutional plan for funding school districts. A trial is scheduled for November to determine whether or not they have complied. The Lakeview School District has filed to make the suit a class action lawsuit and, therefore, Mr. Heller believes the LRSD should intervene in order to be properly represented in the lawsuit and to protect our interests in the case. Mr. Heller also reported that if Amendment One fails (on the November ballot) the State's present plan for funding school districts will also fail. If that occurs, decisions regarding future plans for funding will probably be made in Judge Imber's courtroom. The central Arkansas school districts should be a part of this process for the purpose of protecting our future interest in school funding. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 5 E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell reported on her visit to the Adult Education Building and commended the staffs of Adult Ed. and HIPPY for the work that has been done at their new location. She also offered congratulations to Sterling Ingram, who recently announced his intent to retire from the District. Dr. Daugherty invited members of the Board and community to attend a PTA rally to be held at Garland Incentive School on October 8. He extended a welcome to new Board member, Larry Berkley. Ms. Magness reported on attending open houses at Gibbs, Hall, and Dunbar. She thanked Vernon Smith, the new principal at Forest Heights, for providing a tour of the school, and invited other patrons to visit FHJH. She expressed appreciation to Laidlaw and District transportation employees for the on-time bus service during the first few weeks of school. Ms. Magness also thanked the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce for the reception they hosted to welcome Dr. and Mrs. Roberts. Mr. Berkley thanked Board members and administration employees who had been helpful in providing assistance to him during his first few days on the Board. He reported that he had visited Terry, Dunbar and Central, and thanked District employees who had been involved in providing a quality education to his children. Ms. Gee thanked Sterling Ingram for his many years of service to the District. She also welcomed Larry Berkley to the Board. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Hazel Bowers, a retired LRSD employee, commented on the dedicated serviced provided to LRSD students by Mr. Ingram. She spoke on behalf of Cleveland Ellis and asked for the Board to support funding for the STOP (Students That Officially Patrol ) program coordinated by Mr. Ellis. Cleveland Ellis provided information to the Board regarding the STOP Program and asked for consideration to continue funding. He is currently funded through the Healthy Family Center Grant\nthat funding will end September 30. Casey Latimore, a student who has participated in the STOP Program, also asked the Board to fund the STOP Program. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 6 V. ACTION AGENDA A. Election of Officers Mr. Riggs made a motion to table the election of officers until after the Zone 1 run-off election on October 8, 1996. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. B. Second Reading: Promotion and Retention of Students Regulation for Retention in K-6 - Student Promotion Regulation Second Reading: Comprehensive Intervention/Follow Up Remediation - Regulation on Intervention/Follow Up Remediation Policy revisions and regulations for promotion and retention of K-6 students and for intervention and follow up remediation procedures for elementary students, as recommended by the Strategic Planning Team Three, were approved on first reading at the August Board meeting. Mr. Riggs moved to approve both of these policies on second reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. C. Second Reading: Parent Involvement Policy Statement The Parent Involvement Administrative Team develop~d a statement to encourage active parent participation in District activities. The statement is intended to convey the Board's belief in the importance of involving all parents in school activities. The policy statement was approved on first reading at the August meeting of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the policy on second reading, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. D. Naming of Drive at Henderson for James L. Washington Students and staff at Henderson Health Science Magnet School requested the naming of the driveway at Henderson for James L. Washington, principal, in recognition of his commitment to improving the school and community. Ms. Magness moved to accept the recommendation of the administration to allow placement of a sign naming the drive James L. Washington Court. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. E. Approval of the 1995-96 Annual Report District program managers developed the 1995-96 annual report which is required to be published in the form of a legal notice prior to September 30 of each year. Administration requested the Board's approval of the report for submission to the Arkansas DemocratGazette for publication. Dr. Mitchell made a motion for approval, which was seconded by Mr. Riggs, and carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 7 F. Goals 2000 Grant Submissions Two Goals 2000 Grant applications were submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education for consideration. One would provide funding to train administrators and teachers preparing for administrative certification\nthe second would provide math and science staff development for instructors at Central High School. The administration asked for the Board's approval to maintain the submissions. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the grant submissions. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. G. Mini-Grant Submissions Two mini-grant applications were submitted for consideration during the month of September. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submissions\nthe motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried unanimously. SCHOOL Rightsell Elementary Fulbright Elementary PROGRAM Academic achievement through exposure to community and professional activities Classroom literacy program to increase reading skills. H. Capitol Improvement Proposal AMOUNT ORGANIZATION $2,000 Rockefeller Foundation $2,000 Rockefeller Foundation Administration requested the Board's approval to submit a proposal for funding capitol improvements to the Adult Education Center in the amount of $16,392.00. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the request, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. I. Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services, 1996-97 The Board was asked to approve the 1996-97 application for funding Special Education and Related Services under the Consolidated VI-B Budget. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the application, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 8 J. Approval of 1996-97 School Year Budget The 1996-97 School Year budget, due for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education on September 27, 1996, had previously been provided to Board members for review. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions and provide additional information. Dr. Roberts recommended approval of the budget for submission and indicated that he would begin the process of reviewing the budget for modifications over the next few months. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR LRSD/Health Services 50 Epipens Ark. Allergy Society Central High School Used IBM Computer/ Charles Bolton/UALR Monitor Metropolitan Vo-Tech 1989 Ford Festiva Anonymous Metropolitan Vo-Tech 1996 Geo Metro Chevrolet Motor Division/Bale Chevrolet McDermott Elementary Exterior Sign McDermott PTA L. Personnel Changes Dr. Roberts recommended approval of personnel changes printed in the agenda and referred the Board to Dr. Hurley to answer specific questions. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the personnel changes, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. M. Financial Reports Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the financial reports for July and August, as printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 9 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Members of the Board did not ask any additional questions. B. Class Action Lawsuit: Lakeview School District vs. State of Arkansas Chris Heller, attorney with the Friday Law Firm provided his report earlier in this agenda at the request of the Board. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Sarah Facen, candidate for Zone 1 on the Board, presented two knives that she indicated had been found on the bus stop in her neighborhood. She asked the Board to develop a policy that would insure safety of children at bus stops. Ms. Magness moved for the Board to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings at 7:30 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Five students petitioned the Board for reinstatement and their requests were provided for the Board's review. Dr. Linda Watson, student hearing officer, provided information on the following students: Keon Johnson had been expelled from McClellan High School in January 1996, for participating in gang activity. Since he is an 18 year-old, 12th grade student, the principal was willing to readmit him on strict probation in order to give him the opportunity to complete high school. The administration recommended allowing Keon to return to McClellan. Barbara Miller was expelled from Forest Heights Jr. High School in November 1995, for inciting to riot. She had been assigned previously to the Juvenile Justice Center, but did not successfully complete that program. The administration recommended denial of the petition to return to the Little Rock School District and again made a referral for Barbara to attend the JJC. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 10 Kendrick Alexander was recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High School for possession of a weapon on the bus stop. The principal requested that the Board allow Kendrick to return to school on strict probation, and administration recommended that the Board approve that request. Billy Robinson was charged with possession of a weapon, and recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High School, in the same incident noted above for Kendrick Alexander. The principal requested an opportunity to work with Billy and recommended that the Board allow him to return to school. The superintendent recommended approval of the principal's request for reinstatement. Christopher Berry was recommended for expulsion from Mann Magnet Jr. High School for possession of a weapon. The weapon was found during a scan and had not been used to threaten or injure anyone. Since the student had no prior disciplinary charges, the principal requested reinstatement. Administration recommended approval of the principal's request. The Board returned from executive session and reported that the Board approved the administration's recommendations on student disciplinary requests by a unanimous vote, on a motion made by Mr. Riggs and seconded by Dr. Mitchell. ADJOURNMENT --- APPROVED: IO JL/ -Cf (t, PULASKI COUNTY 96 68875 P.O. Box 2659 Little Rock, AR 72203-2659 CAROLYN STALEY Circuit County Clerk and Registrar 40 I WEST MARKHAM, SUITE I 00 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2325 OFFICIAL OATH County Circuit Court 50 t-J40-S-l3 I FAX 501-340-8340 I, LARRY BERKLEY , do hereby solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will not be interested directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a Director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as school director in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ZONE 5 of Pulaski County, Arkansas, upon which I am about to enter. Cl uJ\n::, \u0026gt;-i Cl Ln WW o=: _J..J ~ a:) \u0026lt;(CJ c:...\n, ::c -\u0026gt;- UJ c::: c:r 'f)~ = \"''::[ =5 :2: .-o I :CJ ~ = ~ LL.! -....! ~ ~== u.. NAME ~ \\L\\'~~~ .c ~~\"'k ~?\u0026lt; .. ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE CJ ... '.. .. Sworn to and subscribed before me, \u0026gt;i:7\"\"~--------'--:....\u0026amp;.....----' a c~~/ ~ in the County of Pulaski this the One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six A.D. Civil / Criminal (50 I) 340-843 I Fax (50 I) 340-8420 Marriage License (50 I) 340-8330 Real Estate (5 0 I) 340-8433 Voter Registration (50 I) 340-8683 Fax (50 I) 340-8340 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Nov 6 - l99i Office Of D esegregat,on M The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately preceding the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Pat Gee, VicePresident, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Gee Larry Berkley Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Mitchell Perry, teacher ex officio, Metropolitan I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Gee called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of six board members\nMs. Strickland was absent. on,tormg SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: I. Swearing in Ceremony II. Election of Officers III. Personnel Item IV. Expulsion Recommendations V. Student Appeal Hearing ACTION AGENDA Prior to the call to order, Carolyn Staley, County and Circuit Clerk, administered the oath of office to Katherine Mitchell, who was reelected to represent Zone 1 on the Board of Directors. Election of Officers Ms. Gee, Vice-Presidentppened the floor for nomination for the position of president. Dr. Mitchell nominated John Riggs for the position of President of the Board. There being no other nominations for president, Ms. Gee requested a motion for election by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell moved for election by acclamation, seconded by Ms. Magness and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs opened the floor for nominations for the position of vice president of the Board. Mr. Berkley nominated Judy Magness for election by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs asked for nominations for the position of secretary. Ms. Magness nominated Ms. Gee, who declined to accept the nomination. Dr. Mitchell nominated Michael Daugherty for the position of secretary. Mr. Berkley seconded the nomination and it carried unanimously. Personnel Item Dr. Daugherty moved to rescind a previous Board action which denied approval of a halftime assistant principal position at Dunbar Magnet Junior High School, and by that action to approve the position. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Roberts also recommended that the Board approve of the position of secretary to the athletic director. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept Dr. Robert's recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Riggs asked for a motion to recess the special meeting to conduct the regular agenda meeting at 5:25 p.m .. Ms. Gee moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and carried 6-0. Dr. Mitchell left at this time due to a previous appointment. After conducting the agenda meeting and recessing for a short break, the Board returned to the special meeting agenda at 6:28 p.m. Student Hearings Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer presented information and recommendations for students who had received disciplinary suspensions or expulsion sanctions. Those students and the recommendations are noted for the Board's action. Kelton Montgomery was suspended from Central High School for possession of a weapon. He did not appeal the suspension and the Board was asked to uphold the administration in the expulsion. Misty Odem-Harris, from Pulaski Heights and Corey Young, from Henderson, were both recommended for expulsion for verbal abuse of staff. The hearing officer has been unable to reach the parents of these students to schedule hearings or reinstatement conferences. The Board was asked to officially expel these students for their behavior. Dr. Roberts upheld the recommendation of the student hearing officer. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Dimitrios Stubblefield appeared before the Board to appeal the decision of the school administration to place him at the Alternative Learning Center. Dimitrios was expelled from Cloverdale Junior High School for possession of a weapon. Due to the number of previous suspensions and expulsions, the principal asked that Dimitrios not be returned to Cloverdale, but that he be given the opportunity to continue his education at the ALC. Dr. Watson agreed with the building administration and also recommended placement at the ALC. Dimitrios and his mother asked the Board to allow him to return to Cloverdale. Dr. Roberts supported the recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the first semester. IfDimitrios exhibits acceptable behavior during his assignment to the ALC, he could return to Cloverdale Jr. High School for the second semester. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and the motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page4 On completion of the student hearings, and at the Superintendent's request, the Board convened an executive session at 6:45 p.m., for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. The motion was made by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Ms. Gee, and carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session to report that they had upheld the superintendent's recommendation on all student disciplinary hearings and that no action was taken during the personnel discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Daugherty moved for adjournment at 7:38 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. APPROVED: I 0-~ 4 -qe, ~.L, .L ~ L Michael Daugherty,retary PULASKI COUNTY P.O. Box 2659 Little Rock, AR 72203-2659 CAROLYN STALEY Circuit County Clerk and Registrar 401 WEST MARKHAM, SUITE 100 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2325 OFFICIAL OATH County Circuit Court 501-340-843 I FAX 501-340-8340 I, KA THERINE PHILLIPS MITCHELL , do hereby solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will not be interested directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a Director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as school director in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS CT, ZONE 1 of Pulaski ADDRESS n L L f+k +:Ge_(( }H2_ ? J-J-a\n.___ CITY STATE (zIP CODE Sworn to and subscribed before me, CAROLYN STALEY a CIRCUIT COUNTY CLERK for the County of Pulaski this the -./-0- day of October, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six A.D. Civil/ Criminal (501) 340-8431 Fax (50 I) 340-8420 Marriage License (501) 340-8330 Real Estate (501) 340-8433 Voter Registration (50 I) 340-8683 Fax (501) 340-8340 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on October 24, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice-President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board Vice-President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of four Board members. Mr. Riggs, Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were absent. The teacher ex- officio, Mitchell Perry, representing Metropolitan Vocational-Technical High School was also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of September 26, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on October 10, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were fil!I!TI)Ved by a 4-0 vote, on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 2 ill. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts recognized several students who had entered artwork in the Bus Safety Week competition\nthe winning posters were on display in the Board Room. Forest Heights Jr. High students, Calvin Williams, Chris Graham, James Mauney, Jordan Smith, Kari Riedy, Lonzell Pride and Ray Braxton were winners in the group competition\nMabelvale Jr. High student, Thomas Bennett, was the winner in the individual competition. Dr. Ann Smith, history professor at Henderson State University presented a plaque to Christine Green, who teaches history at Hall High School. Ms. Green was recognized by the Arkansas Association of College History Teachers as the Outstanding High School History Teacher for 1996-97. Mr. Lee Gordon, Director of the Arkansas Business and Education Alliance, was at the meeting to recognize the Men of Dunbar, who serve as mentors to students at that school. The Men of Dunbar were awarded the Arkansas Friends for Better Schools/ Arkansas Times 1996 Public School Heroes Award. The membership in_cludes John Talley, Bruce Washington, Carl Hines, L. T. Davis, Lucious Powell, Sterling Rogers, James Vault, Jack Gilbert, Addison Dean, Emmett Willis, Eugene Porter, and Wendell Shead. The members who were present accepted the plaque and other gifts on behalf of the entire group. Miro Hundley, Wayne Cranford, and Gary Smith were recognized for their efforts in offering an opportunity for all 4th grade students in the District to attend \"The Snow Queen. \" Although these individuals were unable to attend the Board meeting, they will receive a letter of appreciation for their contribution to our students. Dr. Roberts presented a citation and plaque to Leonard Willis, who has been employed by the District for 50 years. There will be a reception honoring Mr. Willis on October 30, in the administration building lounge. The final citation was presented to Mitchell Perry, teacher at Metropolitan VocationalTechnical High School, who served as the ex-officio member of the Board for the month of October. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 3 B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts recognized Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator, who presented the partnership certificates to the following schools and local businesses: Corky's Restaurant, represented by Carla Hilburn, in partnership with Fulbright Elementary School, represented by Mac Huffman and Beverly Jones. Arkansas Bar Association, represented by Carol King and Jerry Rutledge, partnering with the LRSD Social Studies Department and Mann Magnet School, represented by Marie McNeal, Marian Lacey and Martha Daniel. Cyber Learning Academy, represented by Ron and Yona McFarlane, in partnership with Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, represented by Cassandra Norman. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. D. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden, representing ODM monitors, notified the Board that they should have received a current list of monitoring priorities for the current school year. She reported that monitors visited 18 schools in the LRSD during the first few weeks of school and that a report would be forthcoming. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 4 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty reported that he had attended a PTA meeting at Garland Incentive School on October 8, 1996, where PTA officers were elected and installed. He encouraged everyone to vote in the election on November 5, 1996. Ms. Gee encouraged participation in the Coats for Kids Campaign, sponsored annually by Channel 7 and Fashion Park Cleaners. She invited the public to attend a tailgate party preceding the McClellan High School Homecoming Game on October 25. She also reminded the school community that uniforms have been approved by the Board, in concept, and that implementation of individual school uniform policies do not have to be approved by the Board. Ms. Gee reminded the public that transportation complaints should be reported and she provided the telephone numbers for Laidlaw and for an administration office. Ms. Magness congratulated Parkview drama students on their recent performance of \"Tales From the Crypt. \" She also commented on a recent visit to Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School, where she participated in a science project. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Diane Vibhaker announced her recent appointment as Executive Director of Parents for Public Schools. She pledged support and commitment to building bridges between schools and the community. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 5 V. ACTION AGENDA A. National Science Foundation Grant The District was invited to submit a proposal for a program to increase the number of students enrolling in and completing courses in math and science through the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement. If awarded, the grant would provide up to $200,000 in the first year and up to $800,000 per year for years 2-5. Ms. Gee moved to approve submission of the grant application. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. B. Eastside Junior High School Building Acts of H \u0026amp; K Enterprises rendered an offer to lease to purchase the old Eastside Junior High School building for $260,000. This community organization would renovate the building and use the space for vocational and technical education programs. Kay Hadley, President of Acts ofH \u0026amp; K, was present to answer questions posed by the Board. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the lease/purchase offer from Acts ofH \u0026amp; K. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. C. Hepatitis B Immunizations The Arkansas Department of Health offered the District a supply of Hepatitis B vaccine for use in immunizing District students and employees. Gwen Efird, Coordinator of Health Services, and Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations, were present to respond to questions regarding this offer. Ms. Gee made the motion to approve acceptance of the vaccine, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it passed, 4-0. D. Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities Application The Board was asked to approve submission of the 1996-97 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities application to the Arkansas Department of Education. JoEvelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, reported that the grant amount would be $130,084. for implementation of drug abuse prevention programs in grades K-12. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve submission of the application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Mr. Berkley, and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 6 VI. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Pulaski Heights Jr. High Office/Classroom furniture Greg Hart/Southern Office Supply Chicot Elementary Cash ($70.73) Wal-Mart Store/from Sam's Cola Vending Machine Adult Education Center 12 used 386 SX Computers/ ETOP of AT \u0026amp; T and 13 Monitors/8 Keyboards IBEW Jefferson Elementary Microwave Oven Alice Lynn Greenwood Jefferson Elementary 250' of Chain Link Fence Dr. Tom Smith F. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda and asked that the approval include a slip sheet recommendation to employ Lillie Scull as the principal at Mitchell Incentive Elementary School. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the personnel items, including the slip sheet. Dr. Daugherty se~onded the motion and it carried 4-0. G. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending September 30, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Berkley made the motion for approval, seconded by Dr. Daugherty and the motion carried 4-0. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Members of the Board did not ask any additional questions. B. Budget Update Dr. Roberts reported that he would be meeting with Mark Milhollen, LRSD Manager of Financial Services, and Skip Marshall with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to begin working on a budget proposal for next year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 7 C. Cash for Trash Dash Dr. Roberts reported that it was unknown at this time whether any LRSD schools would be participating in the city-sponsored project, Cash for Trash. He will try to determine if any school groups are participating and provide a report to the Board at a later date. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Dr. Daugherty moved for the Board to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Berkeley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a briefrecess and recoRvened at 7:35 p.m. Dr. Linda Watts, acting Student Hearing Officer, presented information on students who had been recommended for suspension or expulsion from District schools. Those students and the circumstances surrounding their disciplinary sanctions are reported. Monika Wright was charged with possession of a weapon and recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High. The \"weapon\" was a screwdriver, which was found when a security officer asked to see a hall pass. The weapon had not been used in a harmful or threatening manner. The principal agreed to allow Monika to return to school, if that return included a strict probationary period. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement on strict probation for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept Dr. Roberts' recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Ricardus Flowers was recommended for expulsion from Fair High School for use of a weapon. Ricardus had a pocket knife, which he attempted to use during a fight with another student. During the altercation the police resource officer, as well as the other student, suffered minor injuries from the knife. At the hearing before the Board, Joy Springer was present to represent the student. His parents wanted him readmitted to school, but Ricardus has a pending court date related to this incident, which would prevent his assignment to the alternative high school program at the LR Job Corp Center. Dr. Roberts recommended that Ricardus be allowed to enroll in that program after the November 14 court date. If there are other charges pending, which would prevent assignment to the Job Corp program, he would be referred to the Juvenile Justice Center. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 8 Two additional students were scheduled for hearings before the Board, but did not appear. Meagan Grinage, Forest Heights Jr. High School student, accepted the administration's recommended placement at the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of the 1996-97 school year. Willis Bowie, McClellan High School student, did not appear at the scheduled time. The hearing office will attempt to contact his parents to determine if they accepted the recommended placement at the Juvenile Justice Center. The Board returned from executive session and reported that the Board had approved the administration's recommendations on student disciplinary requests by unanimous votes. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Mr. Berkley moved for adjournment at 8:22 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: l )- ~ I -1 e.p J\n~~ 61. ~ Michael Daugherty, Se\n?tary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, November 7, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Pat Gee ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Fran Ables, Teacher Ex officio, Cloverdale Jr. High Crystal Holman, Student Ex officio, Hall High I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of five board members\nMr. Berkley and Ms. Gee were absent. Ex officio members of the Board, Fran Ables, teacher at Cloverdale Jr. High School, and Crystal Holman, student at Hall High School, were also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The special meeting was called in response to a request by petition, submitted by the Fact Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan. ACTION AGENDA Hafeeza Majeed, Chairman of the Fact Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan, addressed the Board and presented a report of recommendations for review. A copy of that report is attached to these minutes. Ms. Majeed's presentation included remarks about increased gang activity in the schools, and she expressed concerns about the safety and security of students while on school buses. She noted that bus drivers were not trained to handle disruptive students. Parents who were in attendance at the meeting were also invited to share their concerns with the Board: Desmond Reed related personal experiences as a new resident of the city. He noted concerns regarding a lack of information available for parents. Rose Williams expressed concerns regarding the District's discipline policy and stated that the process used in hearings at school were unfair. Mary Givens stated concerns about the process used to fill magnet school seats. She also noted the increase in gang activity in the schools, especially at Southwest Junior High School. Pauline Reed remarked that there seemed to be a need for better communications and a better relationship between the school and the home. Barbara Johnson stated that some buses were too crowded and suggested that some behavior problems could be eliminated by running more buses and having them run on time. Some problems have escalated because students are alone at stops for too long. The Fact-Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan - Is It Mr. Curtis Hall Mr. Howard Love Ms. Hafeeza Majeed Rev. Larry Staggers Mr. Dale Charles Working For African-American Youth? DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1996 TO : FROM: LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUPERINTENDENT DON R. ROBERTS THE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE FOR THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN - IS IT WORKING FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN YOUTH? SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDING LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN The Fact-Finding Committee For The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan - Is It Working For African-American Youth? submits the following recommendations for amending the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as outlined in the \"Desegregation Plan Amendment Process (Deseg. Tool Kit, April 2, 1996~ Appendix D). Please review and reply to the Committee by December 6, 1996, informing us of any action(s) made by the Board regarding the following recommendations: 1. It is our recommendation that the LRSD Board of Directors and Superintendent Don Roberts clearly delineate the District's desegregation mission to the staff and to the community as required in the \"Commitment To Desegregation In The Little Rock School District. (Desegregation Tool Kit, April 2, 1996, page 1) 2. It is our recommendation that \"Opportunity Learning\", as outlined in \"Voices Of The City\", be further researched and studied for consideration as an effective program for effectively educating youth in the LRSD. 3. It is our recommendation that the current educational curriculum of the LRSD be reviewed and revised to include a thorough education of Africa and African-American History. 4. It is our recommendation that \"Conflict Resolution\" education be provided for LRSD students, beginning at the elementary level. 5. It is our recommendation that the \"Zero Tolerance\" policy in the LRSD be reviewed and revised. LRSD Board November 7, 1996 Page Two 6. It is our recommendation that all LRSD monitoring instruments be revised to include input from students. 7. It is our recommendation that teachers and parents in all LRSD schools be required to attend PTA meetings just at parents in LRSD Magnet schools are required to attend. 8. It is our recommendation that independent \"Community Teams\" be formed to provide independent monitoring by parents, students and community members. 9. It is our recommendation that each schoolbus transporting LRSD students have an adult monitor to assist the d~iver. 10. It is our recommendation that no amendments be made to the LRSD Desegregation Plan until the Board and Superintendent have attempted to address these recommendations. Respe tfully submitted: Mr. Curtis Hall, 11/7/96 Rev. Larry Staggers, 11/7/96 MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 Page3 ADJOURNMENT Ms. Magness moved for adjournment at 8:00 p.m. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 11 -J. (-9 \"- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on November 21, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. The teacher ex-officio, Frances Ables, from Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, and the student ex-officio, Crystal Holman, from Hall High School, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of October 24, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on November 7, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved, on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Ms. Magness. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts recognized students from Rockefeller Incentive School Show Choir, directed by I. J. Routen, who performed before the Board. These students have been invited to a choral festival at Carnegie Hall, and they are currently involved in fund-raising activities to enable them to participate. B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts introduced Gwen Efird, Health Services Coordinator, who presented School Nurse Awards. Karen Terry received the First Year Nurse Award. Five nurses received certificates in recognition of their nomination for School Nurse of the Year, Stevie Cherepski, Carla Kelley, Marsha Mahan, Betty Nieser, and Lucia Perry. Deborah Bolls was awarded a plaque in honor of her naming as School Nurse of the Year. The Superintendent read a proclamation recently signed by Mayor Jim Dailey, naming November 21, 1996, as \"Education Day\" in the City of Little Rock. A copy of that proclamation is attached to these minutes. Four LRSD teachers were recently named recipients of the Stephens Awards, which are awarded annually through the City Education Trust Fund. Each of these teachers received a $5,000 award: Leslie Kearney, who teaches German at Central High School\nMelissa Donham, who teaches biology at Central High School\nTommie Sue Wood, who teaches history at Fair High School\nand Mildred Walker, a mathematics teacher at McClellan High School. Citations were presented to the ex-officio members of the Board for the month of November\nFrances Ables, teacher from Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, and Crystal Holman, student from Hall High School. Lee Ann Matson represented the VIPS office in presenting the new partnership certificates. The following schools and local businesses were recognized: ITT Technical Institute, represented by Ken Sullivan, in partnership with Cloverdale Jr. High School, represented by Cassandra Norman and Fran Ables. BFI of Arkansas, represented by Tom Boston and John Embree, partnering with Geyer Springs Elementary School, represented by Julie Davenport and Kathy Farley. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 3 Arkansas Federal Credit Union, represented by Richard Gilliland and Lorraine Darral/, in partnership with Mitchell Elementary School, represented by Lillie Scull and Mary Ann Hanson. A collaborative partnership with four ecology related entities has been established by the Washington Magnet School staff: Project Learning Tree, partnership certificate accepted by Susan Glaze\nProject WET, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control \u0026amp; Ecology, accepted by Jim Shirrell\nProject WILD, Arkansas Game \u0026amp; Fish Commission, accepted by Pat Knighten\nand Toltec Mounds State Park, represented by Melanie Thornton. Washington Magnet School staff members present to accept certificates were Katherine Snyder, Betty Hansberry, Cathy Schwartz, and Sheila Flaxman. Ms. Magness moved to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden, representing ODM monitors, stated that their staff is working to complete several reports, including the annual emollrnent comparison reports of the three Pulaski County Districts and a staffing report on the Incentive Schools in the LRSD. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 4 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Berkley reported that he had attended a PTA meeting at Fulbright Elementary School and commended the parents and staff for their work in landscaping the school grounds. He also reported on his attendance at the first meeting of the social studies textbook selection committee. Dr. Daugherty thanked the members of the Rockefeller Show Choir for their performance earlier in this meeting. He especially thanked those persons responsible for the inclusion of handicapped students in the choir's presentation. Dr. Mitchell remarked that she attended an assembly at Wilson Elementary School where students were recognized for their academic achievements and citizenship improvements. She also commended District personnel who coordinated the rally last Sunday at Henderson Junior High School for 6th grade students who will attend 7th grade next year. Ms. Magness expressed appreciation to District teachers and principals who spent a weekend in staff development training at the Hilton. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Pam Marshall, who works with the Central Little Rock Community Development Council, asked the Board to consider an extension of time for development of a proposal for the purchase of the Westside Junior High School property. Volunteers of America had requested, and had been granted an option for purchase of the property. They have been unable to meet their obligations under the terms of the agreement and had indicated a desire to terminate that agreement. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Interim Millage Adjustment The Pulaski County Quorum court establishes the rates of taxation to be levied on taxable real and personal property for the use and benefit of the cities, towns, and schools, as required by State law. As a result of the countywide reappraisal, the millage rates for personal and real property will be adjusted effective January 1, 1997. The new personal property rate will be 41.90 mills, and the new real property rate will be 41 .40 mills. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 5 The Board was asked to approve a resolution acknowledging the certification of applicable taxes to the County Clerk prior to the regular November Quorum Court meeting. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the resolution, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. B. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Booker Arts Magnet Elem. 386/25 Computer System Robert Bradley Booker Arts Magnet Elem. Two Echo trimmer/ brush Booker Arts PT A cutters McDermott Elem. Garden Plants/supplies Home Depot Jefferson Elem. Microwave Oven Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Price Roark Chicot Elem. $300.00 (for cheerleading J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. outfits) Fulbright Elem. Prone Stander (for disabled Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Kelton students) Brown MeadowcliffElem. $504.00 (for carpeting in Metropolitan National classrooms) Bank/AR Capital Corp. Fair High School Lab Equipment \u0026amp; Supplies AT\u0026amp;T F. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda Ms. Strickland moved to accept the personnel items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 6 G. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending were presented for the Board's approval. Mark Milhollen was present and responded to questions from Board members. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the reports, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and the motion carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Nancy Acre responded to the Board's questions regarding the ten-day pre-registration period scheduled early in 1997. B. Budget Update Mark Milhollen provided information regarding the project management tool and updated the Board on meetings with budget managers. Mid-year budget adjustments will be done in mid-December. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS Vicki Gonterman invited the Board and Superintendent to attend the 10th annual arts festival at Gibbs Magnet School on Monday, November 25, 1996. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved for adjournment at 7:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: / 8.. -I CJ  1 ~ I I I : ' f I j 't G0 cAII G0 ~ \u0026amp;~ cs@~ ~hall ~ome ~l-1\"-.L/A   WHEREAS, a quality education system is vitally important to the well-being of a city - to its quality of life, its economic vigor and the future of its children\nand, WHEREAS, the Little Rock Board of Directors is committed to education and work jointly with the school district to strengthen the link between government and school officials in an effort to bolster everyone's participation in public education\nand, WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock is an active participant in the Partners-In-Education Program, taking an active role in the educational process, supporting those who work tirelessly to ensure our children receive the skills they need to succeed\nand, WHEREAS, Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey joins Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, along with other Mayors across the country, in encouraging communities to take advantage of the unique opportunity to renew the public school system and work collectively with our schools. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Dailey, Mayor of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, do hereby proclaim the 2 I st day of November, 1996, \"Education Day\" in the City of Little Rock and encourage all citizens to join me in playing a role in the long-term viability of our schools. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused che seal of che City of Little Rock to be affixed on chis 18th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1996. ' ~m~ Mayor RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RA TES FOR THE YEAR 1996 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year of 1996 as required by Ark. Code Ann. 14-14-904\nand WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy\nNOW, 1HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock S~hool District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 41 . 90 mills for personal property and 41. 40 mills for real property within the district for the year 1996. ,8 Secretary ll-J.1-1eo Adopted LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, November 26, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and stipulated a quorum without a roll call\nall members were present. - MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: I. Superintendent's Presentation II. ODM Remarks III. Parties' Remarks IV. Board Discussion/Comments/Action PRESENTATION Dr. Roberts presented his views on the current status of the Little Rock School District and made recommendations for operational improvements that he sees as necessary to the future of the District. He asked the Board to adopt a resolution that would allow him to proceed in askingfor Court approval to modify the current desegregation plan by working during a six to nine month period without formal monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. If approved by the Court, ODM monitors would assist the District with other operational areas, such as budget, staff development, student assignment, and discipline. Ann Brown, ODM Monitor, made brief remarks regarding the importance of building a strong partnership between the ODM office and the LRSD. She stated support for Dr. Roberts' recommendations and presented a book to him, entitled Re-thinking America. John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, commented on Dr. Roberts' presentation and questioned whether or not the Courts would allow the federal monitors, as an arm of the Court, to become involved in the daily operations of the District. He made several remarks regarding the current staff of the District and suggested that it was insufficient to meet the needs of the total student population. Although he stated that adoption of the proposed resolution was inappropriate, Mr. Walker did agree to support Dr. Roberts in his efforts. ACTION AGENDA Dr. Roberts read the proposed resolution and asked for the Board's approval. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation and approve the resolution as read. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried by a unanimous vote. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Berkley made a motion to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: Id. -\nq-7\u0026amp;:J /L,~~ Michael Daugherty, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nWHEREAS, students and desegregation the necessary LRSD can improve its educational program for all can enhance the prospects for the long term of the District if given the opportunity to devote time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the District\nand WHEREAS, ODM could, with court authorization, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed.  IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Rock School District. (\n\\ha,,o\\foodloylinld\\ 112696.,ca CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, the duly elected, qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Vote Director (Aye, Nay, Abstain or Absent) John Riggs, IV Aye Judy Magness A e Micheal Daugherty A e Larry Berkley A e Patricia Gee A e Katherine Mitchell A e Sue Strickland A e I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all resp\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle 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_501","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''","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":["1996-07-12"],"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 improvement programs","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''"],"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/501"],"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":["22 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\n12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 1 Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96), July 12,1996 Summary of Recommendations DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 1 PG 6 _________________________________RliCOMMENDATIOM______________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng each Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg^)____________________________________________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng oaclt Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Identify the factors that are working to mako Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them ___^rthe other Incentive schools. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 6)___ 28 28 Shidonts In grades 3-6 have access to either inohllo or pormnnont scloncn lat)s with ndnqtinlo materials Hint allow chikJien to oxocuto long-tonn oxpurlmunts end stuily sclonco In Itio fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pQ. 153\nJuly 10, 1992 Court Order\nref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 15) Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should bo able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff dovolopinont sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. (ODM 1992-M Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,jjg. 49)____________________________________________ The curriculum at each school Incorporntos foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\"method of Instruction. Emphasis Is on l)nslc vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates (oroign language labs with appiopriato equipment and matoiials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Rather Principals Gremllllon Gremllllon Pilnclpols Glasgow Gremllllon DONE 8/96 2 3 4 7 Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the Incentive schools In establishing a foreign language program as an Integral part of the overall school program. (ODM 1992- 93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. SI) RESPONSEtxQaniiParker gave court* WWpy th* foralgn lnouafiTproBram*n\u0026lt;iT^ probloim LR8D'facttcl. LR8D  coiitlnuo9 toTac9 Uio\nonm8 problems that wore outlined In Parkers Mtlmonxtolhicoiirtjhl^^ - Neodn t'.o bo done Denoton roconunendation apponrod in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Proni'onn * Coinpl otfd12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 2 DATE 7/12/96 DOC MR NO 5 PG 28 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\" mothod of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Gremilllon Parker DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 6 1 8 28 28 28 Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program. Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 51) ODM 1992-93 Incentive RESPONSE: Gene Parker gave court testimony on the foreign tanguag* program arid the problems LRSD faced. LRSD continue# to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers teatimoriytothe Courts^ The curriculum at each scliool Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total ptiyslcal response\" method of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Eacli building oporalos loroign language labs with appropriate equipment and malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSE:'Goho Parker gavo' court 8-11-9(5, on the rdrolgF problems LRSD faced. LRBD rcontInuos to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parker's testimony to thioi'cdurts. tho~curtlculum al each sciiool incorporates foreign language Instruction using the forolgn language lab and ttio total ptiyslcal response\" method of Instruction malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural Eucti building oporalos loioign langungo labs with appropilalo equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSEi Oorie Parkor gave court testimony 8\u0026gt;1198, oh the foreign longuap^p^^ problome LRSO faced. LRSD conttinies to face the samo problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers testimony to the courta.___________________________________________ Cumulnllvo records document both host and guest schools paillclpnllon In Snturdny programs. (ODM 1992 *!! Repoit, pg. 25) Satuidny programs will bo dovolopod Io onhanco loaming. Those programs will Include but shall not bo limited - Noodti t o be done Dnot recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report ! In Progronu  f.'oinplotod Gremilllon Parker Gromllllon Parker Gromllllon Principals +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 3 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 71^2196 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 9 10 11 12 PG 29 29 29 40 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Standardize the reporting process for Saturday school. Data should be cumulative and reflect race, gender, and grade of participating students. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 60) Cumulative records documont both host and guest scliool's participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed to enhance loaming. Those programs will include but stiall not be limited to field trips, onrlchmont actlvitios, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education actlvitios. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform annual evaluations of the Saturday programs, using the information to design programs that ai ppeal to the students and thek parents. (PPM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 60)___ Cuniulatlvo records documont bolti liosl and giiosl school's paiticipniion In Saliirday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Saturday programs will bo dovolopod to enhance lourniny. Those proyrams will Include but shall not bo llinitod to Hold trips, onrlchmont actlvltlos, tutoring, paront/ctilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education nctlvIHos. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform regular evaluations of the Saturday program, both during and at the end of the school year, asking staff, parents, and students for feedback. Use the garnered Information to design activities and events that coincide with the Interests of all participants. (ODM 1994-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 37 I W V * I ------------------- Cuimiinllvo racords docunioiiTijoHi liosl and ynost scliool's paillcipatlon In Salnrday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Satuiday programs will bo dovolopod to enhanco loaininy. Tlioso proyrams will Include but stuill not bo limited to Hold tiips, enrichment aGtIvlllos, tutoriny, pnronl/clilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, py. 179) Promote collaboration among the Incentive schools and between the Incentive schools and the district's area and magnet schools to plan Joint field trips and other collnborntlve activities during the regular academic wook. Tho district can thus do a bettor job of fulfilling its obligation to provide Incentive school studonts^tjHiioro opportunities lor desogrogatod louriiliig oxporloncos. fIto purposo~of the InconllvoTchool proyram Is io piomolo and onsiiio acadoinlc oxcollonco In scitools thnt have boon dilllcull to dosoyroyato. (LRSD plan, py. 149) Willi proper resources and oxpoctatloiis, Itio Incentive sctiool program will servo ns a model of oxcollonco lor the county, stalo, and the nation. (LRSD plan, (ly. 149) Base staff development activities on areas of domoiistratod need. Some tonchors many need more - Noodfi Io 1)0 (lone *DenotB rcomnu\u0026gt;ndtion nppenrod in prior ODM Monitoring Report I Ln Iroyi'onn  tronipl Rt.o(i PERSON Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals Asst. Siipls. Principals Gremillion Pilnclpnls DONE + +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 4 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR *Danotea NO 13 14 15 PG 40 48 54 _______________RECOMMENDATION training than others in areas such as classroom management and organization and effective discipline. It is incumbent upon the building administrator and the individual teachers to identify areas of need and access the resources necessary to address them. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, ___________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of the incentive scliool program Is to promote and ensure academic oxcollonco in sctiools that have been difficult to desegregate. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) With proper resources and expectations, the Incontivo school program will servo as a model of excollcnce for the county, state, and the nation. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) Better define the role of phonics Instruction in the Incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSD curriculutii\n_________________________________________________________________________ The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career cholco.s using written information, guest speakers, films, and Interest Invonlorlos. (LRSD Plan, PG. 172, 180) Study skills training onhancos skills In test-taking, lisloning, and studying. Test-taking skills aro being taugtit and students practice lest taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nJuly 10, 1992 Couit Older ref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Ropoil, pg. 32) Students receive Individual and group counseling and aro taught conflict resolution. Tho school uses poor facilitators. (LRSD Plan. Pp. 176, 184) Ttio stall has dovolopod wrilton building giildanco plan.s Io address personal growlli, social dovolopmont, caroor awnronoss, and educational dovolopmont. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ret: June 5, 1092 ODM Ropoil, pg. 27) Roquiro counselors to have bullding-lovol guidance plans that rolloct activities and projects for the current school year. I PERSON Gromllllon Principals Parker Elston DONE Clear guidance plans help teachers and administrators achieve school improvement goals, reflect an assessment of the schools^iildance noeds^and shov^how the counselor plans to address those needs. bisaggrogato data rblutod to studuni dlsclpliao anil rovlow stud'unt data to addioss Issuos of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closoly monitor Iho discipllno program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would bo wise to analyze Iho factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipllno problems and loss dispailly In discipline botwoon black and white students. Identifying and omulating those factors and closoly scrutinizing progress should result In interventions Hint roduco ltio number of students suspended or oxpollod, as woll as ttio disproportionate number of black students roforrod lor disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that aro staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)________________________________________________________________________________ - Notulii I o bo doiio rocommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Ropoit I In IrcxjrtiiKi * Comp]oLud Gromllllon Principals Watson12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 5 DATE DOC I NO I PG RECOMMENDATION Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Hold periodic \"summits\" to develop a forum for an exchange of ideas and successful techniques for handling disciplinary problems. Incentive schools have similar characteristics and staff members who, along with parents and students, are valuable resources for ideas to combat problems. (ODM 1993-94 PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/98 Donoteo MR MR 16 17 54 54 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29)__ Disnggrogalo data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho disclpllno program lo mako modifications that are indicatod by formative, os well ns summntivo, Information. Tho district would bo wise lo analyze tho factors Hint contribulo to sonio schools having fowor overall discipline problonis and loss dispailly In discipline between black and while students. Identifying and emulating those factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result In interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as tho disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Ropoit, pg. 23) Attondanco and behavior guldollnos Includo limo-out rooms that are stalled with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Ropoil, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly Indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consoquoncos for Infractions. Policy onforcomont Is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 32) Explore the feasibility of developing permanent alternative educational sites designed specifically for chronically disruptive students. Tho presence of chronically misbehaving and disruptive students in tho classroom hindors teaching and learning (or tho rost. (ODM 1993-94 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29) RESPONSE: ThpBssItttant Superlntentje^tover lncwW|iie\nft|o|8, IRSP Hearing oriicer, along with the Incentive SchooWlncIpals are currently^|seuaalria4bSi%nd BOnd exploring alternative educational sites ..... \"Disaggrogato data rolalod iirstu'd'oiit disclpllno and rovlow stuaoni gain lo nouioss Issiios of racial disparity - Noi'dii In be done roconintondation appoarad in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Progrenn * (\\)nipl etOit Gromillion Watson Gromillion12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 6 DATE /12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR I NO I PG 18 19 20 RECOMMENDATION (Interdis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as ttie disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Provide ongoing training in behavior management for school district employees who are responsible for supervising children for any period of time. The Assistant Superintendent over Incentive Schools^ LRSD Hearing Officer, Staff Oevttlopinont Supervisor, along with Incentive School Principals and teachers will be planning RESPONSE: 60 60 60 PERSON Watson DONE inservices for LRSb employeea responsiblefor cupervjslrifl children on bebavlof mahagement._________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Franklin - Investigate the cause of the failing paint and take corrective action.________________________ Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho Incontivo scliools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would benefit aosthollcally from tho addition of attrnctivo landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial sluff In proper plant care Io provenl loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-waloring. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Fraiikihi - Correct drainage problom^n all affected levels of tlio_buildjng.__________________________ The district wifi provide clean and safe facliitlos and rnako all repairs fundamental to malnialn tho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incentive schools would bonofit aosthoticnily from tho addition of allractlve landscaping. Once - Needii t.o be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I 111 Progreuf.) * Completed Eaton Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 12/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 7 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO PG RECOMMENDATION plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) I PERSON DONE 21 22 23 24 25 60 60 60 60 60 Garland - Attend to the peeling paint on the exterior doors._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tire incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once Garland Principal plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Improve cleanliness in the cafeteria and bathrooms._____________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train tho custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Correct the problems with floor tiles in the large downstairs bathrooms.__________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Replace the worn lunchroom tables.__________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit nosthotlcally from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installed, train Iho custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Remove or replace the malfunctioning urinal in the bathroom located on the second floor landing. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthollcally from tho addition of atlrnctlvo landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train the custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) _________________________________________ - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreee * Completed Eaton Moran Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 ' 8/96 8/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 8 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG 26 27 28 29 60 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION Mitchell - Replace or reattach the loose tiles in the hallways._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan. pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell -Determine the cause of the leaks found throughout the building and correct the problems. RESPONSE\nLRSD is committed to repairing leaks In the roof, but duo to the ago and condition of the building, leaks ara likely to be a reoccurring problerri untIt funds are available to replace the roof.  - The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair and repaint damaged ceilings._______________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Assess water damage to carpets and replace as needed. RESPONSE: Malnfenance of the carpets will be acceseed by school personnel while roof repair Is in The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair any broken partitions and fittings in the bathrooms. PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 12/98 - Needa to be done Denotes reconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreoo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 9 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO I PG 30 31 32 33 34 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools v/ould benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. E Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Evaluate the school's plumbing needs and complete work needed to make all bathrooms fully functional. Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Onco plantings aro installed, train tho custodial staff In propor plant care Io provont loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-watoilng. (ODM 1092 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Eliminate tho Insect Infestation._____________________________________________________ The district will provWo clean and safe facliitios and make all repairs fundamontai to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incontivo schools would bonofit aoslhofically from Iho addition of atlracllvo landscaping. Onco plantings aro installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to provont loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rockefeller - Repair the small area of damaged tile In the boys bathroom before the problem escalates. 60 Tho district will provide clean and sate lacilltlos and make all repairs fundamental to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant caro to provont los,s of plantings to Improper pruning or undor-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Before releasing as RFP, Rockefeller -Replace carpeting throughout all areas of the building, representatives from the plant services and tho purchasing departments should consult with tho principal and staff regarding details of carpet replacement, such as tho replacement schedule, the carpet color, and the areas to bo carpeted, including the carpot-covered furnishings. 78 RESPONSEnQurOTiaj^^ A Parent Center In each school provides resources and rnatorials, locommondod by a parent and staff commlltoo, that can bo lonnod to parents. A parent has boon triilnod Io opornto Iho contor, which Is to bo tho - Needo Co be done Denoteo recommondatlon appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I In Proyreoo  Completed PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 8/96 8/96 +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendalions 10 DATE DOC I NO I PG ______________________RECOMMENDATION source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Keep more accurate and complete records of Parent Center use by consistently using sign-in sheets. PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 35 36 37 78 79 79 (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77) A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that Is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. Tho school documents the degree to which parents use Gremillion Principals the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Develop strategies and arrange events to encourage greater use of the Parent Center. For example, design boxes or bags containing materials on a certain topic that could be checked out. Highlight Parent Center Resources in the school newsletter, bulletin boards, and PTA meetings to heighten awareness and increase interest in the centers. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77)________________________________________________________________________________:------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and cariying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of paiticipanls by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Team with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. Such collaboration can help coordinate and strengthen resources to focus on targeted audiences. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79)____________________________________________-------------------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, lime management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with Iho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitios Is maintained, Including slgn-ln sheets that reflect Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals  Ncodu to be done *Danote8 recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I- Tn Proyveuo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 11 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR NO I PG I' 38 39 40 79 79 79 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Offer sessions on timely and intriguing topics at times, dates, locations, and circumstances that haven't been tried before as a means to increase participation. (ODM 1994-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79) _______________________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitlos Is maintalnod, including sIgn-in shoots that reflect parents' race, gondor, and the school Ihoir ctilld attends. (ODM 1992 Roport, pg. 38) Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion and mako candid suggestions tor training improvements and future session topics. Then carefully analyze tho feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of tho training to make changes accordingly. (ODM 1994-96 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 62)___________________________________________________________________ Tho schools offer parent workshops to assist paronts In understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workstiops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with tho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on tiow well tho session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the goals of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations. Use the feedback to redesign offerings as necessary to ensure progress toward the goals. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, .31751 The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out scfiool expectations. The workshops includo such topics as study skills, discipline, time managomont, pre-reading skills, financial managomont, and dovolopmontal loaming skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with tho numbor of participants by raco, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze pailicipants' feedback on how well tho session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complcto documentation of all parent mootings and activities Is maintained, Including sign-ln sticets that reflect - Needo l.o lio doiio Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Roport ( III Il tiqroiJU  Coinplotod PERSON Gremillion Principals Gromillion Principals Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 12 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG I 41 42 43 44 79 79 79 79 __________________________RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) in order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, guardian, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. (ODM 1992-93 hicentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105) Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132) Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs, designed to support children and families. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 78)_____________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school thoir child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105)________ Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30) Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive SchooI Monitoring Report, pg. 78)____________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Ill Progreoo * Completed PERSON DONE Milam Cheatham Principals Milam Gremilllon Principals Ratherb, - INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) 13 Suiniiiary of Recommendations DATE I DOC I NO | PG | 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 45 46 47 80 80 80 ____________RECOMMENDATION Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for using the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureaus and key communicators that clearly identify the Job goal, qualifications, performance expectation, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quaiterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incontivo school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management foam, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must bo Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitinonf assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Engage in a recruitment campaign that is broad and intense enough to ensure that the district can select a Biracial Committee membership that is racially balanced and also fully representative of the districts geography. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 26)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreso * Completed PERSON Rather Supt. Supt. DONE +12,,.,- NCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 14 DATE DOC I NO PG ________________________________RECOMMENDATION________________________________ that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 48 49 80 80 Define Biracial Committee goals and then develop and carry out specific objectives and timelines for reaching them. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 27) Tho dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor tho incontivo schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports ttiat summarize all monitoring visits. Tho superintendent will share tho PRE document witli the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Coordinate Biracial Committee monitoring activities with other internal district monitoring groups to eliminate duplication and ensure that no part of the desegregation efforts go unscrutinized. (ODM 1992- 92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees., pg. 28)________________________________________ The dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) - Needfj to be done Denotes roconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreuo * Completed Supt. Supt. Jackson12/19/96 .INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 15 DATE I DOC I NO | PG RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Design Biracial Committee monitoring instrument that correlate specifically with the desegregation plan provisions so each district can measure its progress in plan implementation. (ODM 1992-92 Monitoring PERSON I DONE 7/12/96 MR 50 80 Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28) 7/12/96 MR 51 80 The districlwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with tho Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintondont for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with tho advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school rocruitrnont reports from tho dosegregalion office, ovalirato tho program quarterly and recommend needed changes to tho Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior managornent team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (Iwo of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Older: ref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly update Biracial Committee monitoring instruments to reflect all modifications to the desegregation plans. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will I monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225)__________________________ Supl. 8/96 - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreos * Completed Supt. Jackson12/1b,3. JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 16 DATE I DO'C I NO I PG~~[ ___________________________RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 52 80 The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of that summarize all monitoring visits. ' Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board ot Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Make evaluation an integral part of the Biracial Committee monitoring process so that conclusions and recommendations for improvement are used to both prevent and correct problems. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29)_________________________________ Tt)o districtwido Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) Tho Biracial Committoe will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. Tho Office of Planning, Rosoarch, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarizo all monitoring visits. Tho superintondont will share tho PRE document with tho Board of Directors al their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committoo, with tho advice of marketing and advertising exports, will servo as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from tho desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, tho superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Supt. Annually evaluate the role, operations, and accomplishments of the BIraclal Committee In relationship - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report h In Progreoa it Completed12/19/91 jCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summa, y of Recommendations 77 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR 53 54 PG 80 80 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION to specific settlement plan provisions and overall desegregation goals. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) I PERSON RESPONSE: An annual evaluation of the Biracial Committees role, operations, and accomplishments at the end of each fiscal year beginning with the 1996-97 school year. The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, witfi the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly ask Biracial Committee members to review and rate the type and quality of support the district is furnishing them, and solicit suggestions for new or improved support services. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) RESPONSE: LRSD will develop a survey for KlrttcJa) Committee members to review and rate the quality of support LRSD is providing and asking for suggestions for new and Improved support services. This survey will be distributed to members during tho 3rd quarter of tho 1996*97 school year. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year LRSD will Survey members during the 1st end 3rd quarter of each school year. The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed DONE Supt. Gremillion Principals12/19/96 JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 18 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I MR MR 55 56 80 80 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy._______________________________________________________________ Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Focus on the schools where community involvement is lagging and intensify efforts to increase volunteer support in those buildings. Pay particular attention to targeting those schools which fall far behind the others in volunteer activity._________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Strengthen the communication between school and community by considering placement of an outreach coordinator in each incentive school to function as a liaison. This position, which should require at lease half-tinie and preferably full-time attention, could be paid or voluntary and filled by an employee, a volunteer, or an intern. The outreach coordinator would be supervised by the principal and work closely with all aspects of the school, as well as the district's offices of student assignment and communications. Any funding necessary for such a position could be sought from a grant or come from the extra money provided through the schools' double funding. The outreach coordinator could perform a number of tasks that could include, but not be restricted to, the recommendations listed below. RESPONSE: LRSD is exploring the possibility of using a volunteer to serve as an outreach coordinator for each incentive schoot. - - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed PERSON Milam Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 19 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR MR MR 57 58 59 60 PG IT 81 81 81 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION________ ___________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Develop a school communications plan that includes specific objectives as well as methods to measure results. Each school should write objectives that answer the following questions\nWho will benefit from this activity and how will they benefit from it? How will the activity be implemented, who will do the work, when will the work start, and what is the implementation schedule? When will the benefits be visible and what will they look like? How will we know if were successful? RESPONSE\nLRSD Assistant Superintendent for Incentive Schools, Parent Recruiters, Communications Director and Incentive School principals are currently working together to develop a communications A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Produce a monthly school newsletter that targets the community, with distribution to parents, volunteers, partners, and residents of the neighborhood. These neighbors would include churches, shops, fire stations, nursing homes, hospitals, professional offices, etc. The newsletter should stress the success of students and teachers, herald coming events, and highlight individuals who live or work in the community. Use the publication as a means to more broadly recognize students, teachers, parents, and volunteers. Students could write some of the articles, striving to create a friendly, chatty communiqud that conveys a positive and enthusiastic attitude, school pride. Make this publication a banner of The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Work the territory by actively reaching out to the neighborhood and beyond. Instead of waiting for the community to come to the school, the school can energetically extend itself to the community. Contact local businesses and other organizations to explain the school and its place in the neighborhood. Personally extend an invitation to attend an open house or any other special function being held in the school. If a class is presenting a play, invite the neighbors in for the fun and assign student hosts to guests.____________________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, - Need.g to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progre.en * Completed PERSON I DONE Gremillion Principals Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Rather Principals12/19/96 ir JENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 20 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I RECOMMENDATION PERSON DONE MR MR 61 62 81 82 213) Develop the speakers bureau into a proactive ambassadorship for the school. Members of the bureau can be parents, teachers, students, and community volunteers. Give the speakers a special title (such as Goodwill Ambassadors, Outreach Angels, etc.) and help them focus on a specific theme or point of school pride. Arrange for them to meet frequently with small groups at a well known nearby place, such as a church, fire station, or community alert center. Such experiences are prime learning opportunities for students, helping boost their self esteem while also polishing their schools image._______________ A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Gremillion Principals Actively manage the Parent Centers to become the catalyst and focal point of parent resources and services they were intended to be. Suggestions for strengthening the centers include the following: foster the ongoing involvement of a strong Parent Center Committee in each school, using the Committee to establish a means for determining what special parent needs exist, such as materials and equipment, home visits, extended center hours, etc.\nconsider relocating the centers to a place of prominence and easy access, where parents can meet and chat without fear of disturbing classes\ndevelop a monthly theme of parenting emphasis that is carried throughout the school in such way as a featured bulletin board and the school newsletter, then follow up with appropriate workshops on the themes\nequip the centers with welcoming and comfortable furniture that invites parents to linger awhile\nconsider the feasibility of merging the faculty lounge and the Parent Center into a combined building resource center to promote frequent and sustained interaction between teachers and parents._________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school, expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Milam Principals - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed12/19/9G INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 21 DATE 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR 63 PG 87 ________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) PERSON I DONE Intensify efforts at the school level to coordinate the services of volunteers and school partners in the school, making them an integral part of the school family. Routine operation procedures should include follow-up to determine the degree of volunteer satisfaction, because these very important people need consistent guidance, support, encouragement, and thanks. Keep in contact with them through meetings, phone calls, and notes. Invite them to the special functions at the school and assign a student host to escort them. Spend time training the children who are selected as hosts, showing them how to be courteous and respectful. Make these students a part of the symbols of school pride. The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 57) The districts recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, PG. 215- 216, 220-222) Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222) All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well-thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (July 10, 1992 Courf Order\nref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pp. 4, 5) Gremillion Principals Rather Millhollen Establish a budget that is adequate to underwrite an aggressive and sustained recruitment program that encompasses the special needs of the incentive schools, investing that allotment in high-quality, high- energy strategies that result in steady progress toward the desegregation goals. - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Tn Progress * Completedi| Little Rock School District  MEMORANDUM RECE^VSD 4 To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring DEC 2 0 1996 From\nI Date: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent December 6, 1996 Office cf Desegregation Moniiortn^ Subject\nLRSD Responses to Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96),July 12, 1996 q q q Attached you will find a report stating the status of each recommendation the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring recommended in their 1995-96 Incentive School Monitoring Report, If you should have questions, please contact me. C-. Chris Heller. LRSD Aiiome\u0026gt;' q q q I I I I I q q\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_263","title":"Business Cases for Tentative Budget, FY 1996-97","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":["1996-05-28"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Business Cases for Tentative Budget, FY 1996-97"],"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/263"],"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":["82 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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation BUSINESS CASES FOR TENTATIVE BUDGET L FY 1996-97 May 28, 1996BUSINESS CASES . ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION . ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION . ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION . CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS-HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM . EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOL . INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . OUTSOURCING COURIER SERVICES . OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION . STAGGERED STARTING TIMES . STUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION . TRUANCY REDUCTIONBUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION aI I i I I BUSINESS CASE: ADMINISTRATION ANNEX RELOCATION 1 BACKGROUND: The Administration Annex houses various support activities of the Little Rock School District. BACKGROUND: located approximately two (2) Building at 100 South Arch Street. facility with no parking and The building is blocks from the Administration no It is a 26,273 square foot appears to be a renovated warehouse. excess acreage. The facility It is four (4) stories with no windows and approximately 60 to 70 percent utilized and the fourth floor is entirely used for storage. The facility presents a drab appearance due to the lack of natural light. two (2) blocks from the Administration Building is not germane to the operation of this facility. The location that do not It consists of independent offices require daily contact with other administrative functions in the Administration Building and can therefore be considered for relocation should space become available. In 1980, the Little Rock School District Board of Education excessed this building and deemed it not necessary for School District operations\nhowever, the building has been in constant use since that time. The building has not been sold but may be considered for sale at anytime. The personnel of the Administration Annex would be considered prime candidates to be relocated to any school within the Little Rock School District that might be considered for closure providing that it has sufficient square footage to meet their needs. Their functions can operate quite effectively from anywhere within the District. 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION: should include relocations. The problem is to consider whether we the personnel from the Annex in any current 3 Basically, we have two (2) alternatives: 1) Leave the personnel at the Annex Building where they are presently located until such time as a better facility could be found or a long range plan comnlied or 2) consider ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: complied relocating them with personnel to be relocated during the summer of 1996 . ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE - LEAVE THE PERSONNEL AT THE ANNEX: Leaving the personnel in the Annex Building seems a prudent move at this point in time. with their surroundings. They are fully operational and appear to be content Although it is not the most attractive or most operational building within the district. office needs of the personnel that are located there. it does meet the ALTERNATIVE TWO BUILDING: CONSIDER RELOCATING THE PERSONNEL IN THE ANNEX Relocating the personnel from the Annex at this point may be extremely difficult. The relocation of the Instructional Resource Center from Sixth and Ringo to the Ish Building will be extremely tight and there is no space left in Ish for any other functions. Resource Center. other than those associated with the Instructional While the possibility of additional space may be available at Oakhurst Elementary School with the movement of AdultEducation from Eastside, the amount of space needed has not been determined. Should additional space become available at that school, it is conceivable that smaller offices from the Annex could be relocated. However, which has over fifty building. a primary concern is Special Education (50) people and occupies most of that This is a function that requires direct public access and must be in a location that is readily accessible to meet the publics needs. While Oakhurst may be considered as a possible location, the size of the building will not permit Adult Education and Special Education to occupy the building at the same time. 4. It is recommended that the Annex Building not be considered for relocation at this time. RECOMMENDATION\navailable within the Little As schools become Rock School District, careful consideration could then be given to relocating the personnel in the Annex to a better location. 5. OBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this recommendation is to leave things relatively status quo and to limit the disruption to the Little Rock School District because of the moves that have already been planned for this summer. It could be considered a positive move if a school building is vacated within the District. Most assuredly, being in a building with one or two levels, adequate parking and natural light would be a better situation than they are presently in. 6. The movement of any organization is expected to have a limited negative impact due to the disruption of services IMPACT ANALYSIS\nuntil they are fully restored at their required operational level. The personnel in the Annex are all tied in some way to the Desegregation Plan\nhowever, their physical location fosters. detracts from the Desegregation Plan. nor 7 . RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nThere will. of course. be a relocation impact on the staff, but, it would appear that bettering the office situation of these people would result in a more positive attitude and better operational surroundings. With regard to general District resources, it is conceivable that the Annex could possibly be sold but this can not be determined until a market analysis is completely made. At the present time, the vacancy rate in downtown Little Rock is between eight (8) and twelve (12) percent\nwarehouse space is slightly lower. There is a possibility that the Annex could be sold as general warehouse space to a downtown agency. 8 . FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nThe force field analysis has not been done because we have not seriously considered relocating this facility\ntherefore, the aspects of personnel who may be in favor, or against, this move have not been determined.9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIt would be recommended that the Annex personnel stay where they are presently located for the time being, and that no consideration be made to move them during the summer of 1996. When, and if. a facility plan is put together for administrative buildings and administrative offices, that the annex personnel be considered for relocation as space becomes identified. dee/apl/bcaseaarBUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATIONBUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION Executive Summary It is often voiced that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) is over staffed with administrators. While the reality does not match the perception that the LRSD is too heavy with administrators, proposed in part a new management plan is being to change that perception. The new management plan combines a reduction in administrators with a new organizational structure. The new structure will place instructional resource teams directly under the superintendents. supervision of the assistant These teams will be composed in large part by the current staff of the curricular support personnel assigned to the IRC. be split and utilized resource teams. The staff development department will as members of these instructional This structure will allow the reduction of some positions while ensuring accountability for needed curricular support. The assistant superintendents will use the instructional resource teams which they supervise to provide technical assistance to weaker teachers and principals who need special help for remediation of performance deficiencies. The current organizational structure makes it harder to direct specific support to teachers and principals because each subject area supervisor or director curricular area can work autonomously. Rather than the currently independent departments, the membership of instructional resource teams will work in concert with one another under the direction of an assistant superintendent on specific problems. The members of the teams will still be utilized as the experts in their field implementation. for While curriculum development there will be a reduction and in personnel, the new structure will provide a more coordinated focus on the technical support provided by the District. Additionally, there will be a recommendation to reduce assistant principal positions in the elementary schools with fewer than 500 students. State standards do not require an assistant principal in schools of fewer than 500 students. 1must be emphasized that in_ this case may not be possible to implement fully in the ]_ggg_97 school year. Nonetheless, the proposed structure should be put into place to the extent possible while full implementation by the start of the It business transitioning to 1997-98 school year. BACKGROUND the recommendations The LRSD is facing a budget deficit for 1996-97 if expenses By far the largest part of the LRSD budget Without a reduction of are not reduced. is expended for personnel costs, those costs it becomes significantly difficult to It has been expressed many costs becomes more difficult balance the 1996-97 budget. well as the Board of Directors that times by the court as any cuts should be as far away from the students as that cuts must be made. possible. Everyone agrees school district which focuses its attention. In a resources and activities on the education of those students, it is very difficult to make any cut which will not impact students. Therefore, everyone becomes parochial. The sentiment is cut programs or benefits\njust don't cut mine. When elementary music teachers. counselors, incentive school staff. nurses. HIPPY coordinators. GT teachers. a GT coordinator. school closings. return to a six period day. extra staffing at new futures schools. partial funding of community education. or a reduction of administrator. and teacher contracts were proposed as budget clerical, _ - cutting strategies, they were all considered to be too close to the students. It has been voiced that reducing teachers' or staffs' pay and/or benefits would affect the morale of therefore, it is too close to the students. the employees\nNevertheless, budget reductions must be made if the District's budget is balanced for 1996-97. PROBLEM DEFINITION The central problem to be addressed is the selection of services, or positions which, if appropriate programs. eiunnwucu, or reorganized significantly offset the deficit faced by the District negative impact on the students. Additionally, perception that the District is top heavy or with administrators must be addressed. !' eliminated reduced. will little the over staffed It is a perception which is common to virtually all public institutions undergoing financial crisis and is not necessarily accurate. However, it cannot be ignored if the public is expected to all has been done to remedy the budgetary is believe that -- problems before their children are directly impacted. 2ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There are several ways that the problem could be addressed. Different combinations can be made including combinations of the non school based administrators and their support staff as well as school based administrators. 1. State standards call for schools having over 500 students to have a part time specialist. schools have Currently, assistant assistant principal ten (10) of or curriculum our enrollments are less than schools, magnet schools. principals 500. Of two (2) are incentive schools, Those four (4) although elementary these ten their (10) and two (2) are non-area schools would take approval from the MRC and/or the court to reduce. While it is possible to make the reductions. their removal would have some immediate impact on the building level administrative services. reduction of the positions. Rather than the complete one alternative would be to reduce the staffing level by having one half r I assistant principal in those six schools school year. time for the 1996-97 2. The current development organizational structure of and instructional supervisors the i can staff be reorganized and reduced by the creation of instructional resource superintendent for teams which answer directly to the assistant secondary schools and the two assistant superintendents for elementary schools. ) (2) These teams would be comprised of some of the staff development personnel and some of the curricular support personnel. These teams would work directly for the superintendent to whom they would be assigned. assistant This will give greater focus to the specific problems which the assistant superintendents encounter teachers in their division. with principals or At the present time the focus on problems and remediation is disjointed. all of the employees may be diligently working. efforts do not always appear to be coordinated. While the This type of structure can allow a reduction in positions while possibly increasing the focus and effectiveness of the remaining staff. 3. The student assignment component of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation could be removed from his/her responsibilities. The student assignment function would be totally under the responsibility of the Director of Desegregation Student Assignments. Compliance Officer A new would position replace of the 3associate superintendent position and report directly to the Superintendent of Schools. That position would have responsibility for ensuring that the district meets all of its desegregation requirements. 4. In support functions other than curricular support and staff development, it is possible to reduce some department directors and staff by the combining of some departments' functions under different directors. The Planning Research and Evaluation Department could be dismantled with different functions going to different departments. There are six and a director assigned to the department. (6) evaluation specialists the specialists Department as a could go research to the Information Three (3) of Services component. Two of the specialists could work for the Desegregation Compliance Officer. They would have full time responsibilities for the monitoring of and compliance desegregation responsibilities. with This the district's would possibly allow the reduction of one director and one specialist. 5. Two of the transportation positions could be eliminated. Now that the successful, required. outsourcing implementation has been less direct daily coordination activities are During the first year of the contract, the contracted responsibilities have been well established. The remaining special education transportation responsibilities which the district retained have been very closely scrutinized and can be implemented by fewer staff members. Exploration of outsourcing the remaining transportation requirements could make this moot. If the special education transportation functions are retained, the router position can be eliminated because Laidlaw has assumed this function. eliminated. also. One supervisor position could be 6. Funding for Special Assistant to the Superintendent could be moved to the New Futures budget from the operating fund. department activities. The Special Assistant has worked closely with that through This all shift of in the strategic planning funding could reduce the operating fund and be absorbed by the current funding for New Futures. 7. The assistant superintendent position which was planned to oversee the curricular departments was never filled. This position was a part of the budget planning process for this year and was administrative reductions to be funded by part contained in this of the budget. year's That position should be changed to an associate 4superintendent position which superintendents and coordinates supervises the the services and curricular personnel. remaining assistant f student 8. The resignation of the Manager of Support Services will create a vacancy. Moving the Manager of Financial Services to the support services position would allow the elimination of one manager level position. However, it must be recognized that it is not practical to assume that the Manager of Financial Services can perform all of the duties of two positions. A lower pay grade financial/budget position will be needed if the manager level position is eliminated. 9. The Director of Labor Relations position could be filled with an attorney. staff attorney without This would have the effect of hiring a the creation of a attorney position. Relations (DLR) Currently the Director new of staff Labor is called upon to coordinate and answer most of the EEOC complaints which are filed. Unless there is an active lawsuit involving the complainant, the DLR completely handles the District's case. The DLR also handles all complaints filed with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). These areas might be more appropriately handled by a staff attorney without the expense of using an outside attorney or the District's law firm. Many other routine legal matters could be handled internally without the extra duties of the DLR expense of outside counsel. such as grievance arbitration could contract negotiations lilcewise be staff attorney. Other 1 and assumed by a This organizational change could provide greater legal coverage for the District at no additional expense. Without question there could be additional alternatives. There are as many possible variations of an organizational plan as there are people who consider the components. The alternatives presented in this business case are possible to implement and address functional and financial considerations. RECOMMENDATIONS Each of the recommendations presented would streamline the administrative functions of the District and would reduce administrative costs. 1. It is at all recommended that the assistant principal position six (6) of projected enrollments the of area less elementary schools than 500 students with be 1 I. I, 5 Areduced by one half. If the Board elects to reduce the other positions, the two (2) magnet elementary with fewer than 500 students would have to be presented to the MRC for consideration. The court would also have to similar reductions incentive schools. at the two (2) similarly Because the District would approve situated recover approximately thirty percent (30%) the salary saved by the reduction in magnet schools, savings which would come to the LRSD. there is little actual The amount of the savings would need to be great enough to offset the possible negative public relations that the reduction could cause. A reduction of the positions situated approval. in the incentive schools which assistant principal are would almost certainly have to have similarly court Additionally, the District would still have to double fund the schools and little real savings would be produced without the elimination double fund the schools. of the obligation to is to reduce by one Therefore, the recommendation half the positions in the six area elementary schools. assistant principal 2. It is recommended that school established to work under the direct resource teams be assistant comprised of superintendents. supervision of the These teams would be some of the current staff Development Department and specialists from the Staff from Reductions the in current administrative include one staff development position. support IRC. would would be reassigned as possible throughout the Current staff school 1996-97 year. The target should be to have complete implementation by the start of the 1997-98 school year. 3. It IS recommended that a new Desegregation Compliance Officer position be created to replace the position .of Associate Superintendent evaluation Evaluation specialists Department for Desegregation. Two (2) from the Planning Research and would be assigned to the Desegregation Compliance Officer to monitor desegregation compliance. research Department. Two (2) positions from PRE would go to the component of the Information Services the target Using the 1996-97 school year as transition. director's should position be the elimination along with one of (1) the PRE specialist position before the start of the 1997-98 school year. 4. It is recommended that two transportation positions be eliminated. It is recommended that the transportation router position be eliminated if the special education transportation function is not outsourced because Laidlaw has picked up that responsibility. Additionally, one 6supervisor position would be eliminated, covered in another business case. Outsourcing is 5. It IS recommended that Superintendent's position be moved the Special Assistant to the budget to the New Futures Department budget. from the operating 6. It is recommended that a new associate superintendent position be filled to have responsibilities supervising the student side of the District. I the assistant superintendent This position replaces current year which was never position filled. funded for the This would not significantly impact the budgeted cost because the funds for the position are in the current year budget. It obviously impacts the real cost because nothing was spent for the position because it was never filled. 7. The Manager of Support Services vacancy would be filled by moving the Manager of Financial position, position. Then would the Manager be replaced financial/budget services position. of by Services Financial to that 8. The Director of Labor Relations a lower Services grade replaced with position should be i. a staff attorney position. staff attorney could be hired without A gualified amount currently budgeted for the increasing DLR Secretarial support for the position would existing staff. OBJECTIVE the position. come from y These recommendations have two (2) primary objectives. One is to reduce expenditures for administrative positions and administrative support positions. The other IS to more efficiently structure the organization of functions to supply focused support. administrative directly to strategy nine (9) This objective ties will develop and implement plans in the Strategic Plan, \"We I' to establish financial stability district.\" and achieve the strategic objectives of the It also addresses the perception that the administration is top heavy. The elimination of director level positions and the complete restructuring of the IRC as well as the absorption of the functions of PRE by other departments should help remedy that perception. IMPACT ANALYSIS 7Implementation of the building level administrative recommendations will support by reduction of six assistant principal positions. the impact the possible District successfully operates other schools Because the which have similar numbers of students without an assistant principal, it must be assumed that the schools impacted by this recommendation can be successfully administered, too. The reduction of support positions at the IRC will impact of curriculum development and support which is the level possible\nhowever, the restructuring of the remaining core of into instructional resource teams directly supervised by the assistant superintendents should result in people more focused support. It is quite possible District can do more with less in this area. that the The separation of the student assignment functions which are under the current position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is possible by assigning them to the Director of Student Assignment. The desegregation functions would fall under a new Desegregation Compliance Officer position. Assigning two (2) specialists from PRE to the Compliance Officer will help ensure that there is continual monitoring of the District's compliance with all of its desegregation obligations. This should be a positive impact. It may be possible to fill this position at a lesser paid level than This should be a positive impact. an associate superintendent. The absorption of three (3) of the PRE evaluation specialist positions to Information Services will assure greater focus of their research capabilities. Because much of this is Because much of this done through computer technology this should have a positive impact on both Information Services and research opportunities. All of the PRE functions would be absorbed in such a manner as to concentrate the strengths of PRE into the departments with which they are most closely aligned. It may not be possible to complete this transition immediately because of employees already in place. It should have both a positive financial and operational impact when fully implemented. The elimination of the two transportation positions should not negatively impact the services delivered. District has operated for one year transportation requirements outsourced, with Now that the most of its for a top heavy transportation department. there is less need All of the essential functions can be covered by existing staff. If there are no major surprises, this department may need to be 8T evaluated for additional reductions in the 1997-98 school year. The New Futures Department has worked in concert with the Special Assistant to strategic planning the Superintendent throughout process. Because of the the close relationship of similar activities shared by them, there is a natural tie that has evolved. recommendation, the costs of the By implementing this Special position can be removed from the operating budget. Assistant's FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The reduction of the assistant principal salaries results in the LRSD share of the costs being approximately $160,000. This amount does not include the two incentive school and two magnet school assistant principals. The school resource team concept would save approximately $180,000. Realistically, the savings would be somewhat less for next year because it might not be possible to reassign all of the people who are currently under contract. The potential savings is very possible for subsequent years, and some possible. significant savings in the first year are still The abolishment of the Truancy Reduction Center saves approximately $55,000 and is covered in a separate business case. The reassignment of the functions of PRE will save approximately $154,000 annually when fully implemented. The savings from the reduction of administrative staff would be approximately $67,500. transportation's Replacing the Manager of Support Services and eliminating the Manager of Financial Services saves $85,000. approximately This would be partially offset by the addition of a lower grade financial/budget services position. It is probably realistic to expect that at least $30,000 would be a net savings. The replacement of the Director of Labor Relations position I J with a budget. staff attorney would not have any impact on the I Because there are contractual obligations in place for some of the positions covered by this reorganization it IS difficult to establish with any degree of certainty what the 9 Aactual However, savings would be for the 1996-97 school if implemented fully by the 1997-98, year. will be in excess of $500,000. the savings FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS As was indicated in the first part of the business case. most of the groups will agree with most of the proposed reductions\nreductions however, it is likely that all of the proposed impacted by them. will be opposed by the groups most directly The patrons and possibly the staffs of all of the schools which have their assistant principals reduced by one half will be the groups most opposed to that reduction. There will likely be questions regarding the creation of Desegregation Compliance Officer position. However, a a compliance officer position with permanent monitors should be indicative implementation responsibilities. of and the District's commitment to the monitoring of its desegregation The realigned IRC staff would lose a great deal of their independence and others could be reassigned to classroom teaching positions. and more coordinated responsibilities. Although there could be greater focus it is likely that there will be resistance mustered by the effected people. The Transportation Department reductions should meet with general approval. It is resistance to the recommendation. unlikely there would be any The change of the funding source for the Special Assistant to the Superintendent should not be controversial. The Support Services reduction should not controversy. cause any real IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Notice must be provided to all of the employees whose contracts would have changes in the terms and conditions by the legal deadlines. deadline has already passed. For the certified personnel the May 1 For classified (non-certified) personnel, the deadline is thirty (30) days before their next contract would begin. Even though the certified deadline has passed, it is still possible to transfer and/or absorb personnel by using them to fill vacant positions. 10 JThe changes would be implemented by transition so that as many as possible are in place for the start of the 1996-97 school year. Other changes would be made during the 1996-97 school year and would be completed prior to the start of the 1997-98 school year. I 11LRSD Associate Supt Gadberry I Superintendent Williams Organizational Chart DRAFT May 22, 1996 Asst. Supt -Elem Gremillion Asst SufA - Elem Mitchell Instructional Resource Team * Instructional Resource Team  Elem Principals Elem Principals Early Childhood Price Student Hearing Watson Staff Attorney Director Staff Dev \u0026amp; Curriculum Ingram Asst Supt - Sec Anderson Director Exceptional Children Kohler Instructional Resource Team.* Director Pupil Services Elston Sec Principals Adult Ed Martin Athletics Alt Learning Center Marshaleck Director New Futures Young Director Security Jones Director Federal Programs Adams Director lidbrmation Services (Teclmology \u0026amp; Research) Beason Desegregation Compliance Director Student Assignment Acre Director Communications Vann Director VIPS Milam Manager Support Services Milhollen J Director Food Service McCoy Director Plant Services Eaton Director Transportation Cheatham Dirctor Procurement Neal Director Human Resources Hurley The Instructional Resource Teams are comprised of IRC and Staff Development staff who will now report directly to one of the Assistant Superintendents.BUSINESS CASE ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Adult Education Program is presently located at Eastside Junior High School on Scott Street. It has been in that location for a number of years. In 1983, the Little Rock School District excessed that property and deemed it sellable. Although this has not been actively pursued, recent interest has indicated that some agency may be preparing an offer to secure that property\ntherefore, consideration should be given to relocate the Adult Education Program. Consideration has been given over the years, and was approved by the Board in 1995, to relocate Adult Education and to proceed with the selling of Eastside. While Eastside Junior High School may be adequate at the present time to meet the needs of Adult Education, future educational programs have yet to be determined and therefore their impact on the building can not be ascertained at this time. Current requirements regarding maintenance are high and the necessity to eventually adapt it to ADA standards, to meet the needs of our disabled adult students, must be considered this next year. 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION The problem that we are facing is the consideration of relocating Adult Education to a facility which better meets their needs and capitalizes on vacant space within the Little Rock School District. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES alternatives available to consider: Essentially, there are three (3) in the current facility. 1) Allow the agency to remain While this is a viable alternative, the backlog of maintenance and repair for that facility and the necessity to determine new work regarding Americans with disabilities and the remote possibility of expanded programs must be taken into consideration. 2) undetermined, academic ie: Adult Educations requirements Relocate the facility yet are essentially administrative and classroom space\ntherefore, the relocation into a school would be considered most appropriate. A primary concern would be the location of that school and the ease with which that school can meet the needs of the adults that it serves. Consideration could be given to considering Adult Education relocation into facilities if facilities close due to the implementation of any long range planning. existing vacant facilities. 3) Relocate into School District has one At the present time, the Little Rock facility which is vacant, Oakhurst Elementary School (Ish Elementary School has been identified as the new home for the Instructional Resource Center). On the surface. Oakhurst may appear to be a building that is not in much better shape than Eastside, but it does possess a more centralized location, has the capability of being more readily adapted for ADA standards and appears to meet the general requirements of the Adult Education Program. In addition. it would assist in vacating Eastside and would allow us to proceed with a more aggressive plan to sell that property. IWhile two of the alternatives deal with relocations, the only advantage to alternative three is the fact that it is a move that could possibly occur during the summer of 1996 due to the vacancy of Oakhurst Elementary School. 4. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that serious consideration be given to relocating Adult Education into Oakhurst Elementary School. 5. OBJECTIVE - The objective of this recommendation is purely one of financial initiatives. It is expected that the operating cost of Adult Education and Oakhurst will not be appreciably different from that at Eastside. Additionally, certain renovations will have to be made to Oakhurst to make the facility adaptable for the Adult Education Program and to improve certain structural elements of the building so as to insure the safety and comfort of its inhabitants. However, it will assist the Districts financial planning through the disposal of excess property which is not deemed necessary for It should be noted that Eastside also its operational needs. houses the HIPPY Program and the Truancy Center. Each of these are being considered separately for moves within the Little Rock School District and as of this point in time, final destinations for those programs have not been identified, made. But, considerations are being 6. Adult IMPACT ANALYSIS - The most concern should be the impact on the Education Program. Preliminary discussions with the Supervisor and staff indicate that the general location of the facility will meet their needs. until 10:00 at night. Bus transportation, operating is within two (2) blocks of the facility. Adequate parking is available and the classrooms are of sufficient size to accommodate all academic programs. The area is more residential and appears to be more settled than that of the present location. Discussions with the Director indicate that the program can be relocated easily into Oakhurst Elementary School. The Adult Education Program services a wide range of people throughout the Little Rock area and it is not considered a major element of the Districts desegregation plan and should not require any coordination with parties regarding change elements of the plan. The writer knows of no Court Orders that outline any stipulations with regard to Adult Education and, in general, it is not felt that undue risks are being taken in relocating this program. I I 1 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS There will, of course. be a relocation I impact on the staff of the facility, but it appears that most personnel drive to this facility so therefore transportation is not deemed a detriment. Other than the fact that people may be resistant to move, it is felt that the facility will meet the needs of the personnel running the program. operate at the same approximate cost as Eastside. Financially, Oakhurst will While Oakhurst will not be completely filled by the Adult Education Program, consideration is being given to moving other agencies into the building which will maximize the facility and bring the per capita cost down. I 1 I I.FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS 8. - At the present time, preliminary indications are that some members of the faculty are opposed to the move while others support it. The general relocation into a facility with which the staff will have the opportunity to input their needs into minor renovations at the building will hopefully go far in easing the burden of relocating this program. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION It is expected that Adult Education could be moved during the month of June 1996. Preliminary planning has already begun. Floor layouts are being drafted at this time, communication plans and surveys are being taken, the building has been assessed for repairs and construction, and instructions will soon be given to the staff on packing and relocating. dce/apl/bcaseaepBUSINESS CASE CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS - HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters LRSD Four-Year Old Program April 19, 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old Program. Each program operates as a desegregation strategy. HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year Old Program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at schools that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. During this time of financial crisis all budget reduction strategies must be reviewed. Savings can be realized by consolidating the administrative functions of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters and the Little Rock School District Four-Year Old Program. The estimated savings could be $23,720.76 or $57,056.58 depending on the option selected.A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old program. Each program operates a desegregation strategy. as HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year old program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at school that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There is a need to reduce spending within the Little Rock School District. Therefore, some programs have been identified for possible merger. HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old program were reviewed to determine if the administrative functions could be combined for cost savings and management efficiency. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The District must now decide if it will continue the of the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The alternatives at this time are: separate management functions 1. Make no changes The current management cost for the LRSD Four-Year Old Prosram i 'I'lz 'tl\n____  ,1 . . , - o -- vwou iMi uic L^ixoLj rour-iear uia rrogram is $70,335.82. This amount is the total salary cost for one (1) coordinator. No secretaiy is assigned to this department. \" L ___ i desegregation budget. (See attached reorganization chart for details.) This cost is charged to the The current management cost for HIPPY is $99,797. Because of budget reductions for the 1995-96 school year, the two coordinator positions which total $48,441.52 are currently funded through Federal Programs. The remaining $51,355.86, which is part of the desegregation budget, supports one (1) supervisor at $31,313.15 and one (1) secretary at $20,042.71. (See organizational chart for details.) currently funded through Federal Programs. 1 A2. Consolidate Administrative Functions a. Assign the Early Childhood Coordinator the administrative responsibilities for HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old Program. In order to maintain HIPPY at its current level of servicing 249 families, the Early Childhood Coordinator may need to supervise 4 home visitors m addition to assuming the administrative duties. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500.00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY supervisor the administrative responsibilities for the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The Early Childhood Education Coordinator position requires an Arkansas teachers certificate, K-6 and a masters degree. The current HIPPY supervisor does not hold an Arkansas teachers certificate. An Arkansas teachers certificate is not required to occupy the HIPPY supervisor position. The current HIPPY supervisor would need to obtain an Arkansas teacher s certificate and a masters degree. Since responsibilities would include supervision of the Kindergarten program. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) training would be HIPPY supervisor. required for the current ESTIMATED SAVINGS: Early Childhood Coordinator less training cost for ESPF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. c. Reassign Early Childhood Coordinator to an elementary school Reassign HIPPY Supervisor to a HIPPY Coordinator position. Hire a person to supervise HIPPY and Four- Year Old Program at a lesser salary. principal position. 2 ID. A number of elementary principalship vacancies occur each year. Since the current Early Childhood Coordinator has served as a principal, consideration could be given to reassigning the coordinator to an elementary principalship. The District could hire a person with less administrative experience at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS\n(1) Early Childhood Coordinator less salary for new coordinator at lower rate of pay less cost for HIPPY and EPSF training (2) HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) OBJECTIVES $73,335.82 40,000,00 (estimate) 33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 $24,220.76 $57,056.58 The objective of the business case is to identify means to reduce spending with the Little Rock School District. A merging of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will save the District money during the current financial crisis. EVALUATION CRITERIA The merger of the HIPPY and Four-Year Old Program administrative functionswill be determined a success if actual expenses are reduced and service of both programs are maintained at the current level. EXPECTED BENEFITS The Districts financial condition will improve and greater administrative efficiency will be evident. E. IMPACT ANALYSIS No modification of the Desegregation Plan would be required. Some persons may believe that the administrative functions of the two programs are to broad for one person to manage effectively. 3 AF. The District can reap the two programs. some savings from combining the administration functions of RESOURCE ANALYSIS a. Assign Early Childhood Coordinator as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor position less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500,00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY Supervisor as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS\nEarly Childhood Coordinator position less training cost for EPSF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 c. This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. Reassign HIPPY Supervisor and Early Childhood Coordinator - Hire person to manage both programs at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: (1) Early Childhood Coordinator $73,335.82 less salary for new coordinator at lower pay rate 40,000.00 (estimate) less cost for HIPPY training and EPSF training $33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 (2) HIPPY Supervisor position $24,220.76 $56,706.58 4G. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of a merger of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will be persons who believe the District has too many administrators and that the District can \"streamline\" its operations and become more efficient. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the uniqueness and  * ---- *\" wiiiuuvil VOO t 11 I complexity of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program requires the attention of an administration assigned exclusively to each program. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE RESPONSIBLE PERSON 1. 2. Identify administrative option Make reassignments 05/23/96 Superintendent/ Board of Directors 3. Identify appropriate inservice needs 07/01/96 05/23/96 I 5 T Director of Human Resources Director of Staff Development iLCOORDINATOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESPONSIBILITIES j! ' 5u--^L n r/- r J \"I 'atiJFA'J:\n' r b iW:I^ aS^'. .'^J Bi Li 9 f ?i' @9iCS9^ t't I I, 1 *,'  '^Ar?S\n^fl-il. \\pipil\" .......... .... r I #'\u0026gt;=) f-1\u0026gt; .^Qj 'ISs t*\ni SUPERVISOR OF HIPPY PROGRAM ei'=^ |p. 'J  4' w 8W'^ aria eisi t.v 7/ Mi ' X^4 r' '1 J\u0026gt;'A\u0026lt; .  r '7 ijg) ? \u0026gt;7^ n, i !\n,'.,iz5igfft43 PM f \u0026gt; 1 veS \u0026gt;........... *' \u0026lt;? uZ/rl SiW gBUSINESS CASE EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOL 1Business Case EXPANSION OF ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District's Alternative School serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the district. There is no alternative school for senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention .... It The Little Rock School District's Alternative School has had a capacity of 60 students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year, two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today we can serve 72 students in grades 7, 8, and 9. This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff. It is proposed that 60 additional seats be added to the program for high school students Considerations Students who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an abnormal amount of each school's resources. Students who are disruptive in the regular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students, who are not successful at the regular school setting, will improve the educational outcomes of both the alternative school student and the regular school students. Options 1. Expand the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility at 800 Apperson Street. Maintain the junior high school program to include the same number of students from grades 7, 8, and 9 and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (grades 10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from 72 students to 132. 2. Expand the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campuses could be Metropolitan or at other unused buildings owned by the school district. 3. Expand the alternative services by creating alternative classrooms at each regular school.Recommendation Due to the critical need for alternative services to include senior high students and the limitations in the budget and funding, it is recommended that an immediate expansion of the alternative program be included for senior high grade classes. This would increase the maximum capacity of the facility to serve 60 senior high school students. This recommendation would require an immediate search for six qualified teachers and for other support staff. Impact Analysis Positive Better support for junior and senior high school students' specialized needs. Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services. Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Negative Increased budget and funding required for teachers' salaries. Increased funding required for classroom furniture and additional building modification Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school. Resources Analysis Personnel\nSix teachers One instructional aide One caseworker One security officer Furniture: Five classrooms @ $1,800 ea. $216,000 12,000 25,000 12,000 9,000Curriculum: Science equipment Multimedia equipment Social studies equipment English equipment Vocational equipment Behavior modification equipment 2,150 1,000 500 500 500 500 Textbooks: Science - 60 @ $33 ea. Math - 60 @ $33 ea. Social studies - 60 @ $30 ea. English - 60 @ $30 ea. Vocational - 60 @ $30 ea. Behavior modification - 60 @ $30 ea. 1,980 1,980 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Building Modification: Renovation of five classrooms and restroom facilities Security cameras 10.050 9,000 Transportation 62.300 - 155.750* I I I *Laidlaw Transportation will add routes for the program at $31,150 per bus. It is anticipated that the minimum number of additional routes necessary would be two (2). The maximum would likely be five (5), based on where the 60 students live in relation to one another. I I Total cost $465,110Background The Tri-County Alternative School began approximately three years prior to the opening of the Little Rock Alternative School (Alternative Learning Center). Late in the 1990-91 school year, Ms. Othello Faison became the first principal. During April 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring evaluated the alternative schools of each of the three districts in Pulaski County. Their findings included: \"To develop and provide sound and effective alternative education programs, . . . (each district) should understand what the term 'alternative education' means.\" Dr. Raymond Mosely, a consultant with the Iowa Department of Education, stated, \"Alternative education is a perspective, not a procedure or program.\" There are many other ways to become educated. There are other types of environments and structures. Teaching strategies, expectations, services, and programs must contribute to increase the chances for academic achievement. Alternative schools include magnet schools, vocational schools, and other continuation schools. Continuation schools are those that provide another option for the dropout, potential dropout, suspended student, and other students who are not successful at the regular school setting. These schools are expected to provide less competitiveness and more individualized strategies. The typical reasons to assign students to an alternative school include: ** ** ** excessive absenteeism failure or retention suspension feelings of rejection, isolation, insecurity, or alienation ** ** ** ** poor grades low math and reading scores low self-esteem lack of motivation lack of cooperation The alternative school is nontraditional by nature. Intervention strategies are in constant flux. Learning styles and modes must be reevaluated often. The alternative school staff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is unique and requires specialized care. Dr. Kenneth Clark, a noted expert on at-risk students, reminds us that our future society depends on our ability to break the cycle of risk. Experts agree that there is often resistance to institutional change\nhowever, it is just that change that can bring us closer to the answers. The Little Rock School District's Alternative School serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the District. There is no alternative school for senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention . . .\" The Little Rock School District's Alternative School has had a capacity of 60 students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year, two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today, it can serve 72 students in grades 7, 8, and 9. This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff.The facility at 800 Apperson Street has 24 classrooms, a library, and a cafetorium. Several of the classrooms are used for other purposes. With the eleven classrooms presently in use, six classrooms are required for the additional students. Problem Definition The number of students in our district junior and senior high schools requiring alternative services exceeds the maximum capacity for the 72 students presently being served at the Alternative School due to faculty/staff limitations. Limits on budgets and funding restrict the District from maximum use of the Alternative School. Considerations Students who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an abnormal amount of each school's resources. Students who are disruptive in the regular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students who are not successful at the regular school setting will improve the educational outcomes of both the Alternative School student and the regular school students. Analysis of Alternatives In order to serve the required number of students who qualify for alternative school services, expansion of the present program is necessary to include senior high school students. Expansion can be achieved in several ways. 1. Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility at 800 Apperson Street. Maintain the junior high school program to include the same number of students from grades 7, 8 and 9 and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (grades 10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from 72 students to 132. 2. I I I I 3. Expand the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campuses could be Metropolitan or at other unused buildings owned by the school district. Expand the alternative services by creating additional alternative classrooms at each regular school. Recommendations Due to the critical need for alternative services to include senior high students and the limitations in the budget and funding, it is recommended that an immediate expansion of the alternative program be included for senior high classes. This recommendation would require an immediate search for six qualified teachers and for other support staff. This expansion is the least expensive of the other alternatives due to the ability to expand without an increase in administrative support. Further expansion, beyond this recommendation, would require additional administrative support, such as attendance secretary and assistant principal. Objective According to the desegregation program description, The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides the support (academic, educational, and social) necessary to students so that they can return to their regular school setting and function effectively. The student population at ALC consists of \"at-risk\" youngsters, those who are at compulsory attendance age and are experiencing difficulties in school because of poor attendance or other dysfunctional situations which seriously impede the students ability to succeed . . .. Our objective is to insure alternative educational services are available for students who II are in need of services. Therefore, our goal is to NOT turn down students who need services and are recommended for services by the junior or senior high principals. Goal our To provide an appropriate educational environment for senior high students who are not having success at the regular classroom setting and have been recommended by their principal for admission to the Alternative School. Evaluation Criteria Report bi-weekly student enrollment by grade level, race, and gender with a comparative analysis between enrollments prior to this expansion and enrollments after this expansion. Expected Benefits Additional students will be offered alternative services. Secondary principals will be able to devote more attention to the educational improvements at their schools instead of the management of the disruptions, interruptions, and fhistrations caused by the at-risk students who are now being served by the Alternative School. Teachers will be able to provide better services for the remaining students without the pressures and fhistrations of interruptive and disruptive behaviors. Impact Analysis Positive: 1 2 3 4 5 Better support for junior and senior high school students' specialized needs. Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services. Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Negative: 1 Increased budget and funding required for teachers' salaries. 2 Increased funding required for classroom furniture. 3 Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school.7 Resources Analysis Personnel: Six teachers One instructional aide One caseworker One security officer $216,000 12,000 25,000 12,000 Furniture: Five classrooms @ $1,800 ea. 9,000 Curriculum: Science equipment Multimedia equipment Social studies equipment English equipment Vocational equipment Behavior modification equipment 2,150 1,000 500 500 500 500 Textbooks: Science - 60 @ $33 ea. Math - 60 @ $33 ea. Social studies - 60 @ $30 ea. English - 60 @ $30 ea. Vocational - 60 @ $30 ea. Behavior modification - 60 @ $30 ea. 1,980 1,980 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Building Modification: Renovation of five classrooms and restroom facilities Security cameras 10,050 9,000 Transportation 62,300 - 155,750* Laidlaw Transportation will add routes for the program at $31,250 per bus. It is anticipated that the minimum number of additional routes necessary would be two (2). The maximum would likely be five (5), based on where the 60 students live in relation to one another. Total cost $465,110 I/ General Implementation Plan: Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Approval of Proposal Immediate School Board 2. Advertise for Personnel May 96 Human Resources 3. Order Furniture and Resource Materials May 96 Procurement 4. Renovate Classrooms and Prepare for Class June 96 Plant Services 5. Interviews Complete July 96 Principal 6. Personnel in Place August 96 Human Resources 7. Evaluation of Proposal Objectives Quarterly 1996-97 Principalr BUSINESS CASE INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ( ISUBJECT\nCOST CUTTING PROPOSAL FISCAL YEAR 1996 Introduction - It is recommended that the following be considered as a cost cutting measure to be implemented in the budget process and subsequently the 1996 budget. Proposal - It is proposed that the Instructional Resource Center, presently located in the Parkin Building at 6th and Ringo, be relocated to Ish Elementary School during the sxnsmer of 1996. Background - The Instructional Resource Center was relocated from Lee School at 12th and Cedar to the Parkin Building at 6th and This was due to the deteriorated condition of the The Parkin Building is leased by the Little Rock Ringo in 1993. Lee School. School District for an suinual rental of $88,800.00 per year plus utilities and parking. The present lease is for 24,000 square feet of which approximately 13,000 square feet is office space and the remaining 11,000 square feet is unfinished warehousing space. Ish Elementary School became vacant in 1993 and remained vacant iintil a final decision was reached by the courts. school presently houses the relocated children The elementary from Chicot Elementary School, but it is anticipated that they will vacate that space in March of 1996. regard to Ish Elementary School. No future plans have been developed with Requests have been received from at least five agencies desiring to occupy the Ish Elementary School. (5} different Each of these agencies are not Little Rock School District agencies and have requested to lease either part or all of the building. It is anticipated that they would desire to lease this building at an extremely low rate in hopes that the Little Rock School District would absorb most of the operating costs. Problem Definition - The problem is to institute measures that will assist the Little Rock School District in cutting its operating costs in 1996 and future years. Analysis of Alternatives - There are basically two (2) alternatives with regard to the Instructional Resource Center\n1) allow the Instructional Resource Center to remain in its present location. If we were to select this alternative, the present operating cost for 1996 for the Parkin Lease is expected to be $127,112.00. This is based on the 1995 rental of $88,800.00, the rental of additional parking at $276.00 per month, and the estimated utility costs of It is, however, anticipated that the rent may go up by $35,000.00. as much as three (3) to five (5) percent in 1996. While the Instructional Resource Center located at 6 th and Ringo convenient to the general operation of the Little Rock School isPage Two Continued District, the annual cost of over $127,000.00 may not warrant its remaining in that facility\n2) relocating the Instructional Resource Center to Little Rock School District space. The recommendation to relocate the Instructional Resource Center to building presently owned by the Little Rock School District is principally offset the rental cost presently incurred by the District. The operating cost of Ish Elementary School over the last two (2) years has only averaged $16,000.00 for utilities. Maintenance costs have averaged approximately $24,000.00 per year. With an anticipated cost next year of operating Ish at approximately $40,000.00, it would appear to save as much $87,000.00 next year. However, there would be a one time cost associated with the relocation to cover such items as moving costs, to include packaging and relocation, rewiring of the facility for computers and telephone relocation. in operating a to I I Recommendation - It is recommended that the District relocate the Instructional Resource Center from the Parkin Building to Ish Elementary School. The Parkin Building is approximately 24,000 square feet. Elementary School, although subdivided into rooms, totals 31,800 square feet. In addition, parking without the additional lease is square feet. Ish approximately the same at both locations. However, consideration to expanding the parking lot during meetings and in instruction can be done, as the Little Rock School District owns However service property immediately adjacent to Ish Elementary School. While Ish Elementary School may not appear to be as centrally located as the Parkin Building, travel throughout Little Rock to this facility make it easily reachable within 20 - 25 minutes from any location in the City. Estimating the one time cost of approximately $35,000.00 would at least give us approximately $50,000.00 savings during the first year and a savings of approximately of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 in future years. These monies could be used to offset current operational short falls. The objective Objactive - Tne oojective of this proposal is two-fold. 1) To reduce the operating costs of the Little Rock School District by decreasing its overhead and 2) by better utilizing space that is presently owned by the Little Rock School District for which no future plans have been developed. Consideration must also be made to retaining the presence of the Little Rock School District in the community surrounding Ish Elementary School. This building has been constantly occuoied occupied since the middle 1950's and only recently became vacant during the construction of King Elementary School. The relocation of the children from Chicot Elementary School into the facility in October of 1993 has again made the building occupied. The permanentPage Three Continued relocation into this facility of the Instructional Resource Center would most assuredly be seen as a positive step by the surroxuxding community and the local government as being an initiative of the Little Rock School District to have future plans for its closed facilities. Impact Analysis The Ish Elementary School Facility is approximately 7,000 square feet larger than the facility presently being used by the Instructional Resource Center. The ability for them to conduct their operations in Ish Elementary School will not in any way be hampered by the fact that it is subdivided into classrooms as this was the situation in Lee Elementary School. The subdivision of rooms will be offset by the additional 7,000 square feet which will allow for divisions of the Instructional Resource Center to operate independently, yet all be contained in the same facility. Another distinct advantage of relocating the facility at this time would be to put them in a permanent home in a building which is not perceived to be used as a school building in the future. Resource Analysis There is no specific items with regard to resource analysis except to identify that present staffing of the Little Rock School District would be responsible for the relocation of both the children from Chicot Elementary School to Chicot School upon its completion in March of 1996 eind the subsequent relocation of the Instructional Resource Center in June of 1996. Implementation Plan - A tentative time line follows: January, 1996 A tentative decision must be made this month so as to proceed with preliminary planning. February and March - During this period of time we would complete the final plans, layout the building, plan the move and allow the Instructional Resource Center persoimel to look at their organization to determine how they can operate in the new facility. April, 1996 - During this period of time, it is hopeful that we would prepare and finalize necessary to support the move. any contracts May, 1996 We would make the placement of orders for anything necessary to accomplish the move. such as materials for rewiring to support computers and telephones and any possible construction. Additionally in May, we would make official notification of our intent not to renew the lease at the Parkin Building.Page Four Continued June, 1996 - It is anticipated that upon the closure of the school that the Instructional Resource Center would move to Ish Elementary School. This move can easily be completed within a one month period. DCZ/apl/ccpircBUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING OF COURIER SERVICESBUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING MAIL COURIER SERVICE CURRENTLY HANDLED BY THE PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Procurement and Materials Management Department currently has a mail and courier service section consisting of two vehicles and two drivers. Intra-district mail is collected and sorted daily for next day delivery. In addition, correspondence going to out-of-district destinations is picked up daily and metered at the central administration building for deposit to the main U.S. Postal Office the same day. Limited, on call special delivery, pick up, and messenger service is also provided as time and available vehicle cargo space allow, as well as video distribution and A/V equipment pick up and delivery for Media/Library Services. The intent of this business case is to determine the efficiency and/or economy of continuing this service in-house versus outsourcing the service to a private company. This analysis is in response to a request by the LRSD Board for potential areas of savings that could be realized by the District. There are only two alternatives considered: One alternative is to do nothing and continue performing the service in-house. This alternative is not recommended because of the increasing overhead costs each year in terms of labor (salary and benefits) and equipment maintenance expenses. The other alternative is to contract with a private provider of this type service and take advantage of the savings available due to the efficiencies inherent in a contract with a firm that specializes in this work. This outsourcing alternative is recommended. The only negative aspect is the displacement of two employees, one of whom has indicated that he will be leaving the District soon anyway. The savings by adopting this recommendation are two (2) FTEs in the Procurement Department and approximately $43, 700 each year starting with the first annual contract. 1 April 26, 1996A. BACKGROUND The Procurement Department has provided the internal mail distribution and courier service for the District since 1964. Up until 1987, this was accomplished with one employee and one mail van. In order to maintain the same level of daily service, an additional driver and van were added after the 1987 annexation. At this time the two couriers deliver and pick up mail/distribution each day at each District facility pbs ODM, State Department of Education and the CTA offices. In addition to mail items, they also pick up and deliver, as space on the van allows, media related equipment and videos for the Library Services oflBce. The feasibility of outsourcing this service to a private contractor was investigated on a couple of occasions in years past but never seriously considered. Previously, there was essentially only one courier service operating in Little Rock (SunBelt). Also, the savings achieved by contracting out were not very significant during previous evaluations. The District is searching for areas in which economies can be achieved. Contracting with a private courier company can result in a savings while maintaining a satisfactory level of service. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION: 1 The District s current financial situation places a responsibility on all departments to operate as efficiently and cost effectively as possible to provide required services at an acceptable level. The mail courier service currently provided in-house has been at an acceptable performance level\nhowever, the cost for this service is excessive when compared to having a private company perform the same work. There are now numerous established private companies in the Little Rock area that provide mail courier service, and a substantial savings opportunity is possible. The costs associated with performing this function have escalated in recent years due to the overhead of owning and operating vehicles dedicated to a single purpose and the siaries paid the employees performing this task. Both employees have performed satisfactorily over the years but this longevity has resulted in salary increases that represent compensation considerably greater than what a private company would pay for the same work. The vehicles currently being used for this service are: 1) a 1988 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 138,825 miles and 2) a 1993 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 49,000 miles. If the in-house mail service is to continue, a new van will need to be purchased to replace the 1988 van as it has had numerous mechanical problems over the past two years. The estimated cost to replace this van is $17,000. 2 1If the District were to choose outsourcing, two FTEs would be eliminated. One employee is graduating from college in May and is expected to leave the District. The other employee has been with the District for eight years and would be offered an option to accept another position within the District in accordance with policy. In addition, the warehouse manager devotes roughly 1/3 of his time to helping with the mail courier effort. As a result of outsourcing, this would free him to handle other warehouse management responsibilities. However, the warehouse manager would be required to coordinate and supervise the activities of the contracted service provider. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES These alternatives were generated during 1996-97 Support Services staff budget meetings where possible areas of saving were discussed. There are only two alternatives considered, (1) continue the services as is, or (2) contracting out. The Procurement OfiBce also had preliminary discussions with a private company concerning the methods used by courier service companies and the associated costs. Alternatives 1. Continue providing the service in house: The level of service currently provided has worked relatively well for several years. The timing for a change is convenient in that one employee is anticipated to leave soon after receiving his college degree. The other employee, who also acts as the Assistant Warehouse Manager, would need to be placed in another comparable position, if possible. The current system is, of course, reasonably responsive to emergency or on-call courier requirements. However, some on-call deliveries could be eliminated with better scheduling and discipline. It is sometimes too easy to pick up the phone and call for an emergency pickup or delivery, rather than wait for the regular scheduled service. There is the tendency not to associate cost to those resources owned/operated in-house. The primary disadvantage for continuing the current service in-house is the associated armual cost to the District for providing the service\nBoth labor costs and the increasing expenses associated with owning and maintaining the mail vans, make outsourcing attractive from the standpoint of cost versus benefits derived from providing this routine service. The dollars below reflect 1995-96 annualized cost: Salaries (current including benefits for two employees) Vehicle Maintenance and Depreciation Fuel Vehicle Insurance (premium cost plus average one claim per year) Mail Handling Supplies TOTAL $69,128 5,806 5,159 2,260 1.275 This alternative is least desirable in that this administrative function can be accomplished more economically by contracting out to a private courier service. 32. Outsourcing the service to a private company: The level of service would be expected to be at or better than cunently received. In addition, a private contractor could provide: a. More flexibility (EflSciency) by furnishing more personnel and vehicles during the busy school year and less during the summer. Vehicles are radio-equipped and could be reached at all times to expeditiously handle emergency or on-call requirements. b. Reduced management (Efficiency \u0026amp; Economy)- The District would be required only to monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day to day activities, allowing the Supply Center Manager to expend more time on his Supply Center Management responsibilities, thereby eliminating the need for an Assistant Warehouse Manager. (One of the mail drivers fills in at this position part time or as needed.) c. The same service at a lower cost (Economy! by providing necessary personnel, vehicles, insurance, and management to meet the requirements of the District. The efficiencies inherent to a company whose existence depends upon fast, courteous service, are evident when comparing outsourcing against performing this function in-house. Cost estimates obtained from a local company currently providing service to the City of Little Rock for the past six years were obtained and are estimated based on the delivery service presently performed by the District couriers: Monthly Charge for daily pickup and delivery to schools including handling of U.S. postal mail Per Delivery rate for extra deliveries over and above routine service Assuming the District has a requirement for 25 additional deliveries per month the annualized cost would be ($7 rate x 25 avg. deliveries x 12 months) Annualized cost for routine service ($3,150 x 12 months) Total expected annualized outsourcing cost $3,150 $7 per delivery $2,100 37.800 $39,900 D. RECOMMENDATION 1 It is recommended that the District outsource the mail/courier service currently provided by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. The expected annual cost savings of $43,728 ($83,628 - $39,900) is the primary consideration 4E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to help the District reduce costs while assuring the same and/or better level of service currently provided. The efficient and cost effective delivery/mailing of intemal/extemal correspondence is essential to the operations of the District. Implementation of this recommendation supports LRSD Goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The successful contractors performance will be evaluated annually by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. Some of the criteria used in this assessment will be\n1. School/Dept. satisfaction as measured by the number of complaints received. 2. Timeliness of extra service deliveries. 3. Response time to District requests. 4. Adherence to cost as stated in the contractors proposal. 5. Reduction in LRSD management involvement in daily mail operations. The expected benefits of this recommendation will be an immediate cost savings realized by the district in current and future years. In addition, the level of service will be equal to or better than that currently provided. The recipients of these benefits will be all District schools/departments. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The positive impact of this recommendation will be the cost savings and reduced management time required. The negative impact will be employee reaction to outsourcing and the resulting displacement of one employee. Implementation of this plan will not impact the desegregation plan or court orders There should be no disruption of service during transitioning to a contracted courier service. The recent outsourcing efforts by the District in other areas should not adversely affect the implementation of this recommendation in that it involves only minimal employee impact. Any potential negative reaction in converting to a contracted courier service can be minimized by careful coordination and implementation of the change-over. There is no risk to the District if this recommendation is not accepted. The Procurement Department will continue the service in-house. 5Titning. it is recommended that an RFP be prepared with a contract awarded and service to begin July 1, 1996. The transition should not be difficult\nhowever, in order to reduce a hurried start-up by the successful contractor, a contract should be signed by June 15, 1996. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel The recommendation is expected to reduce the FTEs in the Procurement Department by two (2) positions. Financial A yearly savings of $43,728 is expected. The costs obtained from the contractor are conservative\ntherefore, actual savings could be greater. A Request for Proposal would be prepared by the Procurement Department. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be patrons and taxpayers of the District and the administration. Those most opposed to this recommendation will be the employees impacted and those generally opposed to outsourcing District services for whatever reason their personal agenda may dictate. 1. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The following milestones for implementing this recommendation are suggested and will be monitored by the Director, Procurement and Materials Management: Milestone Date Business Case Approved April 1996 Responsible Person LRSD Cabinet/Board Prepare RFP May 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposals Submitted May 15, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposal Evaluated May 22, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Award Made May 24, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Notice to Employees June 1, 1996 Hurley, Human Resources Director Contract Negotiated and Completed June 15, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Contractor Begins Operations July 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director 6BUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATIONOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 1 Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Executive Summary The most expensive part of student transportation is transportation services for special needs students. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The intent of this business case is to explain the current issues confronting the district related to transporting special needs students. Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Over half (58%) of the buses in the fleet are over seven years old. Of the 18 lift buses in the fleet, 12 are over seven years old. These buses often have mechanical breakdowns which create problems in getting students to school or home in a timely manner. The recommendation of this business case is to outsource the system to a private contractor. The goal statement is\nTo provide special needs students -with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the areas of safety and meeting the needs of individual students. The following is a list of criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Busir\u0026gt;ess Case 4/19/96 2 All students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond student needs. to The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions within the timelines of the law and contracts. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. At least $100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget or 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone_________________________ 1 Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2. Write request for proposal (RFP)______________ 3. Steering committee review RFP__________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors _____________ 5, RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted____________________ 7, Proposals screened by steering committee ______ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval________ 9, Notice to employees________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees____________ 12. Recruitment of new employees__________ 13. Inventory property_______________ 14. Finalize contract_________________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy______________ 16. Complete initial bus routes____________ 17. Retrain current employees_____________ 18. Notify patrons_________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment__________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Person________ Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal__________ Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal__________ Williams Hurley_______ Milhollen_____ Contractor Contractor Neal_________ Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor ContractorOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 4 Background: Current situation: Everything has a cost. The per student costs of transporting students with special needs are higher than for regular student transportation. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The number of medically fragile students is increasing because of the improvements in medical technology. It is impossible to meet the needs of individual children and have a very efficient program. Every attempt is made to serve special needs students in the least restrictive environment such as on the regular buses. At this time during the 1994-95 school year 395 special needs students and 60 Alternative Learning Center (ALC) students rode special needs buses. This year 450 students are currently assigned for special transportation. The district transports 40 students to the Arkansas Schools for the Blind and Deaf. Also, 80 ALC students are transported this year. The Districts special needs transportation operation was in the media on September 25, 1995 when a parent padlocked the gates to the bus terminal. Later that parent and other individuals filed a lawsuit against the district which included charges related to the transportation of special needs students. Even though the districts equipment and personnel meet all state and federal requirements, issues related to labor uruest, safety and poor service continue to plague the district concerning special needs transportation. The maintenance of the fleet is done by contract with Laidlaw Transit. Two mechanics are assigned to do routine and emergency service. Breakdowns continue to be a problem due to the age of the fleet. Background information: Prior to this year, the day-to-day operations of the regular transportation and special needs transportation were intermingled. There was no clear delineation of services and no clear way to determine actual costs by program. Special needs drivers and aides received very little specialized training. The 1995-96 state funding for transportation was based on the number of buses used and the number of students transported in 1994-95. At this time there is no money earmarked for transportation under the new formula. What had been used in the past was folded into the new formula. Of the $1,600,000 in regular transportation aid this year, only $36,000 was included for the increased costs related to transporting special needsOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 5 students. The district does receive funding from the settlement for all costs incurred for transportation related to the M-to-M and Magnet programs which is estimated to exceed 2.1 million dollars for 1995-96. The laws and regulations impacting special needs students continue to change. The students Individual Education Plan (lEP) determines when the student is to be transported and if special accommodations are needed such as a monitor or aide assigned to assist the student. More options are available to students with lEPs and specialized service is often required such as transportation home at noon because the student is attending for a half day rather than the whole day. Problem Definition: Problem Statement: Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Considerations: The Districts financial situation places a strain on all departments to operate efficiently to provide the students with an acceptable level of service. Special needs transportation is more expensive than regular transportation. Specialized equipment is needed for medically fi-agile students. The district can contract with other agencies or parents to provide some of these services but not having the appropriate equipment is not an acceptable reason for not providing transportation if it is part of the students lEP. The Districts special needs fleet is aging. There are 52 buses of which 18 have lifts and locks for wheel chairs. Only five buses use diesel fuel. Year # of Buses # of Lifts 83 1 1 84 0 0 85 4 2 86 16 9 87 8 0 88 0 0 89 1 1 90 11 0 91 6 0 92 2 2 93 0 0 94 0 0 95 3 3 The district has used the following criteria for replacing buses in the past: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds eight years of age or 120,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 160,000 miles at the beginning of any school year.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 6 Thirty buses are more than seven years old. It normally takes seven to eight months to get buses once the order is placed. If buses are ordered in April, they should arrive in December or January. Driver performance is another consideration. One of the concerns regularly expressed by drivers is the need for new equipment. Drivers are frustrated when their buses are not available due to mechanical problems and students can become confused when their bus is changed. Good equipment that is well maintained can contribute to improved service. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of administrators, parents, teachers, and drivers was formed in the fall of 1995 before the lawsuit was filed to work on solutions to perceived problems within the special needs section of the transportation department. The group identified the need for new buses and better training as solutions to most of the concerns. Identification: Alternative solutions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and training is not maintained when the staff has turnover. Follow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This is the most expensive alternative. The district would continue to manage the system. Buses would be replaced on schedule. This would impact the current and future budgets. Phase in the industry standards over a five year period of time. This alternative would have a modest cost and would lead to stabilizing costs over an extended period of time. The district would have more flexibility to respond to the changing state and federal laws as well as student needs. The district would continue to manage the system. Consolidate special needs transportation in all Pulaski County Districts. Getting an agreement on this would be a major challenge. Outsource the special needs transportation to another public agency. The local agencies that provide specialized transportation cannot meet the current community demands for services and do not have the resources and equipment to meet the districts transportation needs.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 7 6. Outsource the special needs transportation to a private concern. This alternative would provide cost containment and more recent equipment. The district would monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day-to-day activities of the system. Recommendation : Action recommended to address the problem: Outsource the special needs transportation system io a private concern. Rationale: The costs of special needs transportation continues to rise. Outsourcing can assist the District in containing the costs. Other factors include a reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lower driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance , and reduced vehicle accident rate will be realized. These improvements will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish more stable and reliable special needs transportation system for the future LRSD needs. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To provide special needs students with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. Goal support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows: Strategy 10 We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. Strategy 8 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. The safety of students on special needs buses is one of the major concerns of everyone. Providing appropriate transportation to enable students to access programs identified in each students lEP is a goal of the transportation department.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 6 Evaluation criteria: 1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed Expected Benefits: The students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. Impact Analysis: Positives: 1. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the and future lawsuits related to special needs current 2. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed. 7. Currently employed drivers/aides will maintain their jobs.I Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 9 Negatives: 1. Current employees may oppose change. 2. Some parents may express concern related to change. 3. At least four long time non-certified administrators will be displaced. Desegregation Plan: This recommendation has no impact on the Desegregation Plan. Court Orders: This recommendation addresses issues raised in the current lawsuit. Political factors: The union will likely oppose efforts to privatize the special needs transportation. Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond to student needs. The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing: It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 10 Resources Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. Financial Analysis: At least $100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget for 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Supporters of this proposal include administrators within the District and patrons because of the improved services for students. The Board of Directors and administration of the district are aware of the financial benefits to the district of this solution. Forces Against: Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers/aides/monitors who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services.I Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 11 Implementation Plan: The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. _____________________Milestone____________________ 1. Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2. Write request for proposal (RFP)__________________ 3. Steering committee review RFP___________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors _______________ 5. RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted_____________________________ 7, Proposals screened by steering committee___________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval______________________ 9. Notice to employees_____________________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees_________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees___________________ 13  Inventory property______________________________ 14. Finalize contract________________________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy__________________ 16. Complete initial bus routes_______________________ 17. Retrain current employees_______________________ 18 Notify patrons_________________________________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment___________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 Person Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal Williams 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor ContractorBUSINESS CASE STAGGERED STARTING TIMESstaggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 Staggered Start Times Executive Summary: One of the budget cutting strategies used by many school districts across the United States is staggered opening and closing times. This strategy allows the same bus to pick up and deliver students to several schools instead of just one or two schools. Currently the elementary schools open at 7:50 A.M. and close at 2:35 P.M. and most secondary schools open at either 8:45 A.M. and 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. The intent of this business case is discuss the budget impact of staggering school starting and closing times. The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. The goal statement is\nTo increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the area of financial stability. The following is a list of criteria to be used to determine if the goal is met: 1. 2. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000.Staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 2 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone____________________________ 1. Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. 3  Notify public._________________________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann______ Student Assignment, PrincipalsI staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 Background: 3 Current Situation: All Little Rock elementary schools are scheduled to begin at 7:50 A.M. and close at 2:35 P.M. The junior highs are scheduled to begin at 8:45 AM. and close at 3:45 P.M. The senior high schools are scheduled to begin at 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. except for Parkview and Metropolitan. Parkview opens at 8:41 A M. and closes at 3:45 P.M. Metropolitan opens at 8:40 A.M. and closes at 3:27 P.M. with student exchanges scheduled at lunchtime. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools. Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. Board policy EEAB states Insofar as educational requirements permit, school schedules will be adjusted to allow maximum utilization of each bus. More buses are required to support the elementary schools than the secondary schools. When there is less than 55 minutes between the opening and closing times of the two runs, it is difficult to match an elementary school with a secondary school for efficiency. During the 1995 -96 school year, Booker and Carver students were scheduled on the same buses. Once the bugs were resolved, this seems to work. If these schools had been routed separately, an additional six buses on the first run would have been required. Background information: When the district annexed the 14 county schools and went to the controlled choice student assignment plan, the transportation department grew to support the changes. A three run system (Each driver/bus had three different runs.) was initiated because of the limited number of buses available and the personnel costs involved in a two run system. As part of the desegregation plan, the district went back to a two run system. Each bus now has an elementary run and a secondary run. In many neighborhoods only one or two students are assigned to any one school and several buses enter the neighborhood. The district regularly receives complaints from patrons concerning the number of buses entering neighborhoods.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 4 Problem Definition\nProblem statement: The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. Considerations: The number of buses that must be used to transport students to and from home is based on the guidelines, policies, practices and procedures established by the school district. Changes in the current parameters can result in savings or additional costs. The practice of every school having its own buses for regular transportation results in more buses being used than would be used if students from the same or nearby neighborhoods rode the same bus to different schools. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of drivers and administrators investigated this option during the 1994-95 school year and recommended that the Booker and Carver runs be combined to see if this option was feasible. This pilot reduced the number of buses needed by six. Identification: 1. Change nothing. The cost of student transportation for the 1996-97 will be as reflected in the initial budget. 2. Consolidate runs without changing opening/closing times. This may work with one or two schools but the savings would be limited. This would be a change from current practice. 3. Change opening/closing times and consolidate some runs. This would allow all possible consolidations to be considered. The savings for the District would be at least $267,000 to the proposed budget. Recommendation: Action Recommended: Alternative three should be selected for the 1996-97 school year. The savings of at least $267,000 can help to balance the districts budget.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 5 Rationale: The spacing of start times would allow students who are going to different schools to ride the same bus to and from the same neighborhood. This recommendation would result in better utilization of the buses. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. Goal Support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows: Strategy 9 We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. If the cost of student transportation can be reduced by staggering the opening and closing times of schools, then the savings can be used to balance the budget with fewer cuts. Evaluation criteria: 1. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. 2. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. Expected Benefits: 1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 Impact Analysis: 6 Program\nNegatives: 1. Fewer students within the two-mile walk zone will be given courtesy stops. 2. Teacher report times at different schools would vary. Teacher assignments between schools would need to be adjusted to be sure that instructional time is not lost. 3. Seat assignments and student behavior would require coordination among various school administrators. Positives\n1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required. Desegregation Plan: There is no impact on the desegregation plan because the transportation system is still a two run system. The staggered time allows more than one school to be served by one bus run. Court Orders: There are no court orders that this recommendation will impact. Political factors: Parents may be concerned about combining students from different schools on the same bus and the change in school times. These concerns can be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 7 Risks: The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000. Timing: The parents and staff need to be informed as soon as possible concerning changes in opening and closing time. This decision must be made by July 1 in order for bus routing to be completed by August 1. Resource Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional staff is required to implement this recommendation. The opening and closing times are a consideration when staff is shared between buildings. Financial Analysis: The implementation of this recommendation will reduce the transportation budget by $267,000. If this savings is projected over the five years the total will be $1,335,000. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Patrons who are concerned about the number of buses in the neighborhood, the Advisory Committee for Financial Stability, private day cares that pick up students after school, and the Director of Transportation will support this recommendation because it improves the efficient operations of the fleet. Forces Against: School personnel may be concerned about the change in time and its impact on their personal lives. Some parents may be concerned because students from other schools may be on the bus with their students.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 8 Implementation Plan: Milestone_________________________ 1. Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. 3. Notify public.___________________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann______ Student Assignment, PrincipalsBUSINESS CASE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Student Assignment Office is presently located at the Cashion Building at 501 Sherman. square feet sitting on one (1) acre of land. It is approximately 6,418 This is a newly renovated facility and houses only the offices of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and Assignment. Its separate location the from Office all of Student administrative functions lends itself to easy access by parents and students of the Little Rock School District. The location across the street from the new Post Office makes it relatively easy to find within the City. The building lacks for nothing, space is considered adequate to meet the needs of their operation and the building appears to be well maintained. in the parking lot and along side streets. There is adequate parking There is also a small area which can be considered for expansion of this facility should the need arise. 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION - We have been requested to look at the possibility of relocating Student Assignment and selling this building. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There alternatives: 1) are basically two relocate the facility. Leave the facility where it is and 2) (2) to ALTERNATIVE ONE - LEAVE THE FACILITY WHERE IT IS PRESENTLY LOCATED\nThis building was specifically purchased in 1989 and renovated in 1990 for the purposes of drawing together the functions necessary Portions of that to support the student enrollment program. program were previously located at the Administration Building\nhowever, due to the congestion and large volume of public traffic to enroll students, it was determined that the facility would be relocated. meet the Districts needs. The Cashion Building was purchased and renovated to In addition, we have recently completed The image of a computer wiring project to update student services. the Cashion Building and the location of Student Assignment presents a very positive image of the Little Rock School District      ' ' With with new parents enrolling their students in our program, regard to selling the building, there are no guarantees that the building will sell at a cost that would be beneficial to the Little Our estimated renovation $550,000 dollars Rock School District. for that building, which included the purchase of the building and surrounding lands, means that we would have to sell the building for over $500,000 dollars just to recoup our original cost in 1990. Allowing for depreciation of the building, it is estimated that the $500,000 could be reduced to approximately $400,000 dollars but, I do not believe that this would be supported by any appraisal.To move Student Assignment and Desegregation without any long range plan to put them in a location that would better meet their operational needs is not a prudent consideration. However, it is considered an alternative for the purposes of this Business Case. ALTERNATIVE TWO RELOCATION: Determining the requirements of Student Assignments and their subsequent location within the City can began immediately if it is the desire to relocate that office. However, if the intended purpose is simply to relocate the Student Assignment Office in hopes of selling the facility for profit to subsidize our budget, without any thought whatsoever towards the cost incurred with relocating the facility, you can not present a true picture or viably weight the alternatives. time, since no At this point in requirements have been compiled with regard to Student Assignment and Desegregation and no preliminary plans have been made as to where this facility would relocate other than the possibility of a vacated school, it is difficult to make a cost comparison. 4. RECOMMENDATION\nIt is recommended that Student Assignment and the Office of Desegregation stay where they are presently located in the Cashion Building on Sherman Street. 5. OBJECTIVE\nfinancial one. The objective of this recommendation is purely a Because the new location is not known, the cost to relocate Student Assignments can not be determined at this time. Although, it is conceived that the relocation and renovation costs would, hopefully, not exceed the appraised or purchase price of that building, some cost savings could be realized\nhowever, it can not be accurately determined. Assignment to present a very positive image. Because of the need of Student its location is essential to the overall academic programs of the Little Rock School District. 6. IMPACT ANALYSIS\nThe most important concern should be the impact of the general educational program and the ability of the District to present a positive image to the public, our need to continue on a year round basis. with minimal interruption. our recruiting program and our requirement to meet the needs of the parents to enroll their children. Though it is possible to relocate Student Assignment should the decision be made, these are the impacts that must be weighed carefully. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nstaff due to relocation. It will, of course, be an impact on the It can not be ascertained whether the long term operational cost of a relocation would be more or less than the present costs that are presently incurred. true picture of the resources necessary recommendation to relocate is not available. to Therefore, a support the8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nA force field analysis has not been made\nhowever, it can be assumed that some people will object to relocating Student Assignment for the sake of relocating them so that the building can be sold. overcome by placing them. if possible. But, hopefully, that could be in a location which is better suited for the overall needs of the School District. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIf a decision is made to relocate Adult Education, occur this year. it would be further recommended that this not With the present turmoil that is expected this summer due to relocations of administrative and support staff, the additional move of the Student Assignment Office would have to be weighed carefully against the benefits. dce/apl/bcasesarBUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTIONBusiness Case Truancy Reduction Center Program Executive Summary The LRSD Truancy Reduction Program opened for operation on November 1, 1993. Advocacy for the implementation of a collaborative approach to school truancy reduction a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth services arose from This group agency representatives, the LRPD and LRSD officials. developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867 of 1989) that authorized school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan. The collaborative, working with the LRSD Assistant Superintendent for secondary schools and the director of Pupil Services presented a proposal to the LRSD Board of Directors for its review and Approval was granted by the Board to A staff of three paid employees and a approval on October 28,1993. open the Center forthwith. pool of volunteers has operated the Truancy Reduction Center since its beginning in November, 1993. Effective January 4, 1994 the city of Little Rock passed nocturnal curfew ordinance restricting the presence of minors a on the streets. in public places or to be in or operate a vehicle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. \u0026amp; 5:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday or between 12:00 midnight \u0026amp; 5:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. This Ordinance, number 16825, was amended January 3, 1995 to add a curfew for minors during normal school hours from 9:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Passage and enforcement of this ordinance has had a significant impact in reducing the number of children and youth being picked up for truancy this school year. Consequently, the need to continue to maintain the Truancy Center has been reduced. A. Background Prior to the amendment of the curfew ordinance effective January rise. 17, 1995, the number of truants being picked-up by the LRPD and processed through the LRSD Truancy Reduction Center continued to The daytime curfew that makes it unlawful for school age children \u0026amp; youth to be on the streets or other public places during school hours has effectively reduced the number of youth being found on the streets between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. During its first year of operation, the Truancy Reduction Center processed 460 The Center staff saw a 21% increase during the truant students. 1994-95 school year with 580 truant students being brought to the Center. However, with the passage of Ordinance number 16564 as amended in January, 1995, fewer \u0026amp; fewer students are being found on thestreets during school hours. During the first semester of the 1995-96 school year, the number of truants picked up dropped to 113 students. When compared with the first semester of the 1994-95 school year, we have had a 26% decrease in the number of truants processed. Because of the success of the curfew in reducing the presence of truants in public places during school hours, the need to operate a fully staffed Truancy Center has been eliminated. B. Problem Definition Three full time staff and a pool of volunteers have effectively and efficiently operated the Truancy Center since it opened on November 1, 1993, school aged students in January, With the enactment of the daytime curfew law for 1995, the average number of students processed has dropped to between five and six youngsters per week. With an annual budget of $45,915.26. and the dwindling number of students being processed, the operation is no longer cost effective. Because of the need to cut the District's operational expenses, a more cost effective method for achieving our goal of reducing truancy is needed. Three alternatives were considered. The first one is to reduce staff by 50% and reassign supervision of the Center to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security, alternative is to continue the Center's operation as is. The second The third alternative is to eliminate all paid staff and have truant students who are picked up by the police delivered directly to the schools to which they are assigned. This alternative would eliminate the need for a paid staff and the overhead for the operation of a central processing point. The local schools would be responsible for receiving truants. processing them, contacting parents and providing the required follow-up. C. Analysis of Alternatives 1. Alternative one would maintain the Center's operation with fewer budgeted positions. Personnel would include a secretary and one Truancy investigator. The coordinator's position, would be eliminated and those functions transferred to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security. Estimated costs for this option are as follows: Personnel FTE Salary/cost Truancy Officer 15,500.00 Secretary 9,000.00 (2) 1 1I Supplies Office Supplies \u0026amp; Copy machine use II Vehicle Expenses Gas, oil, maintenance 1,500 1,500 Total Cost $27,500.00 I j I 2. Alternative two would maintain the current three budgeted positions and operating budget as shown below: Personnel (Including Fringes) FTE Salary/cost Truancy Center Coordinator $26,405.00 Security Guard 17,004.00 Bus Driver 10,000.00 Sub-Total 53,409.00 Purchased Services Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 900.00 Copier Rental 133.00 Telephone Service 4 lines @ $150.00 ea (installation fee one time charge) 600.00 Wiring/Jacks- Harper 606.00 Recurring Yearly Charges 7/1 to 9/30 (3 months) 23.50 X 4 lines 94.00 X 3 months 94.00 284.00 10/1 to 6/30 (9 months) 10.85 X 4 lines 43.40 X 9 months 43.40 390.00 Sub Total 2,913.00 Annual Cost 56,322.00 (3) 1 1 I I I I 1 Clearly, in view of the District's need to reduce operational costs, with personnel costs driving around 75-80% of the total District budget, consideration of eliminating or restructuring the program to achieve its goals at a lowered financial burden is within the Districts' long-term best interest. To maintain the status quo is not a fiscally responsible option at this time. 3. Alternative three would continue the collaboration with the LRPD up but operate without having centralized processing point with paid staff. in picking students, The truants would be taken directly to the assigned schools by the police officer and turned over to a building administrator. A copy of the release form would be sent to Pupil Services as a way to continue to track truants being picked up. Each local school would be responsible for scheduling and documenting the follow-up parent conferences. This arrangement would eliminate all operational expenses, personnel or otherwise, while maintaining a commitment to truancy reduction. a Recommended changes would become effective with the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. D. Recommendation as cutting measure. It is recommended that alternative three be adopted as a cost _ This recommendation is cost efficient since no budgetary expenditures are required. E. Objectives 1. To implement a cost effective procedure for compliance with Arkansas compulsory attendance laws. To reduce personnel and operational expenditures for Truancy Reduction by eliminating manpower intensive operation. 2 . F. Impact Analysis IMS Since the partnership with the LRPD in truancy prevention will be continued and the only change is in the reduction of operational expenses, no negative impact is foreseen. A final decision of the Center's operation should be made in a timely manner so as to notify staff within contract negotiated timelines. Political Factors Closure of the Center may be perceived by commitment to truancy reduction. some as a lesse\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_1160","title":"Little Rock School District, Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1996-05-08"],"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 law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations"],"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/1160"],"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":["298 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.\nI ' Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Purpose of Position Paper 2. Background 3. Response Groupings and Definitions of Tenns 4. Results of Audit and Interviews 5. Position on 'Not Begun' Items 6. Internal Enhancements 7. Conclusions May 8, 1996 This report was prepared by the LRSD administrative team of Brady Gadberry, Sterling Ingram, Dr. Ed Jackson, Deana Keathley, Dr. Patty Kohler, Dr. Russ Mayo, Leon Modeste, Ken Savage, and Marvin Schwartz. 1 3 4 8 11 13 15 16 Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 #501-324-2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED sw EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL -------,---- DE P. CLERK DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS SPECIAL STATUS REPORT For its special status report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. The Little Rock School District has recently reviewed the status of its compliance with its desegregation obligations and determined that the district is in substantial compliance with those obligations. The attached \"Little Rock School District Position Paper On Desegregation Obligations\" describes the process used by LRSD to determine its compliance and reports the conclusion that LRSD has implemented 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 r1.stopher Helle Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of May, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - 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 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGA TIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS  THE DISTRICT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH ITS DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS BASED ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 96.3% OF ITS OBLIGATIONS.  SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE PLAN HA VE NOT BEEN ACHIEVED AND ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE ACHIEVED TIIROUGH THE CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS  RECOGNITION OF THE DISTRICT'S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE MADE BY THE COURT.  OBLIGATIONS WHERE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SHOULD BE RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION.  OBLIGATIONS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS SHOULD BE REVISED.  REVISED OBLIGATIONS SHOULD BE MODELED ON ACTION ITEMS IN THE RECENTLY COMPLETED STRATEGIC PLAN. Page 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. PURPOSE OF POSITION PAPER  Assess District's performance m meeting desegregation obligations.  Inform the public of status of these accomplishments.  Prove good faith effort in achieving substantial compliance. 2. BACKGROUND  The District has accepted desegregation obligations as a binding contract.  Desegregation obligations are reviewed through regular updates of the Program Budget Document.  A LRSD obligations audit identified more than 2,000 items and published the listing as the Abbreviated Summary. Scan sheets were developed for each item and completed by District staff.  Compilation of scan sheet responses provided the overall status for this report. 3. RESPONSE GROUPINGS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS  Responses to the scan sheets were grouped to match program names.  Responses within each program name were sorted to identify total items in compliance and items not yet begun. Page2 POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 4. RESULTS OF AUDIT AND INTERVIEWS  Final assessment of the audit showed substantial compliance with all desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of those items.  The interview process allowed comprehensive review of all evidence supporting implementation of obligations. 5. PosmoN ON NoT BEGUN ITEMS  Obligations identified as Not Begun reveal barriers to effective implementation such as unrealistic expectations.  The obligations modification process lags behind current implementation plans. 6. INTERNAL ENHANCEMENTS  An automated PBD will show new patterns of completion, allowing assessment of obligations by individual items and by schools.  The automated process increases overall accountability toward fulfillment of the obligations. LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 1. Purpose of Position Paper The daily operation of the Little Rock School District is centered on providing the public with the highest quality education available in Arkansas and the nation. With an October 1995 enrollment of 24,922 students and the employment of . 3,513 people, the tasks required to provide that quality education are quite numerous. Effective coordination of those tasks and public accountability for their implementation are some of the criteria by which the District should be measured. The numerous obligations approved for the District by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in a lengthy and highly detailed document containing more than 2,000 obligations or specific tasks. Additionally, the LRSD Desegregation Plan is one of several plans approved by the Court for Pulaski County public school districts. The District commits significant personnel and financial resources to implementation and reporting of desegregation obligations. Some of these resources could be used more effectively to meet student educational needs. The primary purpose of this position paper is to assess District progress in meeting desegregation obligations. Secondary purposes of this position paper follow in logical sequence. To assure accountability by the District in response to desegregation obligations, this paper will identify the status of those accomplishments. It will show which Page3 obligations the District has fully or partially accomplished, and it will show the results from those actions. The overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation obligations. Further, this paper will address those obligations which the District has not fulfilled, and it will give an account for those nonaccomplishments. In some cases, an appropriate response to the obligation was not possible. In other cases, a response was possible but not attempted because circumstances made the effort unfeasible. Finally, this paper will provide an update on District efforts to meet reasonable obligations where progress is lacking. More specifically, the overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation requirements. It is the goal of the LRSD to meet the educational needs of all its students. In the process of meeting those needs, the District seeks to achieve unitary status or release from Court jurisdiction. We believe an objective reading of this position paper will advance that effort and better serve the interests of Little Rock students and all citizens of the community. LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 2. Background The desegregation obligations currently in place for the LRSD have evolved from legal actions and court supervision of Pulaski County school districts that began in the early 1980s. These obligations derive from the consent decrees the District has entered into with several parties, including:  North Little Rock School District  Pulaski County Special School District  Knight Intervenors  Joshua Intervenors  State of Arkansas (no longer current) In 1993, an audit of desegregation obligations was undertaken by LRSD attorneys at the Friday Law Firm. After review by District management, the obligations listing was filed with the court. The District's response to all desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. As a whole, this imposes a weighty burden on the District. Finances for instructional programs have been diverted toward legal fees, and an administrative capacity for the development of creative instruction has been dissipated in time spent in the legal process or in preparation of desegregation-related documents. These impositions have limited the District's ability to meet the needs of a diverse student population. A reporting process used by the District to update the Court on progress Page4 toward obligations is key to the assessment and conclusions reached in this position paper. This process is the Program Budget Document (PBD). An explanation of the development and implementation of the PBD will help identify the reporting burden and the tendency for duplication imposed by the system. The PBD was developed to monitor progress on all obligations. The document identifies every obligation relating to the case and provides essential information to track relevant activity. The District's response to the desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. The PBD is updated quarterly with information provided by the primary leaders to reflect progress. However, many items on the PBD are repeated yearly or are part of a continuous process. These can include items such as principals writing school profiles or District Equity Monitors visiting schools. Such items are never completed in themselves, but reports are required within the year to show how much of the task has been accomplished. Conversely, some items are maintained on the PBD and addressed even after they have been completed. (This weakness in the PBD design has been corrected in the new automated version. See Section 7. Internal Enhancements). LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT The LRSD process for reporting to the Court is centered on updates of the obligations and activities contained in the PBD. One barrier to the PBD reporting process, however, is the lack of a quantifiable assessment which clearly shows how well the District has done in meeting all its obligations. The original version of the PBD did not provide a numerical or percentage summary. As a preliminary step toward overall assessment, the District began a comprehensive review in mid 1995 to identify every distinct obligation. The Abbreviated Summary, as the project came to be known, involved cross referencing items from the PBD and all legal documents. The audit identified 2,098 distinct obligations. A refining of the list yielded a final count of 2,008 obligations. Further, the Abbreviated Summary identified numerous inconsistencies such as POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS duplicative obligations (See Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations) and obligations being implemented for which no legal reference could be located. Additionally, numerous legal documents had made separate contributions to the obligations by this time, each introducing additional requirements. Legal Documents Influencing Obligations  8th Circuit Court Orders  District Court Orders  lnterdistrict Plan  LRSD Desegregation Plan  Settlement Agreement  Stipulations  McClellan Plan  Henderson Plan  Court Transcripts  Exhibit  June 5, 1992 Monitoring Report Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations Subject Abbreviated Text Original Legal ID#, Document Incentive 1. Make recommendations to the Board LR Deseg. Plan 1783 School 2. Make staff recommendations LR Deseg. Plan 1788 Staffing 3. Make staff recommendations for LR Deseg. Plan 1789 employment to the Board M-to-M 1. Develop recruitment plan with PCSSD for lnterdistrict Plan 1481 Transfers M-to-M transfers 2. Parties to promote M-to-M transfers lnterdistrict Plan 3154 1. ID numbers for obligations refer to listings in the Abbreviated Summary. Page 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGA TIONS The assessment process chosen for the task was for the LRSD Division of Planning Research and Evaluation (PRE) to develop computer scan sheets relating to the status and evidence of all obligations. (See Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet) In 1995, a process was begun in which primary leaders answered six concise questions and sent the sheets back to PRE for compiling of responses. The scan sheets asked direct questions and gave multiple choice answers. The Primary Leaders had to identify if their obligations were a) not begun, b) completed, c) completed periodically, or d) continuous/never completed (See Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations). To assure accountability, they also had to identify the specific location where evidence concerning the obligation was kept and who was responsible for that evidence. The assessment process continued with a 1996 follow-up survey to address items that had been recently added as well as allow a figur~ 2. Obli'gatiof'ls Scan Sheet Questions relating to the evidence available for the above named obligation. 1. What is the status of the obligation? A) Not begun (If answer is A, do not complete the rest of the form.) B) Completed (ff answer is B, go to question # 2.) C) Completed Periodically (ff answer is C, go to question #3.) D) Continuous/Never Completed (ff answer is 0, go ta question #3.) 2. In what school year was the obligation completed? A) Priorto1992-93 (If answer is A, goto question # 4.) B) 1992-93 (ff answer is B, go to question# 4.) C) 1993-94 (ff answer is C, go ta question # 4.) D) 1994-95 (ff answer is D, go to question# 4.) 3. If the obligation is on-going, in what school year was the obligation first accomplished? A) Prior to 1992-93 B) 1992-93 C) 1993-94 D) 1994-95 4. In what form does the primary evidence for this obligation exist? A) Pamphlet or Publication B) Written Evaluation, Survey or Summary Report C) Bill or Requisition 0) Document (written agenda, sign--in sheet, notice of meeting, invnation, etc.) E) No evidence exists (ff answer is E, do not complete the rest of the form\nhowever. explain why in AREA 2 an the back of this sheet.) 5. Location where primary evidence concerning this obligation is kept: A) School B) District Offices, LRSD Annex, IRC, Student Assignment C) Plant Services, Procuremen~ Food Services, Safety \u0026amp; Security, Transportation D) Adult Education 6. Who is the keeper of the primary evidence? A) Primary Leader B) Secondary Leader C) Person Responsible Signature: _ _ _ _ _________ Date: _ _____ _ Page6 I (!) 0@  j ' @. J.@\n,J@)  ,@  A . : ,, 0 , @_ .  ,@  ~t .@, ... ~ . \"',.   @    .A .! ., B . ~ (E) I l'J 1 j   (i) -1 IV I  i  I  m I (!)  .  I '(r) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT second reporting on items previously identified as \"not begun.\" The processing of scan sheets gave the District a clear and comprehensive understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. The scan sheets gave the District a clear understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. Progress since 1993 has resulted from the improved tracking accuracy of the original PBD. A recent upgrade to a computerized PBD process will further improve its accuracy. The audit of obligations and scan sheet surveys represent other distinct improvements in the District's overall response to desegregation obligations. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations CO - Completed. Items done once which need no repeating. Example: Motion granted for construction of cafeteria at Chicot Elementary. ID #1177, Court Order, 4/30.!93, Pg. 1 CP - Completed Periodically. Items which have repetitive schedules within fixed time frames. Example: Establish a summer school program. ID #1208, lnterdistrict Plan, 4129193, Pg. 13 NC - Continuous/Never Completed. Items which require on-going implementation. Example: Monitor the Desegregation Plan. ID #0936, LR Plan, 4129192, Pg. 28 NB - Not Begun. Items which have not been addressed. Example: Plan new junior high school construction. tD #1326, LR Plan, 4129192, Pg. 129 Page7 LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT POSITION p APER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 3. Response Groupings and Definition of Terms To fully understand the information reflected on the scan sheets and to communicate those results to the public in a precise manner, certain groupings of responses were made. This process included three broad steps, summarized below and detailed in the remaining sections of this report. 1 The status of individual obligations were identified on the scan sheets as CO CP NC, or NB. , , 2 All obligations were categorized as CO orNB. 3 Overall response to desegregation requirements was identified as Substantial Compliance (SC). The process began by grouping the scan sheet responses into PBD Program Areas. In this manner, thousands of individual obligations and strategies were brought together under distinct program names. The process then gave abbreviated titles to the distinct categories of response as shown on the scan sheets. These abbreviations are presented in Figure 3, and examples of obligations for each category are provided. An additional category is represented with the letter A. This group includes obligations which were identified after the 1995 scan sheet survey. Examples of A items include: Pages  Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget, ID #5144,Court Transcript, 716/95, Pg. J  Court Requires Long-Range Facilities Plan, JD #5127, Court Order, 2/8195, Pg. 2 All A items have been addressed in the follow up survey of February 1996, and their tally is included in the final results. As represented in Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process, the grouping process condensed five categories of responses into three. Each category represents total responses for that status and does not relate to specific programs or activities. For example, responses marked \"completed\" include those which are addressed periodically and those which are continuous/never completed or cyclical. These items are considered completed because the District has met all possible requirements for their fulfillment during the time frame or cycle. Final grouping of the responses culminated in the two categories, Completed (CO) or Not Begun {NB), represented in the next section of this report. In this manner, the District has been able to provide the most direct presentation of its substantial compliance with desegregation obligations. To assure the most accurate reporting possible, the District identified the legal definitions of the categories of response and other terms used when describing desegregation obligations. Many LITTLE RocK ScHooL D1sTR1CT of these terms have had their original meanings transformed through usage by the media, the public, and by educators who did not fully understand them in the proper context. As a legal document, however, the Plan requires a strict and consistent interpretation. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The following items are key terms2 in understanding desegregation obligations and the District's response.  Obligation - a legal requirement that constrains to a course of action, an imperative for specific action. An 2 Definitions for terms were paraphrased from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991. Initial Survey Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process Response Grouping Page9 Results of Follow-up Preliminary Surveys Follow-up Survey Legend A Added after Initial Survey CO Completed CP Completed Periodically NC Never Completed/Continuous NB Not Begun SC Substantial Compliance L1TTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT   obligation is something one is bound to do. It leaves no room for negotiation, compromise, or alternative. Example: LRSD will pay an increase of $52,604.09 in the ODM budget. ID #4113 . Court Order. 418194, Pg. J Recommendation - something which is offered or suggested as a favored action. A recommendation is worthy of acceptance, but there are no constraints upon its action. Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having a binding effect. Example: The following full time positions are recommended for each Incentive School. (20 positions are listed, including classroom teachers, counselors, etc.) LR Desegregation Plan. Incentive School Section, 4/2192, Pg. 190 Substantial Compliance: conformity with the essential requirements in fulfilling formal or official obligations of a contract or a statute. Being in substantial compliance means that you have done substantially all you were required to do to fulfill the obligation. The concept of \"substantial compliance\" is the primary assessment criteria for this report. Example: Establish six thematic interdistrict schools, ID #1479, lnterd1str1ct Plan, 4/29/92, Pg. 3  Good Faith Effort - an effort based on an honest belief, the absence of malice, and the absence of the design to   Page 10 POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS defraud or seek advantage. Example: Provide Homework Hotlines. JD #1918, LR Desegregation Plan, 4/2/92, Pg. 180 Completion - something which is fully realized, which possesses all necessary parts. Completion means an action has been brought to an end or to an intended condition. With desired results achieved, no further action is necessary. Example: Install Rockefeller Elementary Heat/AC. ID # 1350, Monitoring Report, 615/92. Pg. 43 On-Going Obligations - certain items identified as obligations which need to be repeated on a regular basis. These \"on-going obligations\" can not be totally completed because further action is necessary throughout the term of the desegregation plans. The District considers itself in compliance with these items if it fulfills the necessary action within each scheduled reporting period. These items are represented in the CP ( completed periodically) or the NC (never completed) groups. Example: Maintain all school facilities for safe/operable condition. ID #950, LR Desegregation Plan, ,l/2/9192, Pg. J 29 LITTLE RocK ScHOOL D1sTRICT Results of the preliminary surveys showed the District m substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements. This was based on initial findings which showed implementation of 97. 5% of obligations. The need for evidence of compliance with obligations led to a final round of interviews. The intent of the interviews was to gain proof in addition to the scan sheets that all information was accurate. Interviews were conducted with all primary and secondary leaders and all persons responsible for implementation of the obligations. Evidence of all activities was reviewed by committees, and a new and more specific assessment was obtained. As illustrated in Figure 5. Results of the Interview Audit, the final number of obligations became 1,753. This was achieved by the removal of additional duplicates, recommendations, goals, and items which were identified as not obligations. The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements based on 96.3% implementation of its obligations. Of that group of 1,753 obligations, 96.3% or 1,689 were identified as being in substantial compliance. Partial compliance Page 11 POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGATIONS was achieved in 1.1 % or 19 obligations, and only 45 obligations or 2.6% of the total remained as Not Begun items. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Figure 5. Results of Interview Audit ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED OBLIGATIONS 2008 REVIEWED - NOT OBLIGATIONS 12 DUPLICATE OBLIGATIONS 224 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 GOALS 10 NET OBLIGATIONS AFTER AUDIT-~17~5\"\"!\"\"3 RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE COMPLETED ON-GOING PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN PARTIAL COMPLIANCE 1% 203 52 429 1005 19 45 1753 1689 19 45 1753 NOT BEGUN 3% SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE 96% Page 12 11 .6% 3.0% } 24.5% 57.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% 96.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% 96.3% Substantial Compliance LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION p APER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGA TI0NS 5. Position on 'Not Begun' Items As previously stated in this report , the District has identified desegregation obligations with a 'Not Begun' status. Analysis of those obligations showed that in some cases, the premise upon which the obligations were based was found to be flawed. In other areas, obligations were shown to be dependent on numerous factors outside the District's control. Accountability for the 'Not Begun' obligations is best represented through the following broad categories.  Conditional Obligation: These items are dependent on external factors which have not been met, such as partnership relations with other organizations, receipt of grant funds, or other conditions outside District control. Example: Two obligations under the Library Media section of the Interdistrict Plan and cross referenced in the LRSD Desegregation Plan call for Utilization of TV Technology and Implement Utilization of Cable Channel 19. (m #1033, Interdistrict Plan, Pg. 34, 4129192) The Plan states these obligations will be done \"if funded by a federal Star grant.\" The grant was not funded, therefore, the obligations were not begun.  Unrealistic Expectation: These items are unfeasible or do not generate a sufficient return to justify the effort of implementation. This decision is based on District experience in the field and is a realistic response to items developed Page 13 as part of a 'wish list' by framers of the obligations. Example: The Incentive School Support Section of the LRSD Plan requires the District to meet at homes with groups of parents. cm #2049, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 210, 4/29/92) The District has found the effort to locate and coordinate a home-based meeting of parents is a time consuming and laborious process. This obligation does not address the reality that people must be invited into a home. They can not be mandated to offer that hospitality.  Changed by Court Order: Changes in the LRSD Desegregation Plan by the Court, such as rulings from the bench and Court orders, have not been reflected as revised the language in the Plan. Example: Numerous items within the Focused Activity section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan have been superseded or redefined by a May 1, 1992 Court Order.  On Appeal: The District is involved in an appeal process to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an obligation. In this instance, the obligation is not appropriately aligned with contemporary events. Example: A Court Order currently under appeal states that the LRSD will reimburse PCSSD $167,113 within 60 days of the order. cm #4111, Court order, Pg. 3, 3/16194) LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT  Improperly Reported: Errors in reporting were discovered as a result of of the desegregation obligations scan sheets and audit. Example: An item erroneously reported as NB requires the LRSD to develop or enhance site-based management at designated schools. (ID #0501 , LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 42, 4/29/92) The obligation is being implemented through staff development for principals, revision of District procedures, and enhanced principal accountability for programs. The implementation is being addressed through the Strategic Planning Action Team 8 and will continue through the 1996-97 school year.  Not Begun: These are obligations which the District has not yet implemented. The District recognizes the validity of these obligations and intends to comply with them. Example: An obligation addressing the Incentive School Latin Program calls for the District to evaluate the elementary Latin Program. (ID #2021, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 164, 4/29/92) This will be done as soon as possible. Similarly, an obligation requires the District to form a media coalition that involves a series of meetings between the superintendents of the three school districts and representatives of the local media. cm #1555, Interdistrict Plan, Pg. 3, 4129/92) Scheduling for these meetings is currently being arranged. POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGA TIONS Page 14 LITTLE RocK ScHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 6. Internal Enhancements The LRSD has completed a revision of the Program Budget Document (PBD) reporting process which will provide information in greater detail and with instant computer access. The computerized PBD will greatly enhance the District's ability to track on-going compliance with obligations. Staff inservice is underway for the recently designed program automation, which is expected to be implemented in the spring of 1996. An automated computer linkage will allow primary leaders to access the system and input directly to the LRSD mainframe AS400 system. Information will address activities done toward the fulfillment of obligations. The automation replaces a manual system where computer diskettes were submitted quarterly and updated reports printed. Another improvement in the system is the automated program's ability to identify responses to single items by individual schools and across the District. This will allow school-by-school reports on specific obligations, an option not previously available. If questioned about a specific obligation, the District has immediate access to its status at each setting. The system will also show patterns of completion and allow deactivation and storage of completed obligations. PBD automation will control the publishing of updates and changes to the obligations, thereby avoiding errors resulting from changing text or phrasing of obligations. Page 15 LITTLE RocK ScHooL D1sTR1cT Major accomplishments such as the identification of obligations and the implementation of a strategic planning process show the District is doing a good job of meeting its desegregation obligations. A 96.3% level of implementation affirms that achievement. The District should be recognized for its accomplishments and certain items should be released from further court supervision. The District should\"be recognize'd 'folits ' accomplishments and i. r  certain 'items released from 'further court supeNision. The District is accountable for its response to desegregation obligations, a response represented in this report. But it should not be held accountable for all of the goals of the Plan, some of which have proved to be unobtainable in this district or any other district in the country. The desegregation plans of the District have resulted in significant desegregation accomplishments. As we near the end of the six-year life of those plans, however, it is apparent that in some ways they have outlived their usefulness. The recently completed Strategic Plan, developed as a result of significant community input and involvement, should be used to guide decisions about LRSD's future. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Page 16\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle 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_4","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1996-05/1996-09"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/4"],"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":null,"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_268","title":"Business Cases Proposed, Additional Business Cases-1996-97 (revised)","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":["1996-04-29"],"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--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Business Cases Proposed, Additional Business Cases-1996-97 (revised)"],"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/268"],"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":["199 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\nBUSINESS CASES PROPOSED Additional Business Cases - 1996-97 (Revised - April 29, 1996) RECEIVE^ APR 2 9 1996 Office of Desejregalion MoniwrinyT BUSINESS CASES . ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) X- ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION - (SAVINGS) . ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) 1 . CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS-HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM - (SAVINGS) x- ^Jq . EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOL - (ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES) . INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - (SAVINGS) /. OUTSOURCING COURIER SERVICES - (SAVINGS) . OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION - (SAVINGS \u0026gt;(. REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - (SAVINGS) SIX PERIOD DAY VERSUS SEVEN PERIOD DAY - (SAVINGS\n. STAGGERED STARTING TIMES - (SAVINGS) ,^ . STUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) . TRUANCY REDUCTION - (SAVINGS)I I ' I J BUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: BACKGROUND: ADMINISTRATION ANNEX RELOCATION The Administration Annex houses various support activities of the Little Rock School District. located approximately two (2) The building is blocks from the Administration Building at 100 South Arch Street. facility with no parking and no excess acreage. It is a 26,273 square foot appears to be a renovated warehouse. The facility It is four (4) stories with no windows and approximately 60 to 70 percent utilized and the fourth floor is entirely used for storage. a drab appearance due to the lack of natural light. The facility presents The location two (2) blocks from the Administration Building is not germane to the operation of this facility. that do not It consists of independent offices functions require daily contact with other administrative in the Administration Building and can therefore be considered for relocation should space become available. In 1980, the Little Rock School District Board of Education excessed this building and deemed it not necessary for School District operations\nhowever, the building has been in constant use since that time. for sale at anytime. The building has not been sold but may be considered The personnel of the Administration Annex would be considered prime candidates to be relocated to any school within the Little Rock School District that might be considered for closure providing that it has sufficient square footage to meet their needs. Their functions can operate quite effectively from anywhere within the District. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION\nThe problem is to consider whether we should include the personnel from the Annex relocations. in any current 3. ANALYSIS alternatives: OF 1) ALTERNATIVES\nBasically, we have two (2) Leave the personnel at the Annex Building where they are presently located until such time as a better facility could be found or a long range plan complied or 2) consider relocating them with personnel to be relocated during the summer of 1996 . ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE LEAVE THE PERSONNEL AT THE ANNEX: Leaving the personnel in the Annex Building seems a prudent move at this point in time. They are fully operational and appear to be content with their surroundings. Although it is not the most attractive or most operational building within the district. it does meet the office needs of the personnel that are located there. ALTERNATIVE TWO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE PERSONNEL IN THE ANNEX BUILDING: Relocating the personnel from the Annex at this point may be extremely difficult. The relocation of the Instructional Resource Center from Sixth and Ringo to the Ish Building will be extremely tight and there is no space left in Ish for any other functions. other than those associated with the Instructional Resource Center. While the possibility of additional space may be available at Oakhurst Elementary School with the movement of Adult 1 *Education from Eastside, the amount of space needed has not been determined. Should additional space become available at that school, it is conceivable that smaller offices from the Annex could be relocated. which has over However, a primary concern is Special Education building. fifty (50) people and occupies most of that This is a function that requires direct public access and must be in a location that is readily accessible to meet the publics needs. While Oakhurst may be considered as a possible location, the size of the building will not permit Adult Education and Special Education to occupy the building at the same time. 4. RECOMMENDATION\nIt is recommended that the Annex Building not be considered for relocation at this time. As schools become available within the Little Rock School District, careful consideration could then be given to relocating the personnel in the Annex to a better location. 5. OBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this recommendation is to leave things relatively status quo and to limit the disruption to the Little Rock School District because of the moves that have already been planned for this summer. It could be considered a positive move if a school building is vacated within the District. Most assuredly, being in a building with one or two levels, adequate parking and natural light would be a better situation than they are presently in. 6. IMPACT ANALYSIS\nThe movement of any organization is expected to have a limited negative impact due to the disruption of services until they are fully restored at their required operational level. The personnel in the Annex are all tied in some way to the Desegregation Plan\nhowever, their physical location fosters, nor detracts from the Desegregation Plan. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nThere will. of course. be a relocation impact on the staff, but, it would appear that bettering the office situation of these people would result in a more positive attitude and better operational surroundings. With regard to general District resources, it is conceivable that the Annex could possibly be sold but this can not be determined until a market analysis is completely made. At the present time, the vacancy rate in downtown Little Rock is between eight (8) and twelve (12) percent\nwarehouse space is slightly lower. There is a possibility that the Annex could be sold as general warehouse space to a downtown agency. 8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nThe force field analysis has not been done because we have not seriously considered relocating this facility\ntherefore, the aspects of personnel who may be in favor, or against, this move have not been determined.9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIt would be recommended that the Annex personnel stay where they are presently located for the time being, and that no consideration be made to move them during the summer of 1996. When, and if. a facility plan is put together for administrative buildings and administrative offices, that the annex personnel be considered for relocation as space becomes identified. dce/apl/bcaseaarBUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATIONBUSINESS CASE ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Adult Education Program is presently located at Eastside Junior High School on Scott Street. It has been in that location for a number of years. In 1983, the Little Rock School District excessed that property and deemed it sellable. Although this has not been actively pursued, recent interest has indicated that some agency may be preparing an offer to secure that property\ntherefore, consideration should be given to relocate the Consideration has been given over the Adult Education Program. years, and was approved by the Board in 1995, to relocate Adult Education and to proceed with the selling of Eastside. While Eastside Junior High School may be adequate at the present time to meet the needs of Adult Education, future educational programs have yet to be determined and therefore their impact on the building can not be ascertained at this time. C ' ' Current requirements regarding maintenance are high and the necessity to eventually adapt it to ADA standards, to meet the needs of our disabled adult students, must be considered this next year. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION - The problem that we are facing is the consideration of relocating Adult Education to a facility which better meets their needs and capitalizes on vacant space within the Little Rock School District. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES - Essentially, there are three (3) alternatives available to consider: in the current facility. 1) Allow the agency to remain While this is a viable alternative, the for that facility and the backlog of maintenance and repair necessity to determine new work regarding Americans with disabilities and the remote possibility of expanded programs must be taken into consideration. undetermined, academic ie: Adult Educations 2) Relocate the facility yet requirements are essentially administrative and classroom space\ntherefore, the relocation into a school would be considered most appropriate. A primary concern would be the location of that school and the ease with which that school can meet the needs of the adults that it serves. Consideration could be given to considering Adult Education relocation into facilities if facilities close due to the implementation of any long range planning. Relocate into ' At the present time, the Little Rock 3) existing vacant facilities. School District has one facility which is vacant, Oakhurst Elementary School (Ish Elementary School has been identified as the new home for the Instructional Resource Center). On the surface. On the surface. Oakhurst may appear to be a building that is not in much better shape than Eastside, but it does possess a more centralized location, has the capability of being more readily adapted for ADA standards and appears to meet the general requirements of the Adult Education Program. In addition, it would assist in vacating Eastside and would allow us to proceed with a more aggressive plan to sell that property.1 While two of the alternatives deal with relocations, the only advantage to alternative three is the fact that it is a move that could possibly occur during the summer of 1996 due to the vacancy of Oakhurst Elementary School. 4. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that serious consideration be given to relocating Adult Education into Oakhurst Elementary School. 5. OBJECTIVE - The objective of this recommendation is purely one of financial initiatives. It is expected that the operating cost of Adult Education and Oakhurst will not be appreciably different from that at Eastside. Additionally, certain renovations will have to be made to Oakhurst to make the facility adaptable for the Adult Education Program and to improve certain structural elements of the building so as to insure the safety and comfort of its inhabitants. However, it will assist the Districts financial planning through the disposal of excess property which is not deemed necessary for its operational needs. It should be noted that Eastside also houses the HIPPY Program and the Truancy Center. Each of these are being considered separately for moves within the Little Rock School District and as of this point in time, final destinations for those programs have not been identified, made. But, considerations are being 6. Adult IMPACT ANALYSIS - The most concern should be the impact on the Education Program. Preliminary discussions with the Supervisor and staff indicate that the general location of the facility will meet their needs. until 10:00 at night. Bus transportation, operating is within two (2) blocks of the facility. Adequate parking is available and the classrooms are of sufficient size to accommodate all academic programs. The area is more residential and appears to be more settled than that of the present location. Discussions with the Director indicate that the program can be relocated easily into Oakhurst Elementary School. The Adult Education Program services a wide range of people throughout the Little Rock area and it is not considered a major element of the Districts desegregation plan and should not require any coordination with parties regarding change elements of the plan. The writer knows of no Court Orders that outline any stipulations with regard to Adult Education and, in general, it is not felt that undue risks are being taken in relocating this program. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS There will. of course. be a relocation but it appears that most impact on the staff of the facility, personnel drive to this facility so therefore transportation is not Other than the fact that people may be deemed a detriment. resistant to move, it is felt that the facility will meet the needs Financially, Oakhurst will of the personnel running the program. operate at the same approximate cost as Eastside. will not be completely filled by the Adult Education Program, consideration is being given to moving other agencies into the While Oakhurst building which will maximize the facility and bring the per capita cost down.8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS At the present time, preliminary indications are that some members of the faculty are opposed to the move while others support it. The general relocation into a facility with which the staff will have the opportunity to input their needs into minor renovations at the building will hopefully go far in easing the burden of relocating this program. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION - It is expected that Adult Education could be moved during the month of June 1996. Preliminary planning has already begun. Floor layouts are being drafted at this time, communication plans and surveys are being taken, the building has been assessed for repairs and construction, and instructions will soon be given to the staff on packing and relocating. dce/apl/bcaseaepBUSINESS CASE CONSOL IDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIO. JS - HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters LRSD Four-Year Old Program April 19, 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old Program. Each program operates as a desegregation strategy. HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year Old Program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at schools that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. During this time of financial crisis all budget reduction strategies must be reviewed. Savings can be realized by consolidating the administrative functions of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters and the Little Rock School District Four-Year Old Program. The estimated savings could be $23,720.76 or $57,056.58 depending on the option selected.A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old program. Each program operates as a desegregation strategy. HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year old program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at school that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There is a need to reduce spending within the Little Rock School District. Therefore, some programs have been identified for possible merger. HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old program were reviewed to determine if the administrative functions could be combined for cost savings and management efficiency. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The District must now decide if it will continue the of the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The alternatives at this time are: separate management functions 1. Make no changes The current management cost for the LRSD Four-Year Old Program i lie on -n..-_ . o ------------ vudi lui iiic rour-iear uia rrogram is $70,335.82. This amount is the total salaiy cost for one (1) coordinator. No secretary is assigned to this department. L ___ L _______ desegregation budget. (See attached reorganization chart for details.) This cost is charged to the The current management cost for HIPPY is $99,797. Because of budget reductions for the 1995-96 school year, the two coordinator positions which total $48,441.52 are currently funded through Federal Programs. The remaining $51,355.86, which is part of the desegregation budget, supports one (1) supervisor at $31,313.15 and one (1) secretary at $20,042.71. (See organizational chart for details.) one 12. Consolidate Administrative Functions a. Assign the Early Childhood Coordinator the administrative responsibilities for HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old Program. In order to maintain HIPPY at its current level of servicing 249 families, the Early Childhood Coordinator may need to supervise 4 home visitors in addition to assuming the administrative duties. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500.00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY supervisor the administrative responsibilities for the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The Early Childhood Education Coordinator position requires an Arkansas teachers certificate, K-6 and a masters degree. The current HIPPY supervisor does not hold an Arkansas teachers certificate. An Arkansas teachers certificate is not required to occupy the HIPPY supervisor position. The current HIPPY supervisor would need to obtain an Arkansas teacher s certificate and a masters degree. Since responsibilities would include supervision of the Kindergarten program. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) training would be required for the current HIPPY supervisor. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: Early Childhood Coordinator less training cost for ESPF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. c. Reassign Early Childhood Coordinator to an elementary school Reassign HIPPY Supervisor to a HIPPY Coordinator position. Hire a person to supervise HIPPY and Four- Year Old Program at a lesser salary. principal position. 2a D. A number of elementary principalship vacancies occur each year. Since the current Early Childhood Coordinator has served as a principal, consideration could be given to reassigning the coordinator to an elementary principalship. The District could hire a person with less administrative experience at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: (1) Early Childhood Coordinator less salary for new coordinator at lower rate of pay less cost for HIPPY and EPSF training (2) HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) OBJECTIVES $73,335.82 40,000.00 (estimate) 33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 $24,220.76 $57,056.58 The objective of the business case is to identify means to reduce spending with the Little Rock School District. A merging of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will save the District money during the current financial crisis. EVALUATION CRITERIA The merger of the HIPPY and Four-Year Old Program administrative functionswill be determined a success if actual expenses are reduced and service of both programs are maintained at the current level. EXPECTED BENEFITS The Districts financial condition will improve and greater administrative efficiency will be evident. E. IMPACT ANALYSIS No modification of the Desegregation Plan would be required. Some persons may believe that the administrative functions of the two programs are to broad for one person to manage effectively. 3'^e District can reap some savings from combining the administration functions of the two programs. F. RESOURCE ANALYSIS a. Assign Early Childhood Coordinator as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor position less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500.00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY Supervisor as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS: Early Childhood Coordinator position less training cost for EPSF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. c. Reassign HIPPY Supervisor and Early Childhood Coordinator - Hire person to manage both programs at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: (1) Early Childhood Coordinator less salary for new coordinator at lower pay rate $73,335.82 less cost for HIPPY training and EPSF training 40,000.00 (estimate) $33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 (2) HIPPY Supervisor position $24.220.76 $56,706.58 4G. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of a merger of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will be persons who believe the District has too many administrators and that the District can \"streamline\" its operations and become more efficient. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the uniqueness and complexity of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program requires the attention of an administration assigned exclusively to each program. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 1. 2. 3. ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE RESPONSIBLE PERSON Identify administrative option Make reassignments Identify appropriate inservice needs 05/23/96 07/01/96 05/23/96 Superintendent/ Board of Directors Director of Human Resources Director of Staff Development 5COORDINATOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESPONSIBILITIES '^'^t IJ i\u0026gt;i- i. ^^HWS 8i1 I a SUPERVISOR OF HIPPY PROGRAM 4X0^ MOO\u0026gt;3!\u0026lt;f: U2r'  W. i** I?' iS*:) Xi WttO Ml?Mi\nil- i..s., iS#! BUSINESS CASE EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOLI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WPS~4 Page I Little Rock Alternative School 800 Apperson Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Business Case Expansion of the Alternative School to Include High School Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Analysis of Alternatives I 1 Recommendations Objective Impact Analysis Resources Analysis Typical Schedule General Implementation Plan|.RSI)-PR( )P-7 WPS-1.3/96 Page 2 Executive Summary\nThe Little Rock School District's alternative school serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the district. There is no alternative school for elementary- or senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention . \" The Little Rock School District's alternative school has had a capacity of sixty students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today we can serve seventy-two students in grades 7, 8, and 9 This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff. Eight certified teachers assigned twelve students each for five periods and one planning period can serve seventy-two students plus a class of self-contained special education students. With the eleven classrooms presently in use, six classrooms available for future use, each certified teacher having one planning period per day, and a maximum student-teacher ratio of twelve students per class the maximum num.b er ofr' s.t udents_ _abLIle. to be s-e-r-v-e-d- aott rosnnae. bhiutnnHdrrae/d4 rpieprrcrepnntt cmanpaarciittyv uw/onunlldd hbee sveevveenwtyO^-- tivo junior hieh, five special etlucation. and sixt)-ft\u0026gt;ur senior hieh for a total of one hundred thirty-seven Considerations\nStudents who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an-a-b-n--o-r-m---a-l- -a-m--o--u-n--t- -o--f- e--a-ch school's resources Stuaents who are disruptive in the reuular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students, who are not successful at the regular school setting, will improve the educational outcomes of both the alternative school student and the regular school students Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility at Apperson 1 Modify the junior high school program to include the same number of students but from the middle level (grades 6, 7, and 8) and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (crades 9, 10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from seventy-two students to one-hundred forty-one students 3. Expand services to the senior students by having one half day classes and a supervised career program for jobs the other half of the day. In that way, capacity could be increased by sixty-four more 1/2 rime students. Z Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campus's could be Ish Elementary School and Metro or other unused buildings owned by the school district. Expanding the alternative services to include elementary programs (grades 1 through 5) Expanding the alternative services by creating alternative classrooms at each regular school. Recommendation Due to the critical need for alternative services to include elementary and senior high children and the limitations in the budget and fimding, I recommend an immediate expansion of the alternative program by including four semor high grade classes with a school-job/work-study prograin. This would incr^se the maximum capacitv of the facilitv to serve about sixth-four senior high school students in a work-study program. This recommendation would require an immediate search for four qu^ified teachers, one instructional aide, and one qualified work-study supervisor. This expansion is the least expensive of the other alternatives due to the ability to expand without an increase in admimstrative support. Further expansion, beyond this recommendation, would require additional admimstrative support, such as, attendance secretary, instructional aids, security officer, and assistant pnncipa LRSl)-PR()P-7 WPS-i/S/96 Page ? Positive: Negative: Personnel: Impact Analysis Better support for junior and senior high school students' specialized needs Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Increased budget and funding required for teachers salaries. Increased funding required for classroom furniture. Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school. Resources Analysis 1) Four teachers (Secondary English/History/Math/Science) 2) One Work-study supervisor 3) One instructional aide 4.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE bI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WPS-l/3/96 Page 4 Background\nThe Tri-County Alternative School began approximately three years prior to the opening of the Little Rock Alternative School, \"Alternative Learning Center.\" Late tn the 1990-91 school year Ms. Othello Faison became the first principal. During April 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring evaluated the alternative schools of each of the three districts in Pulaski County. Their findings included: \"To develop and provide sound and effective alternative education programs. . . (each district) should understand what the term 'alternative education' means. Dr. Raymond Mosely, a consultant with the Iowa Department of Education stated, ------------J---------------\" There are many alternative education is a perspective, not a procedure or program. other ways to become educated. There are other types of environments and structures. Teaching strategies, expectations, services, and programs must contribute to increase the chances for academic achievement. Alternative schools include magnet schools, vocational schools, and other continuation schools. Continuation schools are those that provide another option for the dropout, potential dropout, suspended student, and other students who are not successful at the regular school setting. These schools are expected to provide less competitiveness and more individualized strategies. The typical reasons to assign students to an alternative school include: ** **  * ** excessive absenteeism failure or retention ** ** ** poor grades low math and reading scores low self-esteem suspension feelings of rejection, isolation, insecurity, or alienation lack of motivation ** lack of cooperation ** The alternative school is nontraditional by nature. Intervention strategies are in flux. Learning styles and modes must be reevaluated often. The alternative constant flux. Learning styles ana moaes musi uc iccvaiuaitu uiivu, school staff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is unique and requires Dr. Kenneth Clark, A noted expert on at-risk students, reminds us that specialized care. 1----------------------- . . our future society depends on our ability to break the cycle of nsk. Experts agree that there is often resistance to institutional change\nhowever, it is just that change that can bring us closer to the answers. The Little Rock School District's alternative school serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the district. There is no alternative school for elementory or senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (Apnl 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention . . . If The Little Rock School District's alternative school has had a capacity of sixty students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today we can serve seventy-two students in grades 7, 8, and 9. This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff. Eight certified teachers assigned ttvelve students each forI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WTS-t/3/% Page: 5 five periods and one planning period can serve seventy-two students plus a class of self- contained special education students. The facility at Apperson Street has twenty-four classrooms, a library, and a cafetorium. Several of the classrooms are used for other purposes. Room Number Rooms 1 to 4 Rooms 5 and 6 Rooms 7 and 8 Room 9 Room 10 Room 11 Room 12 Room 13 Room 14 Room 15 Room 16 Room 17 Room 18 Room 19 Room 20 Room 21 Room 22 Room 23 Room 24 Purpose__________ Classrooms Security Offices Main Office Level Zero English Reading/Custodian Computer Room Math Social studies Science Health Ninth Grade Class Teachers' Lounge Hearing Office Special Education Orientation Woodshop Level One Weight Room Classroom Available Not Available Not Available In use In use Not available In use In use In use In use In use In use Not available Not available In use In use Available In use Available In use 1 1 1 1 1 1 Not avail Available 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Totals n 6 7 With the eleven classrooms presently in use, six classrooms available for future use, each certified teacher having one planning period per day, and a maximum studentteacher ratio of twelve students per class the maximum number of students able to be served at one hundred percent capacity would be iunivr high, .five special education, and xixty-four seni high for a total of one hundred (hirtv-seven (J4U Problem Definition: The number of students in our district junior and senior high schools requiring alternative services exceeds the maximum capacity of the seventy-two students presently being served at the alternative school due to faculty/staff limitations. Limits on budgets and funding restrict the district from maximum use of the alternative school. Considerations: Students who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an abnormal amount of each school s resources. Students who are disruptive in the regular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students, who are not successful at the regular school setting, will improve the educational outcomes of both the alternative school student and the regular school students.l.KSl)-PK()P-7 WPS-4/3/% Page 6 Analysis of Alternatives: In order to serve the required number of students who qualify for alternative school services, expansion of the present program is necessary to include sixth grade and senior high school. Expansion can be achieved in several ways. ** Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility' at Apperson Street. 1. Modify the junior high school program to include the same number of students but from the middle level (grades 6, 7, and 8) and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (grades 9,10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from seventy-two students to one-hundred forty-one students. 3. Expand services to the senior students by having one half day classes and a supervised career program for jobs the other half of the day. In that way, capacity could be increased by sixty-four more 1/2 time students. ** Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campus's could be Ish Elementary School and Metro or other unused buildings owned by the school district. Expanding the alternative services to include elementary programs (grades 1 ** through 5). Expanding the alternative services by creating alternative classrooms at each regular school. Recommendations: Due to the critical need for alternative services to include elementary' and senior high children and the limitations in the budget and funding, 1 recommend an immediate expansion of the alternative program by including four senior high grade classes with a school-job/work-study program. This would increase the maximum capacity of the facility to serve about sixth-four senior high school students in a work-study program. This recommendation would require an immediate search for four qualified teachers, one instructional aide, and one qualified work-study supervisor. This expansion is the least ive of the other alternatives due to the ability to expand without an increase in expensive ot the other aitemarives uuc lu me auu.ij uv -------- 77 administrative support. Further expansion, beyond this recommendation, would require additional administrative support, such as, attendance secretary, instructional aids. security officer, and assistant principal. Objective: to According to the desegregation program description, \"The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides the support (academic, educational, and social) necessary to students so that students can return to their regular school setting and function effectively. The student population at ALC consists of \"at-nsk youngsters those who are at compulsory attendance age and are experiencing difficulties m school because ofLRSI)-PR( \u0026gt;P-7 WPS-J/.V96 Page 7 poor attendance, or other dysfunctional situations which seriously impede the student's objective is to insure alternative educational services are II ability to succeed.,\" our aiiemauvc cuuoauunai ativiwo available for all students who are in need of services. Therefore, our goal is to AOThave to turn down students who need our services and are recommended for services by the junior or senior high principals and the Little Rock School District Alternative Screening Committee. ** Goal: To provide an appropriate educational environment for senior high students who are not having success at the regular classroom setting aM have been recommended by their principal and the LRSD Alternative Screening Committee for alternative services. ** Evaluation Criteria: Report bi-weekly student enrollment by grade level, race. and gender w'ith a comparative analysis between enrollments prior to this expansion and enrollments after this expansion. **jExpectedBenefits: Additional students will be offered alternative services hi^^ificipals will be able to devote more attention to the educational Junior^hign principals will be able to devote more attention to me eaucaiionai improvements at their schools instead of the management of the disruptions, interruptions, and frustrations caused by the at-risk children who are now being served by the alternative school. Teachers will be able to provide better services for the remaining students without the pressures and frustrations of interruptive and disruptive behaviors. Impact Analysis: Positive: ** ** ** ** ** Negative: ** ** Better support for junior and senior high school students specialized needs. Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Increased budget and funding required for teachers salaries. Increased funding required for classroom furniture. Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school. Resources Analysis: Personnel: Furniture\n1) Four teachers (Secondar\u0026gt;' English/History/Math/Science)4.0 FTE 2) One Work-study supervisor  0 FTE 3) One instructional aide FTE 1) Classrooms 1,2, 3, and 4. Ten student desks and one teacher's desk for each room. One round table with four chairs for each room. One booth style desk and chair for each room for time out. 2j Media Center: Nine round tables and fortt' chairs.I,RS1)-PR( )P-7 WPS-J3M. Page K FURNITURE TOTALS STUDENT DESKS 40 RND TABLES 13 CHAIRS 56 BOOTHS TEACH DESK 4 4 Resources: 1) Books\nOne teacher's editions of each subject, each grade level (12). One classroom set for each subject (32). 3) Copy machine Available for high school staffs use. TYPICAL SCHEDULE Class Anive land? 3and4 Study Lunch 1 and2 3and4 Study/End lOA lOB 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 IOC lOD 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 1 lA 1 IB 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 12A 12B 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 General Implementation Plan: Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Approval of Proposal Immediate School Board 2. Advertise for Personnel 4 Secondary Teachers 1 Instructional Aide 1 Work-Study Supervisor April 96 Human Resources 3. Order Furniture and Resource Materials May 96 Procurement 4. Paint Classrooms and Prepare for Class June 96 Plant Services 5. Interviews Complete July 96 Principal 6. Personnel in Place August 96 Human Resources 7. Evaluation of Proposal Objectives Quarterly 1996-97 Principal BUSINESS CASE INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSUBJECT: COST CUTTING PROPOSAL FISCAL YEAR 1996 Introduction - It is recommended that the following be considered as a cost cutting measure to be implemented in the budget process and subsequently the 1996 budget. Proposal - It is proposed that the Instructional Resource Center, presently located in the Parkin Building at 6th and Ringo, be relocated to Ish Elementary School during the summer of 1996. Background - Lee School at Ringo in 1993. The Instructional Resource Center was relocated from 12 th and Cedar to the Parkin Building at 6th and This was due to the deteriorated condition of the Parkin Building is leased by the Little Rock Lee School. The Parkin Buildxng is leasec ny one School District for an amaual rental of $88,800.00 per year utilities and parking. The present lease is for 24,000 square feet - -   feet is offxce space and the of which approximately 13,000_square yATPa4n4Tig 11,000 square feet xs  unfinished warehousing space. Ish Elementary School became vacant in until a final decision was reached by the courts, school presently houses the relocated chxldren 1993 and remained vacant The elementary from Chicot ii^meZtaSy S^ool, but it is anticipated that they will vacate t^t space in March of 1996. regard to Ish Elementary School. No future plans have been developed with Requests have been received from at xeaso iive (5) different agScies desiring to occupy the Ish Elem^tary School. Each of these esencies ale sot Little Both Scbool_Distritt ag^ties^and ]Lease either part or all of the building. It is would desire to lease this building at an ___________ hopes that the Little Rock School District would absorb most of the operating costs. least five the Ish Elementary School. have requested to anticipated that they extremely low rate in Problem Definition assist the Little It is - The problem is to institute measures that will Rock School District in cutting its operating costs in 1996 and future years. - There are basically two (2) alternatives Analysis of Center\n1) allow . the to remain in its present location. with regard to the Instructional Resource Center If we were to select this alternatxve, the present operating cost This expected to be $127,112.00. the rental of additional for 1996 for the Parkin Lease xs 1995 rental of $88,800.00, and the estxmated utilxty costs of is based on the ---- $35^000 00 ^^It ie howevS^ anticipated that the rent may go up by $35,000.00. It xs, nowepercent in 1996. While the Center located at 6 th and Ringo is It ie, as much as three While the Instructional Resource convenient to the general operation of the Little Rock SchoolPage Two Continued District, the annual cost of over $127,000.00 may not warrant its remaining in that facility\n2) relocating the Instructional Resource Center to Little Rock School District space. The recommendation to relocate the Instructional Resource Center to a building presently owned by the Little Rock School District is to the rental cost presently incurred by the The operating cost of Ish Elementary School _ the in space. principally offset DXStZSrXCtZa Vxxc     -----------  last two (2) years has only averaged. $16,000.00 for utilities. Maintenance costs have averaged approximately $24,000.00 per With an anticipated cost next year of Ish at approximately $40,000.00, it would appear save as much $87,000.00 next year. However, there would be a one time cost associated with the relocation to cover such items as moving costs, rewiring of the facility for to include packaging and relocation, computers telephone relocation. Reconrnendation - Instructional Resource Center Elementary School. operating Ish to It is recommended that the District relocate the from the Parkin Building to Ish The Parkin Building is approximately 24,000 square feet. Elementary School, although subdivided into rooms, tc_^_r Ish totals 31,800 In addition, parking without the additional lease is ______ J A a square feet. -------- . . - . approximately the same at both locations.  parking lot during meetings and in Little Rock School District owns While Ish However, consideration to expanding the service instruction can be done, as ----- ------- 17 immediately adjacent to Ish Clementa^\nJchool^ Elementary School may not appear to be^ as^ r _ property centrally located as the piSZn Balding, trav^l ti^oughout Little Rock to this facility _ 25 minutes from any location make it easily reachable within 20 in the City. Estimating the one time cost least give us year and a savings of _ _ These monies of approximately $35,000.00 would at approximately $50,000.00 savings during the first approxiiuduc eon.non.00 in. 'approximately of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 in future years. operational short falls. could be used to offset current Objective - The objective of this proposal is_two.fold. reduce the operating costs^of decreasing its overhead presently owned by the Little future plans have been developed. The objective 1) To the Little Rock School District by and 2) by better utilizing space that is Rock School District for which no made to retaining the presence of the in the community surrounding Ish Consideration must also be^ Thi^^building has been constantly occupied Elementary School-------recently became vacant during the This since the middle ^^50's School'. The relocation of the construction of King Eiemenuairy t-he facilitv in October children from Chicot Elementary School into the facility in October the building occupiec. of 1993 has again made School. The permanentPage Three Continued relocation into this facility of the Instructional Resource Center positive step by the surrounding would most assuredly be seen as a . the local government as being an ----- cne loccxx future plans for its closed community and ---- _ Rock school District to have Little facilities. Analysis The Ish Ipproiimateiy'vToOO square feet larger a. M A I K^fiOlXZ initiative of the Elementary School Facility is than the facility presently The ability for t-ViA Instructional Resource Center. ... . -------d- xsh Elementary School will not them to tneir----------------------*n isn j subdivided into in any y =^.,^P:yi?^aiSatiorin sl^ent^Tr School. The Classrooms as this was by the additional 7,000 square subdivision of rooms will be f_ y instructional Resource feet Which will allow .JjTw at all he coSined in the sane he need as a school huildins in the being used by 1 conduct their operations in in any way be subdivided into The future. Resource Analysis There is no specific items with regard to that present staffing of the Kesourcf^ r identify staiimg o- resource ly- ^Vtrict wouS be^responsible for the relocation Little Rock School District School to Chicot School children from Chicot ^,.^.nt relocation June of 1996. of both the----------- upon its completion in March i- Instructional Resource Center in of the Implementation Plan January, 1996 month so as to - A tentative time line follows: A tentative decision must be made this 'proceed with preliminary planning. J . During this period of time we would February and March building, plan the the Instructional Center ... determine how complete the move and allow personnel to they can operate During the building, plan the Resource look at their organization in the new facility. * -n iQQfi - During this period of time, April, 1996 - During finalize that we would prepare During it is hopeful we and any contracts necessary to support the move. May, 1996 anything materials telephones in May, we we would make the placement of orders for _ we woux aeeomplish the move, such as necessary support computers and \"'^^o.lble'conotru^ction. Additionally and any ci cut intent the Parkin Building. would make to for support construction. not to renew would make the lease atPage Four Continued 1996 - It is anticipated that upon June, 1396 - It xs  the school that the Instructional Resource the closure of Center would Ish Elementary School, completed within a one month period. move to This move can easily be DCE/apl/ccpircBUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING OF COURIER SERVICESBH BUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING MAIL COURIER SERVICE CURRENTLY HANDLED BY THE PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Procurement and Materials Management Department currently has a mail and courier service section consisting of two vehicles and two drivers. Intra-district mail is collected and sorted daily for next day delivery. In addition, correspondence going to out-of-district destinations is picked up daily and metered at the central administration building for deposit to the main U.S. Postal Office the same day. Limited, on call special delivery, pick up, and messenger service is also provided as time and available vehicle cargo space allow, as well as video distribution and A/V equipment pick up and delivery for Media/Library Services. The intent of this business case is to determine the efficiency and/or economy of continuing this service in-house versus outsourcing the service to a private company. This analysis is in response to a request by the LRSD Board for potential areas of savings that could be realized by the District. There are only two alternatives considered: One alternative is to do nothing and continue performing the service in-house. This alternative is not recommended because of the increasing overhead costs each year in terms of labor (salary and benefits) and equipment maintenance expenses. The other alternative is to contract with a private provider of this type service and take advantage of the savings available due to the efficiencies inherent in a contract with a firm that specializes in this work. This outsourcing alternative is recommended. The only negative aspect is the displacement of two employees, one of whom has indicated that he will be leaving the District soon anyway. The savings by adopting this recommendation are two (2) FTEs in the Procurement Department and approximately $43, 700 each year starting with the first annual contract. 1 April 26, 1996A. BACKGROUND The Procurement Department has provided the internal mail distribution and courier service for the District since 1964. Up until 1987, this was accomplished with one employee and one mail van. In order to maintain the same level of daily service, an additional driver and van were added after the 1987 annexation. At this time the two couriers deliver and pick up mail/distribution each day at each District facility plus ODM, State Department of Education and the CTA offices. In addition to mail items, they also pick up and deliver, as space on the van allows, media related equipment and videos for the Library Services office. The feasibility of outsourcing this service to a private contractor was investigated on a couple of occasions in years past but never seriously considered. Previously, there was essentially only one courier service operating in Little Rock (SunBelt). Also, the savings achieved by contracting out were not very significant during previous evaluations. The District is searching for areas in which economies can be achieved. Contracting with a private courier company can result in a savings while maintaining a satisfactory level of service. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Districts current financial situation places a responsibility on all departments to operate as efficiently and cost effectively as possible to provide required services at an acceptable level. The mail courier service currently provided in-house has been at an acceptable performance level, however, the cost for this service is excessive when compared to having a private company perform the same work. There are now numerous established private companies in the Little Rock area that provide mail courier service, and a substantial savings opportunity is possible. The costs associated with performing this fimction have escalated in recent years due to the overhead of owmng and operating vehicles dedicated to a single purpose and the salaries paid the employees performing this task. Both employees have performed satisfactorily over the years but this longevity has resulted in salary increases that represent compensation considerably greater than what a private company would pay for the same work. The vehicles currently being used for this service are: 1) a 1988 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 138,825 miles and 2) a 1993 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 49,000 miles. If the in-house mail service is to continue, a new van will need to be purchased to replace the 1988 van as it has had numerous mechanical problems over the past two years. The estimated cost to replace this van is $17,000. 2If the District were to choose outsourcing, two FTEs would be eliminated. One employee is graduating from college in May and is expected to leave the District. The other employee has been with the District for eight years and would be offered an option to accept another position within the District in accordance with policy. In addition, the warehouse manager devotes roughly 1/3 of his time to helping with the mail courier effort. As a result of outsourcing, this would free him to handle other warehouse management responsibilities. However, the warehouse manager would be required to coordinate and supervise the activities of the contracted service provider. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES These alternatives were generated during 1996-97 Support Services staff budget meetings where possible areas of saving were discussed. There are only two alternatives considered, (1) continue the services as is, or (2) contracting out. The Procurement Office also had preliminary discussions with a private company concerning the methods used by courier service companies and the associated costs. Alternatives 1. Continue providing the service in house: The level of service currently provided has worked relatively well for several years. The timing for a change is convenient in that one employee is anticipated to leave soon after receiving his college degree. The other employee, who also acts as the Assistant Warehouse Manager, would need to be placed in another comparable position, if possible. The current system is, of course, reasonably responsive to emergency or on-call courier requirements. However, some on-call deliveries could be eliminated with better scheduling and discipline. It is sometimes too easy to pick up the phone and call for an emergency pickup or delivery, rather than wait for the regular scheduled service. There is the tendency not to associate cost to those resources owned/operated in-house. The primary disadvantage for continuing the current service in-house is the associated annual cost to the District for providing the service: Both labor costs and the increasing expenses associated with owning and maintaining the mail vans, make outsourcing attractive from the standpoint of cost versus benefits derived from providing this routine service. The dollars below reflect 1995-96 annualized cost: Salaries (current including benefits for two employees) Vehicle Maintenance and Depreciation Fuel Vehicle Insurance (premium cost plus average one claim per year) Mail Handling Supplies TOTAL $69,128 5,806 5,159 2,260 1.275 $83.628 This alternative is least desirable in that this administrative function can be accomplished more economically by contracting out to a private courier service. 32. Outsourcing the service to a private company: The level of service would be expected to be at or better than currently received. In addition, a private contractor could provide: a. More flexibility fEfFiciency) by furnishing more personnel and vehicles during the busy school year and less during the summer. Vehicles are radio-equipped and could be reached at all times to expeditiously handle emergency or on-call requirements. b. Reduced management (Efficiency \u0026amp; Economy)- The District would be required only to monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day to day activities, allowing the Supply Center Manager to expend more time on his Supply Center Management responsibilities, thereby eliminating the need for an Assistant Warehouse Manager. (One of the mail drivers fills in at this position part time or as needed.) c The same service at a lower cost (Economy) by providing necessary personnel, vehicles, insurance, and management to meet the requirements of the District. The efficiencies inherent to a company whose existence depends upon fast, courteous service, are evident when comparing outsourcing against performing this function in-house. Cost estimates obtained fi'om a local company currently providing service to the City of Little Rock for the past six years were obtained and are estimated based on the delivery service presently performed by the District couriers: Monthly Charge for daily pickup and delivery to schools including handling of U.S. postal mail Per Delivery rate for extra deliveries over and above routine service Assuming the District has a requirement for 25 additional deliveries per month the annualized cost would be ($7 rate x 25 avg. deliveries x 12 months) Annualized cost for routine service ($3,150 x 12 months) Total expected annualized outsourcing cost $3,150 $7 per delivery $2,100 37,800 $39,900 D. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the District outsource the mail/courier service currently provided by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. The expected annual cost savings of $43,728 ($83,628 - $39,900) is the primary consideration. 4E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to help the District reduce costs while assuring the same and/or better level of service currently provided. The efficient and cost effective delivery/mailing of intemal/extemal correspondence is essential to the operations of the District. Implementation of this recommendation supports LRSD Goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The successful contractors performance will be evaluated annually by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. Some of the criteria used in this assessment will be: 1. 2. 3. School/Dept. satisfaction as measured by the number of complaints received. Timeliness of extra service deliveries. Response time to District requests. 4. Adherence to cost as stated in the contractors proposal. 5 Reduction in LRSD management involvement in daily mail operations. The expected benefits of this recommendation will be an immediate cost savings realized by the district in current and future years. In addition, the level of service will be equal to or better than that cunently provided. The recipients of these benefits will be all District schools/departments. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The positive impact of this recommendation will be the cost savings and reduced management time required. The negative impact will be employee reaction to outsourcing and the resulting displacement of one employee. Implementation of this plan will not impact the desegregation plan g.r .court orders, There should be no disruption of service during transitioning to a contracted courier service. The recent outsourcing efforts by the District in other areas should not adversely affect the implementation of this recommendation in that it involves only minimal employee impact. Any potential negative reaction in converting to a contracted courier service can be minimized by careful coordination and implementation of the change-over. There is no nsLto the District if this recommendation is not accepted. The Procurement Department will continue the service in-house. 5Timins: It is recommended that an RFP be prepared with a contract awarded and service to begin July 1, 1996. The transition should not be difficult\nhowever, in order to reduce a hurried start-up by the successful contractor, a contract should be signed by June 15, 1996. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel The recommendation is expected to reduce the FTEs in the Procurement Department by two (2) positions. Financial A yearly savings of $43,728 is expected. The costs obtained from the contractor are conservative\ntherefore, actual savings could be greater. A Request for Proposal would be prepared by the Procurement Department. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be patrons and taxpayers of the District and the administration. Those most opposed to this recommendation will be the employees impacted and those generally opposed to outsourcing District services for whatever reason their personal agenda may dictate. L GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The following milestones for implementing this recommendation are suggested and will be monitored by the Director, Procurement and Materials Management: Milestone Date Business Case Approved April 1996 Respotisible Person LRSD CabinetZBoard Prepare RFP May 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposals Submitted May 15, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposal Evaluated May 22, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Award Made May 24, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Notice to Employees June 1, 1996 Hurley, Human Resources Director Contract Negotiated and Completed Contractor Begins Operations June 15, 1996 July 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Neal, Procurement Director 6BUSINESS :ase OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 1 Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Executive Summary The most expensive part of student transportation is transportation services for special needs students. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The intent of this business case is to explain the current issues confronting the district related to transporting special needs students. Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Over half (58%) of the buses in the fleet are over seven years old. Of the 18 lift buses in the fleet, 12 are over seven years old. These buses often have mechanical breakdowns which create problems in getting students to school or home in a timely manner. The recommendation of this business case is to outsource the system to a private contractor. The goal statement is\nTo provide special needs students with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the areas of safety and meeting the needs of individual students. The following is a list of criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented\n1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. 6. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 2 All students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond to student needs. The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions within the timelines of the law and contracts. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. At least $100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget for 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone_________________________________________ 1. Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2. Write request for proposal (RFP)__________________ 3. Steering committee review RFP____________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors________________ 5. RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted_______________________ 7, Proposals screened by steering committee___________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________ 9, Notice to employees_____________________________ 10, Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees_________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees_______________ 13. Inventory property________________ 14. Finalize contract__________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy__________________ 16. Complete initial bus routes __________________ 17. Retrain current employees_______________________ 18. Notify patrons_________________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment___________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Person Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal Williams Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor ContractorOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 4 Background: Current situation: Everything has a cost. The per student costs of transporting students with special needs are higher than for regular student transportation. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The number of medically fragile students is increasing because of the improvements in medical technology. It is impossible to meet the needs of individual children and have a very efficient program. Every attempt is made to serve special needs students in the least restrictive environment such as on the regular buses. At this time during the 1994-95 school year 395 special needs students and 60 Alternative Learning Center (ALC) students rode special needs buses. This year 450 students are currently assigned for special transportation. The district transports 40 students to the Arkansas Schools for the Blind and Deaf. Also, 80 ALC students are transported this year. The Districts special needs transportation operation was in the media on September 25, 1995 when a parent padlocked the gates to the bus terminal. Later that parent and other individuals filed a lawsuit against the district which included charges related to the transportation of special needs students. Even though the district s equipment and personnel meet all state and federal requirements, issues related to labor unrest, safety and poor service continue to plague the district concerning special needs transportation. The maintenance of the fleet is done by contract with Laidlaw Transit. Two mechanics are assigned to do routine and emergency service. Breakdowns continue to be a problem due to the age of the fleet. Background information: Prior to this year, the day-to-day operations of the regular transportation and special needs transportation were intermingled. There was no clear delineation of services and no clear way to determine actual costs by program. Special needs drivers and aides received very little specialized training. The 1995-96 state funding for transportation was based on the number of buses used and the number of students transported in 1994-95. At this time there is no money earmarked for transportation under the new formula. What had been used in the past was folded into the new formula. Of the $1,600,000 in regular transportation aid this year, only $36,000 was included for the increased costs related to transporting special needsOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 students. The district does receive funding from the settlement for all costs incurred for transportation related to the M-to-M and Magnet programs which is estimated to exceed 2.1 million dollars for 1995-96. s The laws and regulations impacting special needs students continue to change. The students Individual Education Plan (lEP) determines when the student is to be transported and if special accommodations are needed such as a monitor or aide assigned to assist the student. More options are available to students with lEPs and specialized service is often required such as transportation home at noon because the student is attending for a half day rather than the whole day. Problem Definition: Problem Statement: Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Considerations: The Districts financial situation places a strain on all departments to operate efficiently to provide the students with an acceptable level of service. Special needs transportation is more expensive than regular transportation. Specialized equipment is needed for medically fragile students. The district can contract with other agencies or parents to provide some of these services but not having the appropriate equipment is not an acceptable reason for not providing transportation if it is part of the students lEP. The Districts special needs fleet is aging. There are 52 buses of which 18 have lifts and locks for wheel chairs. Only five buses use diesel fuel. Year # of Buses # of Lifts 83 1 1 84 0 0 85 4 2 86 16 9 87 8 0 88 0 0 89 1 1 90 11 0 91 6 0 92 2 2 93 0 0 94 0 0 95 3 3 The district has used the following criteria for replacing buses in the past\nGasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds eight years of age or 120,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 160,000 miles at the beginning of any school year.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 6 Thirty buses are more than seven years old. It normally takes seven to eight months to get buses once the order is placed. If buses are ordered in April, they should arrive in December or January. Driver performance is another consideration. One of the concerns regularly expressed by drivers is the need for new equipment. Drivers are frustrated when their buses are not available due to mechanical problems and students can become confused when their bus is changed. Good equipment that is well maintained can contribute to improved service. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of administrators, parents, teachers, and drivers was formed in the fall of 1995 before the lawsuit was filed to work on solutions to perceived problems within the special needs section of the transportation department. The group identified the need for new buses and better training as solutions to most of the concerns. Identification: Alternative solutions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and training is not maintained when the staff has turnover. Follow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This is the most expensive alternative. The district would continue to manage the system. Buses would be replaced on schedule. This would impact the current and future budgets. Phase in the industry standards over a five year period of time. This alternative would have a modest cost and would lead to stabilizing costs over an extended period of time. The district would have more flexibility to respond to the changing state and federal laws as well as student needs. The district would continue to manage the system. Consolidate special needs transportation in all Pulaski County Districts. Getting an agreement on this would be a major challenge. Outsource the special needs transportation to another public agency. The local agencies that provide specialized transportation cannot meet the current community demands for services and do not have the resources and equipment to meet the districts transportation needs.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 7 6. Outsource the special needs transportation to a private concern. This alternative would provide cost containment and more recent equipment. The district would monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day-to-day activities of the system. Recommendation : Action recommended to address the problem: Outsource the special needs transportation system to a private concern. Rationale: The costs of special needs transportation continues to rise. Outsourcing can assist the District in containing the costs. Other factors include a reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lower driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance , and reduced vehicle accident rate will be realized. These improvements will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish more stable and reliable special needs transportation system for the future LRSD needs. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To provide special needs students with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. Goal support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows: Strategy 10 We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. Strategy 8 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. The safety of students on special needs buses is one of the major concerns of everyone. Providing appropriate transportation to enable students to access programs identified in each students lEP is a goal of the transportation department.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 8 Evaluation criteria: 1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed. Expected Benefits: The students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. Impact Analysis: Positives: 1. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs 2. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed. 7. Currently employed drivers/aides will maintain their jobs.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 9 Negatives: 1. Current employees may oppose change. 2. Some parents may express concern related to change. 3. At least four long time non-certified administrators will be displaced. Desegregation Plan: This recommendation has no impact on the Desegregation Plan. Court Orders: This recommendation addresses issues raised in the cunent lawsuit. Political factors: The union will likely oppose efforts to privatize the special needs transportation. Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond to student needs. The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing: It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 10 Resources Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. Financial Analysis: At least $ 100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget for 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Supporters of this proposal include administrators within the District and patrons because of the improved services for students. The Board of Directors and administration of the district are aware of the financial benefits to the district of this solution. Forces Against: Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers/aides/monitors who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 11 Implementation Plan: The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. _____________________Milestone____________________ 1. Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2, Write request for proposal (RFP)__________________ 3  Steering committee review RFP___________________ 4, RFP mailed to potential contractors________________ 5, RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted_____________________________ 7. Proposals screened by steering committee___________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________ 9. Notice to employees_____________________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees_________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees___________________ 13. Inventory property_____________________________ 14. Finalize contract_______________________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy__________________ 16. Complete initial bus routes_______________________ 11. Retrain current employees_______________________ 18. Notify patrons_________________________________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment___________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Person Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal Williams Hurley_______ Milhollen_____ Contractor Contractor Neal Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor Contractori BUSINESS CASE REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTSBUSINESS CASE SIX PERIOD DAY VERSUS SEVEN PERIOD DAYBUSINESS CASE STAGGERED STARTING TIMES( staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 Staggered Start Times Executive Summary: One of the budget cutting strategies used by many school districts across the United States is staggered opening and closing times. This strategy allows the same bus to pick up and deliver students to several schools instead of just one or two schools. Currently the elementary schools open at 7:50 A.M. and close at 2:35 P.M. and most secondary schools open at either 8:45 A.M. and 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. The intent of this business case is discuss the budget impact of staggering school starting and closing times. The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools. Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. The goal statement is\nTo increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the area of financial stability. The following is a list of criteria to be used to determine if the goal is met: 1. 2. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000.Staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 2 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone_______________________________ 1  Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 3  Notify public.__________________________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann Student Assignment, Principalsstaggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 3 Background: Current Situation: All Little Rock elementary schools are scheduled to begin at 7:50 A M. and close at 2:35 P.M. The junior highs are scheduled to begin at 8:45 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. The senior high schools are scheduled to begin at 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. except for Parkview and Metropolitan. Parkview opens at 8:41 A M. and closes at 3:45 P.M. Metropolitan opens at 8:40 A.M. and closes at 3:27 P.M. with student exchanges scheduled at lunchtime. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools. Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. Board policy EEAB states Insofar as educational requirements permit, school schedules will be adjusted to allow maximum utilization of each bus. More buses are required to support the elementary schools than the secondary schools. When there is less than 55 minutes between the opening and closing times of the two runs, it is difficult to match an elementary school with a secondary school for efficiency. During the 1995 -96 school year, Booker and Carver students were scheduled on the same buses. Once the bugs were resolved, this seems to work. If these schools had been routed separately, an additional six buses on the first run would have been required. Background information: When the district annexed the 14 county schools and went to the controlled choice student assignment plan, the transportation department grew to support the changes. A three run system (Each driver/bus had three different runs.) was initiated because of the limited number of buses available and the personnel costs involved in a two run system. As part of the desegregation plan, the district went back to a two run system. Each bus now has an elementary run and a secondary run. In many neighborhoods only one or two students are assigned to any one school and several buses enter the neighborhood. The district regularly receives complaints from patrons concerning the number of buses entering neighborhoods.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 4 Problem Definition: Problem statement: The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. Considerations: The number of buses that must be used to transport students to and from home is based on the guidelines, policies, practices and procedures established by the school district. Changes in the current parameters can result in savings or additional costs. The practice of every school having its own buses for regular transportation results in more buses being used than would be used if students from the same or nearby neighborhoods rode the same bus to different schools. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of drivers and administrators investigated this option during the 1994-95 school year and recommended that the Booker and Carver runs be combined to see if this option was feasible. This pilot reduced the number of buses needed by six. Identification: 1. Change nothing. The cost of student transportation for the 1996-97 will be as reflected in the initial budget. 2. Consolidate runs without changing opening/closing times. This may work with one or two schools but the savings would be limited. This would be a change from current practice. 3. Change opening/closing times and consolidate some runs. This would allow all possible consolidations to be considered. The savings for the District would be at least $267,000 to the proposed budget. Recommendation: Action Recommended: Alternative three should be selected for the 1996-97 school year. The savings of at least $267,000 can help to balance the districts budget.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 5 Rationale: The spacing of start times would allow students who are going to different schools to ride the same bus to and from the same neighborhood. This recommendation would result in better utilization of the buses. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. Goal Support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows\nStrategy 9 We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. If the cost of student transportation can be reduced by staggering the opening and closing times of schools, then the savings can be used to balance the budget with fewer cuts. Evaluation criteria: 1. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. 2. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. Expected Benefits: 1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required. Istaggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 6 Impact Analysis: Program: Negatives: 1. Fewer students within the two-mile walk zone will be given courtesy stops. 2. Teacher report times at different schools would vary. Teacher assignments between schools would need to be adjusted to be sure that instructional time is not lost. 3. Seat assignments and student behavior would require coordination among various school administrators. Positives: 1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required. Desegregation Plan: There is no impact on the desegregation plan because the transportation system is still a two run system. The staggered time allows more than one school to be served by one bus run. Court Orders: There are no court orders that this recommendation will impact. Political factors: Parents may be concerned about combining students from different schools on the same bus and the change in school times. These concerns can be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 7 Risks: The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000. Timing: The parents and staff need to be informed as soon as possible concerning changes in opening and closing time. This decision must be made by July 1 in order for bus routing to be completed by August 1. Resource Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional staff is required to implement this recommendation. The opening and closing times are a consideration when staff is shared between buildings. Financial Analysis: The implementation of this recommendation will reduce the transportation budget by $267,000. If this savings is projected over the five years the total will be $1,335,000. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Patrons who are concerned about the number of buses in the neighborhood, the Advisory Committee for Financial Stability, private day cares that pick up students after school, and the Director of Transportation will support this recommendation because it improves the efficient operations of the fleet. Forces Against: School personnel may be concerned about the change in time and its impact on their personal lives. Some parents may be concerned because students from other schools may be on the bus with their students.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 8 Implementation Plan: Milestone T 1 Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. 3. Notify public. ______________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann______ Student Assignment, PrincipalsBU -INESS CASE STI DENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE\nSTUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Student Assignment Office is presently located at the Cashion Building at 501 Sherman. It is approximately 6,418 square feet sitting on one This is a newly renovated facility and houses only the offices of the Associate (1) acre of land. Superintendent for Desegregation the of Student Assignment. Its separate from administrative functions lends itself to easy access by parents and students of and Office location all the Little Rock School District. The location across the street from the new Post Office makes it relatively easy to find within The building lacks for nothing, space is considered the City. _ _ adequate to meet the needs of their operation and the building appears to be well maintained. in the parking lot and along side streets. There is also a small area which can be considered for expansion of this facility should There is adequate parking the need arise. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION - We have been requested to look at the possibility of relocating Student Assignment and selling this building. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There are basically two alternatives: 1) relocate the facility. Leave the facility where it is and 2) (2) to ALTERNATIVE ONE - LEAVE THE FACILITY WHERE IT IS PRESENTLY LOCATED: This building was specifically purchased in 1989 and renovated in 1990 for the purposes of drawing together the functions necessary to support the student enrollment program. Portions of that program were previously located at the Administration Building\nhowever, due to the congestion and large volume of public traffic udeiii-d, it was determined that the facility would be The Cashion Building was purchased and renovated to In addition, we have recently completed to enroll students relocated. meet the Districts needs. The image of computer wiring project to update student services. the Cashion Building and the location of Student Assignment presents a very positive image of the Little Rock School District --- . with a Cashion Building and the with new parents enrolling their students in our program, regard to selling the building, there are no guarantees that the building will sell at a cost that would be beneficial to the Little Rock School District. Our estimated renovation $550,000 dollars for that building, which included the purchase of the building and surrounding lands, means that we would have to sell the building for over $500,000 dollars just to recoup our original cost in 1990. Allowing for depreciation of the building, it is estimated that the cnn nnn t\"n aonroximatelv $400,000 dollars but, I $500,000 could be reduced to approximately $400,000 dollars but, do not believe that this would be supported by any appraisal.To move Student Assignment and Desegregation without any long range plan to put them in a location that would better meet their operational needs is not a prudent consideration. However, it is considered an alternative for the purposes of this Business Case. ALTERNATIVE TWO RELOCATION: Determining the requirements of Student Assignments and their subsequent location within the City can began immediately if it is the desire to relocate that office. However, if the intended purpose is simply to relocate the Student Assignment Office in hopes of selling the facility for profit to subsidize our budget, without any thought whatsoever towards the cost incurred with relocating the facility, you can not present a true picture or viably weight the alternatives. time, At this point in since no requirements have been compiled with regard to Student Assignment and Desegregation and no preliminary plans have been made as to where this facility would relocate other than the possibility of a vacated school, comparison. it is difficult to make a cost 4. RECOMMENDATION\nIt is recommended that Student Assignment and the Office of Desegregation stay where they are presently located in the Cashion Building on Sherman Street. 5. OBJECTIVE\nfinancial one. The objective of this recommendation is purely a Because the new location is not known, the cost to relocate Student Assignments can not be determined at this time. Although, it is conceived that the relocation and renovation costs would, hopefully, not exceed the appraised or purchase price of that building, some cost savings could be realized\nhowever, it can not be accurately determined. Because of the need of Student Assignment to present a very positive image, is essential to the overall academic programs of the Little Rock its location School District. 6. IMPACT ANALYSIS\nThe most important concern should be the impact of the general educational program and the ability of the District to present a positive image to the public, our need to continue on a year round basis, with minimal interruption, our recruiting program and our requirement to meet the needs of the parents to enroll their children. is possible to relocate Student Assignment should the decision be made, these are Though it the impacts that must be weighed carefully. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nIt will. of course, be an impact on the staff due to relocation. It can not be ascertained whether the long term operational cost of a relocation would be more or less than the present costs that are presently incurred. true picture of the resources necessary to recommendation to relocate is not available. Therefore, a support the8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nA force field analysis has not been made\nhowever, it can be assumed that some people will object to relocating Student Assignment for the sake of relocating them so that the building can be sold. overcome by placing them. if possible. But, hopefully, that could be in a location which is better suited for the overall needs of the School District. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIf a decision is made to relocate Adult Education, occur this year. it would be further recommended that this not With the present turmoil that is expected this summer due to relocations of administrative and support staff, the additional move of the Student Assignment Office would have to be weighed carefully against the benefits. dce/apl/bcasesarBn BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION CENTER SKSnBusiness Case Truancy Reduction Center Program Executive Summary The LRSD Truancy Reduction Program opened for operation on November 1, 1993. Advocacy for the implementation of collaborative a from approach to school truancy reduction a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth services arose This group agency representatives, the LRPD and LRSD officials. developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867 of 1989) that authorized school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan. The collaborative, working with the LRSD Assistant Superintendent for secondary schools and the director of Pupil Services presented a proposal to the LRSD Board of Directors for its review and approval on October 28,1993. Approval was granted by the Board to A staff of three paid employees and a open the Center forthwith. pool of volunteers has operated the Truancy Reduction Center since its beginning in November, 1993. Effective January 4, 1994 the city of Little Rock passed nocturnal curfew ordinance restricting the presence of minors a on the streets. in public places or to be in or operate a vehicle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. \u0026amp; 5:00 a.ro. Sunday through Thursday or between 12:00 midnight \u0026amp; 5:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Monday through Friday. This Ordinance, number 16825, was amended January 3,_1995 to add a curfew for minors during normal school hours from 9:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Passage and enforcement of this ordinance has had a significant impact in reducing the number of children and youth being picked up for truancy this school year. Consequently, the need to continue to maintain the Truancy Center has been reduced. A. Background Prior to the amendment of the curfew ordinance effective January 17, rise. 17, 1995, the number of truants being picked-up by the LRPD and processed through the LRSD Truancy Reduction Center continued to _ The daytime curfew that makes it unlawful for school age children \u0026amp; youth to be on the streets or other public places during school hours has effectively reduced the number of youth being found on the streets between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. During its first year of operation, the Truancy Reduction Center processed 460 truant students. The Center staff saw a 21% increase during the 199495 school year with 580 truant students being brought to the Center. However, the passage of Ordinance number 16564 as amended in \u0026amp; fewer students are being found on the January, 1995, fewerstreets during school hours. During the first semester of the 1995-96 school year, the number of truants picked up dropped to 113 students. When compared with the first semester of the 1994-95 school year, we have had a 26% decrease in the number of truants processed. Because of the success of the curfew in reducing the presence of truants in public places during school hours, the need to operate a fully staffed Truancy Center has been eliminated. B. Problem Definition Three full time staff and a pool of volunteers have effectively and efficiently operated the Truancy Center since it opened on November 1, 1993. school aged students in January, With the enactment of the daytime curfew law for 1995, the average number of students processed has dropped to between five and six youngsters per week. With an annual budget of $45,915.26. and the dwindling number of students being processed, the operation is no longer cost effective, expenses, a Because of the need to cut the District's operational more cost effective method for achieving our goal of Three alternatives were considered. reducing truancy is needed. The first one is to reduce staff by 50% and reassign supervision of the Center to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security, alternative is to continue the Center's operation as is. The second The third alternative is to eliminate all paid staff and have truant students who are picked up by the police delivered directly to the schools to which they are assigned. This alternative would eliminate the need for a paid staff and the overhead for the operation of a central processing point. local schools would be receiving truants. The responsible for processing them, contacting parents and providing the required follow-up. C. Analysis of Alternatives 1. Alternative one would maintain the Center's operation with fewer budgeted positions. Personnel would include a secretary and one Truancy investigator. The coordinator's position, would be eliminated and those functions transferred to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security. Estimated costs for this option are as follows: Personnel FTE Salctrv/cost Truancy Officer 1 Secretary 15,500.00 9,000.00 1 (2)Supplies Office Supplies \u0026amp; Copy machine use 1,500 Vehicle Expenses Gas, oil, maintenance 1,500 Total Cost $27,500.00 2 . Alternative two would maintain the current three budgeted positions and operating budget as shown below: Personnel (Including Fringes) FTE Salctrv/cost Truancy Center Coordinator 1 $26,405.00 Security Guard 1 17,004.00 Bus Driver 1 10,000.00 Sub-Total 53,409.00 Purchased Services Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 900.00 Copier Rental 133.00 Telephone Service 4 lines @ $150.00 ea (installation fee one time charge) 600.00 Wiring/Jacks- Harper 606.00 Recurring Yearly Charges 7/1 to 9/30 (3 months) 23.50 X 4 lines = 94.00 94.00 X 3 months = 284.00 10/1 to 6/30 (9 months) 10.85 X 4 lines = 43.40 43.40 X 9 months = 390.00 Sub Total 2,913.00 Annual Cost 56,322.00 (3)in view of the District's need to reduce operational Clsarly^ Xn wx x------- -.c------ costs, with personnel costs driving around 75-80% of the total District budget, consideration of eliminating or restructuring the program to achieve its goals at a lowered financial burden is within the Districts' long-term best interest. Tc mzir.tin th status quo is not a fiscally responsible option at this time. To maintain the Alternative three would continue the collaboration with the 3. LRPD in picking up students, a centralized processing point with paid staff. The truants would be taken directly to the assigned schools by the police officer and turned over to a building administrator. A copy of the release form would be sent to Pupil Services as a way to continue to track Each local school would be responsible in but operate without having truants being picked up. for scheduling and documenting the follow-up parent conferences. This arrangement would eliminate expenses, personnel or otherwise, while maintaining a commitment to truancy all operational reduction. Recommended changes would become effective with the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. D. Recommendation It is recommended that alternative three be adopted as a cost This recommendation is cost efficient since no cutting measure. budgetary expenditures are required. E. Objectives 1. To implement a cost effective procedure for compliance with Arkansas compulsory attendance laws. To reduce personnel and operational expenditures for Truancy Reduction by eliminating manpower operation. intensive 2. F. Impact Analysis the partnership with the LRPD in truancy prevention will be continued and the only change is in the reduction of operational expenses, no negative impact is foreseen. Tiffing A final decision of the Center's operation should be made in a timely manner so as to notify staff within contract negotiated timelines. Political Factors Closure of the Center may be perceived by commitment to truancy reduction. some as a lessened (4)G. Resource Analysis (1) Personnel required. Analysis: No personnel expenditures (2) Financial Analysis: be removed from 1996-97 LRSD budget. Operational expenditures would Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation are those charged ...... - ------------'-I future with budget reduction responsibilities for 1996-97 and in years. Detractors to the recommendation may be citizen groups who They supported the Truancy Center's operation form its inception. may perceive this move as a sign of the District lessening its commitment to truancy reduction. as I. General Implementation Plan (1) May, 1996 - Notify Truancy Center personnel of changes in programs operation for the 1996-97 school year. (2) Inform Truancy Steering Committee \u0026amp; Little Rock Police Department of program's redirection. (3) Move appropriate. furnishings and supplies to storage as (5)\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_p15728coll3_22573","title":"Dana Duncan individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Duncan, Dana"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-03-10"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Dana Duncan.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African American--History--Arkansas","African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Dana Duncan individual file"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/22573"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_386","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan''","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":["1996-03"],"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 integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan''"],"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/386"],"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":["32 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\nDr. Edward Kelly, superintendent\nLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Dr. Edward Kelly, Superintendent March, 1986 LRSD Board of Directors Herb Yarbrough, President Willie D. Bill Hamilton, Vice-president Ruth D. Shepherd, Secretary Robin R. Armstrong Thomas Broughton David E. Cockcroft Fay SouthernI. Introduction II. Racial Equity TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 4 A. B. C. D. E. F. Scope ................................................. Student Assignments ...................... Transportation ............................... Implementation ............................... Operating Procedures for Student Assignments ..................................... Staff Assignments ......................... 5 7 10 11 13 15 III. Educational Equity 20 IV. V. VI. I A. B. C. 0. E. F. G. H. I. School Organization and Grade Structure .. 22 The Instructional Program ............................. 22 Special Schools and Programs ................ Equity in the Educational Program .... Co-curricular Activities ...................... Parent Involvement in the Education of Their Children ........................................... Preparing for Change ............................... Staff Development ..................................... Linkages ...................................................... Organizational Equity A. B. C. 0. E. F. Governance ............................................... Administrative Reorganization .......... Job Descriptions for the Reorganized School District ..................................... School-Based Management ..................... Parent Involvement ............................... Monitoring and Evaluation ................. Facilities Financing the Plan A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. General Consideration ........ Operating Revenue Reduction Additional Debt Service ... Office of Desegregation ... Transporation ....................... Magnet Schools ..................... Specialty Programs ............. Compensatory Programs ....... Cooperative Programs ......... Facilities ............................ 30 44 49 53 \u0026lt; 54 62 66 \u0026lt; 77 78 80 83 93 98\u0026lt; 101 104 108 109 no 111 111 112 113 113 114 115 ,115 i IVII. Summary 117 VIII. IX. A. B. C. D. E. Racial Equity ........... Educational Equity .. Organizational Equity Facilities ................. Finances ..................... Appendix A. B. C. Program Components: Compensatory Programs K-12 ................................. 118 120 123 126 127 129 130 Program Components: Enrichment Programs ..137 Program Components: Staff Development ....138 Attachment 1 i iTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR ACHIEVING QUALITY DESEGREGATED EDUCATION i 1 iI. INTRODUCTION -1- IThe purpose of this plan is to lay a foundation on which to build a fully desegregated public school system for the city of Little Rock. The plan has been designed with a view to ensuring that that system will be made racially unitary in all respects: governance. teaching, learning. and participation in co-curricular programs\nthat no school facility or program will be left racially identifiable\nthat all students will enjoy equal access to and equal treatment within educational programs\nthat full equality of educational opportunity will be extended to all black students, including the provision of compensatory and other educational support programs designed to both offset and countervail the historic ravages of racial discrimination\nthat burdens of transportation and relocation will be distributed equitably across all households and all school staff\nand that the resulting system will cooperate effectively with the adjacent districts of Pulaski County and North Little Rock to prevent the recurrence of interdistrict effects. In addition to laying a foundation on which to build a system with the above remedial features, this plan has been prepared so as to meet the following operating principles: 1. 2. This plan seeks to go beyond the goal of redistributing students and staff. It is also a plan for achieving educaI tional improvements of benefit to all students but critical for the attainment of the goal of equal educational opportunities for black students. Each school within the system will be affected in generally similar ways\nno school will be exempt or go unchanged. -2-0 . This plan proposes solutions to the challenge of fiscal workability by resolving issues inherent in the transfer of school facilities and attendance areas from the county to the city system and by detailing needed changes in types and amounts of state funding. 4. This plan aims at clarity of understanding for patrons as well as staff and students who should be able to learn from it where pupils will be assigned\nwhat the grade structures, feeder patterns, and subdistricts or areas are 5. to be\nand how the system will change over time. This plan proposes an approach that will stabilize the system wherever possible within the broad purpose of desegregation. -3-II. RACIAL EQUITY -4-I A. SCOPE Desegregation does not simply mean the idea of racial balance in the assignment of students and staff. Desegregation is more fully defined in the Introduction to this plan. Here, the application of that definition to the issue of scope is examined. A public school system is mandated by the state to deliver educational and education-related services to students and patrons residing in the district the system hosts. There- fore, the first aspect of scope in relation to desegregation concerns the formulation of boundaries for the District and any boundaries within the District that affect school facilities and student and staff assignments. This plan is predicated upon the rationale presented in the decision of the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals for bounding the District of the Little Rock public schools so that the District is contiguous at all points with the boundaries of the city of Little Rock. That rationale asserts, and we agree, that the various purposes of intra-district and inter-district relief can be accomplished on this basis\nthat, barring consolidation. boundaries should be changed as minimally as possible on the three standing districts\nand that changing the Little Rock School District boundaries in order to make them coincide with the city's boundaries is consistent with changes that have taken place since 1972. The rationale is explicitly not one of redrawing boundaries so as to maximize the initial racial composition of any one, two, or three of the districts. It is not desirable or necessary to the fashioning of a fully desegregetive remedy to use the tool of boundary drawing so as to allocate black students to the County district and white students to the city. Once the -5- remedial potentialities of county-wide consolidation have beer set aside, the redistributive balancing of residential populations by race cannot then be sequestered for manipulation in and of itself. Finally, by making the Little Rock School District boundaries contiguous with the city, future processes of city annexation will have further consequences for desegregation in themselves, as would efforts to desegregate housing in the county. Within the newly bounded Little Rock School District, we propose to develop a series of two student attendance zones. Both zones will contain roughly the same number of seats and the same number of students, and racial composition of Little Rock School District enrollments in each zone will be roughly comparable with the racial composition of Little Rock School District enrollments districtwide. The rationale for developing and maintaining these zones is to increase the workability of the remedial plan with respect to clustering transportation facilities and routes, reducing the time and distance between staffs, parents, and students within each zone, and improving public accountability for operations, and the effective delivery of educational services. Just as the boundaries of the Little Rock School District may change in the future as the city grows, so the zones may be modified to accommodate \"facility replacements and renovations and changes in housing patterns. This plan addresses the necessity of having equal representation from all segments of the community by using an election procedure which requires election to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors from single member districts. In -6-addition, this plan addresses the need to provide equal access to all staff positions. This plan includes strategies for achieving a ratio of fifty percent black and fifty percent white in all positions. I This plan proposes several ways in which the three districts can cooperate in order to enhance the desegregation of the District as well as improve the quality of education in all three districts. B. STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS The student assignment plan for the reorganized Little Rock School District will be the Controlled Choice Assignment Plan. The basis for this plan is the \"Student Attendance Zone. fl The District has been divided into two student attendance zones which are approximately equal in numbers of students, numbers of buildings and in racial balance. The map on page nine shows the two attendance zones, the number of schools, and the racial makeup of each zone. Using the parameters of racial equity and minimal busing distance, every student will be assigned to a particular build- ing. Each grade and building will reflect the racial balance of that particular grade level within that attendance zone. For example, each elementary school and each grade will reflect as closely as possible a black to white ratio of 64 percent to 36 percent. Each junior high will have a ratio of 54 percent black to 46 percent white student, and each high school will have a ratio of 45 percent black to 55 percent white students. In the District's proposed magnet schools students will be accepted according to specific application and acceptance -7-criteria. An seats shall be assigned based upon request. A specific number of seats in each of the magnet schools will be reserved for those students who live in the immediate neighborhood. The remaining seats will be divided among the three school districts based upon their student racial population in Pulaski County. If one district does not use all the seats reserved for their students, the remaining seats will be divided between the other two districts. If there is an oversubscrip- tion, a lottery will be held to determine which students will be admitted. The ratio between black and white students will be 5C-50 in the magnet schools. After the students are assigned to a particular school, the parents may request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. This plan proposes a deviation of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population within any particular school. Therefore, at the elementary level the acceptable range for any particular school will be one-eighth of 64 percent which produces a range of from 56 percent to 72 percent black students. Similar deviations at the junior and senior high schools will be allowed. If the parents request reassignment of their child and if this request will assist in the integration of a particular school or falls within the acceptable range, the request will be honored. All magnet school assignments will be based on the request of parents. Any student new to the District will be assigned to a school through the controlled choice method. Parents new to the District may request as many as three schools to which they would like their children assigned. Assignment will be based on the highest choice that meets the requirements of the plan. -8-\u0026lt;5 I I I o Highway 10 Interstate 30 Zone A 7,770 5,531 13,301 Zone B 7,376 5,653 13,029 STUDENTS____________ Black Other Total t Black 58' 57'.\n15,146 11,184 26,330 58' Number of Schools 25 27 52 c. TRANSPORTATION Transportation will be provided to all students who live more than two miles from the school they will attend. Original assignments will be made on the basis of racial equity and least distance in order to prevent any part of the community from sharing an unfair burden of the busing responsibility. Because of the controlled choice assignment method used to determine where students will attend school, a plan will be developed to have transportation available to all students. Transportation will.be provided for all after-school extracurricular activities. Although it is unlikely that each student will require transportation, we must plan to provide it. Such a contingency will require the District to increase its fleet by 251 buses and add the driving and support personnel to operate a fleet of this size. In addition, a new facility will be required to house. dispatch, and maintain such a fleet. The additional buses will cost approximately $6.3 million if purchased outright. If procured through a lease-purchase arrangement, a down-payment of about $1.6 million will be required plus four annual payments of the same amount. An adequate facility for a fleet of this size will cost about $1.1 million. The additional drivers required will cost around $1.7 million per year, and the support personnel will cost approximately $1.9 million annually. The additional fuel, parts. etc., will total about $1.7 million on a yearly basis. The first-year costs for the fleet will be $12.7 million if the buses are purchased or $8.0 million if the buses are leased. -10-D. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Office of Desegregation The Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation will be responsible for the implementation of the desegregation plan and will be part of the system's central admin- istration. The Office of Desegregation will be managed by a full time Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, who will report directly to the Superintendent and will have direct line responsibility to act on behalf of the Superintendent in all matters pertaining to student and faculty desegre- gation and all other elements of the plan. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will have a staff sufficient to ensure the efficient implementa- tion of the plan and will have line authority to delegate administrative responsibilities that bear directly on the effective implementation of the plan. The Office of Desegregation will include the Student Assignment Officers for the District. The Assignment Officers will have sole responsibility to make all final student assignment decisions in the Little Rock School District. Such assignments will be made in strict accor- dance with the pupil assignment policy and operating procedures of the plan and will be subject to periodic review and oversight by the Board of Directors. To ensure the integ- rity of the controlled choice method of assignment, a review process will be established within the Office of Desegregation to review assignments for errors and conformance to appropriate policies and procedures. -11-The Office of Desegregation will have an annual budget sufficient to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Office in accordance with the requirements of the plan. The budget must include funds for the full time employment of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Student Assignment Officers, and a Parent Coordinator plus three additional staff members and clerical staff. These funds must be part of the annual operating budget of the Little Rock School District. 2. Parent Choices The Office of Desegregation will assist all parents in the process of selecting appropriate schools within the con- straints imposed by this plan. Parents will be actively encouraged to visit schools before making their selections. and the staff of the Office of Desegregation will work directly with each school in the zone to coordinate parent visitations. School visits will be arranged during and after school hours, and parents will have direct access to teachers and principals in all schools. At least two weeks prior to the registration period, each school will conduct parent information meetings in the school. The Office of Desegregation will collect and disseminate information about each school option to all parents and school-age children in each zone. Brochures describing the educational offerings, services, programs, facilities, and teaching methods of each school will be developed. -1?-E. OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS The controlled choice assignment policy is designed to provide maximum choice for parents in selecting the schools their children will attend within the constraints imposed by available space, the requirements of racial desegregation, and the special programmatic needs of the children. It provides stability of assignment for children and, at the same time, a mechanism for adjusting the racial composition of schools, as needed, without unnecessary movement of students. It gives a priority in assign- ment to current residents of the District over late arrivals. 1. Year One Implementation During the first year of implementation, there will be one registration period for parents with school-age chil- dren. All students currently enrolled in the Little Rock School District during the year the plan is implemented will be assigned to a school within their student attendance zone established by this plan. All students enrolled in the system will be given their zone designations and a description of school offerings within their zone along with their school assignment. After parents have been notified of the schools to which their children have been assigned, they will have a period of one month in which to complete an application and rank order their three preferences for other schools within their attendance zones. No stated preference will be guaranteed, and all will be reviewed for their impact upon the student racial composition and enrollment size by grade of the schools in the zone. -13-Parents and students will have the opportunity to inspect other schools in their attendance zones if they wish. At the end of this period, parents will indicate if they wish to request reassignment by completing the appropriate form. Applications for school choices will be provided by the Office of Desegregation in a timely manner. Final school assignments will be made by the Student Assignment Officer following the end of the submission period for the assignment applications. Following the assignment of students currently enrolled in the Little Rock School District, all newly entering students will be assigned to schools under the provisions of the assignment policy. 2. Sibling Preference Parents who have more than one child enrolled in the District will be given preference in having their children 3. assigned to the same school at the appropriate level. Space Available Space available in a particular school will be defined according to the policy in effect concerning school capacity utilization and class size limitation. 4. Special Needs Any student requiring special education will be assigned to an appropriate school. Mainstreamed special needs students will have a preference to remain in the school in which they received special instruction. -14-5. Oversubscription K 1^ L Following the initial student assignments, if more students apply for a specific school than can be accommodated, a lottery will be held to assign the students to a school within the students' attendance zones in accordance with the desegregation plan. 6. Mandatory Assignment In the event that the Assignment Officer cannot accommodate a parent's initial school preference, a student will be assigned to the school which represents the parent's second choice (then third choice) which facilitates desegregation. Parents and students may elect to transfer to a differ- ent school than the one attended the previous year. All I transfer requests will be subject to the controlled choice assignment procedures. F. STAFF ASSIGNMENTS 1. Staff Redistribution The reorganized Little Rock School District should be staffed desegregatively according to two policy guidelines to be followed at all levels of staffing: Black staff will comprise at least one-half of all personnel in each position or job description and for I part-time as well as full-time employees. In any one location, from central office to school buildings, the staff ratios will comply with the order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows a deviation of one-fourth of the remedial guideline. Therefore, any school building or unit will not have less than 38 percent black staff or more than 62 percent. -15-The one-half standard for staff constitutes a reasonable compromise relating to the 58 percent black and the 42 percent white enrollment of the reorganized Little Rock School District. Also, this variation is based on the student enrollment variation recommended by the Court. This brings the staffing ratio within range of the enrollment ratio. Since the District now has a black certified staff of about 40 percent, a one-half black staff can be attained over a period of five years without terminating or dislocating current staff. The rationale for one-fourth of the remedial policy is based on the variation permitted in the racial composition of the students in the District. For example, the Eighth Circuit Court order suggested that a school district may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from the remedial policy guidelines in school enrollment by over or under-representing blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. Thus, to remedy existing staff inequities as reflected in the racial composition of the enrollment in the District, it is necessary to provide some flexibility. This flexibility is needed even though the Little Rock School District has a teaching staff that is 37.6 percent black and 62.4 percent non-black. Yet, it is also important to set a minimum variation in the racial composition of the staff for each school building or unit. The Little Rock School District will initiate an aggressive recruitment plan to meet staffing needs at all employment levels. The plan will extend recruitment efforts -16-for certified employees to out-of-state colleges and universities. The timetable set to fully implement the staffing remedial policy guideline is five years. When the plan is fully implemented, the Little Rock School District will have increased the number of employees in any one category that amount necessary to bring the percentage of the group to the desired level of black or white employment to have a one to one ratio in all levels of employment throughout the District. Over the five year period, black employees in each staffing category, will increase at least two percent per year. Because of possible demographic changes, the remedial policy guideline will be reviewed before the fifth year of implementation. The following table shows the present staffing ratios as well as the incremental changes planned for the five year period. I .. -17-PROJECTED BLACK EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGE CHANGES OVER FIVE YEAR PERIOD CATEGORY 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 CERTIFIED TEACHERS 38 41 44 47 49 50 ADMINISTRATORS 41 43 45 47 49 50 *NON CERTIFIED 56 55 54 53 52 50 Although the Black noncertified employees represent 56 percent of that category, some groups will need special attention to achieve the remedial guideline. -18-2. Staff Assignment Plan The success of a school system is dependent to a considerable extent on the collective performance of its staff. In these staff assignments, some care should be considered to provide for building level needs and to achieve remedial guidelines. Thus, it is important that staff be assigned to each school building according to need and with as much concern for success as possible. With this in mind, the staff assignment plan will at the same time be highly responsive to building and District needs and address remedial guidelines established to address staffing equity. The Associate Superintendent for Pupil and Staff Services, using data developed by the Director of Personnel, will formulate, in cooperation with building principals, the staffing needs of each school and identify the prospective personnel available to meet those needs. The Associate Superintendent for Pupil and Staff Services and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review staff assignments to facilities and programs on the basis of desegregative guidelines. The Associate Superintendents will cooperate closely in the work of recruiting black staff for positions at all levels in the District. -19-III. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY -20- BBThe problem to be remedied by school desegregation is not racial injustice in general\nit is racial injustice within the instructional design and service delivery system of public education. This section I of the District's plan describes new programs as well as modifications of existing programs and instructional practices which are necessary for full, equitable desegregation of Little Rock's public schools. While boundary changes, staff reassignments, and student reassignments are important and necessary to the achievement of quality desegregated education, they are in themselves insufficient to attain it. What is essential are excellent educational programs to which all students have equitable access, and sound instructional practices and procedures from which all students in the desegregated Little Rock School District can benefit. This section will propose such programs, along with practices and procedures which support and enhance them, and will thus lay a foundation for ensuring equal treatment, equal learning opportunity, and improved learning outcomes through the curriculum, the design and I organization of instruction, special schools, extracurricular pro- 1] grams, and community-school linkages. The educational equity proposed by the District is a beginning I point of assurance to students, parents, and citizens that the right to an opportunity for a quality education for every student is preserved. Equity within opportunity is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society and must be visible, evident, and operative in the schools of the desegregated school system. -21- A. SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND GRADE STRUCTURE Schools and school districts can be and are organized many different ways. The predominant patterns of organization for schools tend to be K-8, K-6-3-3, and K-5-3-4. In the Little Rock School District, each school will reflect a common grade structure which in a general way will characterize it as an elementary, a junior high, or a senior high school. Specifically, the common organizational pattern of schools will be K-6, 7-9, 10-12. This pattern is already partially in place in the District. Nine of the twenty-seven elementary schools in the District are K-6 while nine are K-3 and seven are K, 4-6. The remaining two schools, Booker (4-6) and Williams (1-6), do not presently have kindergarten classes but will do so when the desegregation plan is put into place. All of the elementary schools to become part of the Little Rock School District have a grade structure of 1-6. Kindergarten classes will be added to these schools when they are annexed to the Little Rock School District . At the secondary level all but one school are presently organized as 7-9 junior highs and 10-12 senior highs. The only exception is J.A. Fair which is a 7-12 school. It will become a B. senior high school. We believe that a K-6, 7-9, and 10-12 organizational pattern for schools will best meet the needs of the students in the Little Rock School District. THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM In the Little Rock School District each student will have access to an education appropriate to his or her needs and interests. Each school will provide common and specialized -22-I I II course offerings designed for this purpose, and each school will provide a curriculum which meets or exceeds state standards and regulations. Parents and students will know that their access to educational opportunity is not dependent on where they live or what school they attend but simply on the fact that they live the Little Rock School District. Differentiation in educational offerings, either subtle or obvious, can be odious, inequitable, and lead to large-scale community disgruntlement. It is imperative that equal and fair access to a comprehensive education be guaranteed to each student. To do less would mean that some students would be deprived of a right and an opportunity which should be accessible to all. At the elementary level, this means that all schools will comply with the educational standards of the state of Arkansas and will exceed them in at least two respects: 1) We will act affirma- Lively to eliminate the historically persistent effects of discrimination, and 2) where the Standards recommend 85 percent mastery on state competency tests, the District's standard will be 90 percent. A strong emphasis on mastery of basic skills will provide the foundation for learning in the Little Rock School District elementary program. However, other important areas of learning will also be clearly evident and may provide the basis for program specialization within each school discussed in Section C, pages 30-44. Schools will provide structured, planned learning activities which will enable students to develop healthy self-concepts, to understand and appreciate others, to use their accumulated knowledge to understand and interpret the world, to become self-directed learners, to become responsible, to be -23- creative, and to cope with change. Schools will also reflect the effectiveness characteristics as identified by Ronald R. Edmonds: 1. A pervasive and broadly understood school mission\n2. Monitoring of student achievement as a basis for program evaluation\n3. Teachers who clearly exhibit through their interactions with students the belief that all students can learn\n4. A safe and orderly school climate\nand 5. A principal who is the instructional leader of the school, one who pays particular attention to the quality of learning and teaching in the school. In addition to these five characteristics, a strong parent involvement component will be evident in Little Rock School District elementary schools. Within the standard of equity, there is room for appropriate school-level program specialization. Each school can and should provide specialized course offerings to meet the needs of its students. Special, identifying features of each school will be evident. Each school should be distinctive in its identity as a community of learning for both students and staff. Through its emphasis on mastery of basic skills, the Little Rock School District will continue to seek to remediate skills deficiencies evident in the learning of many minority students. To support its belief that sufficient \"time on task II will enable practically all students to master the basic curriculum, the District will establish reading and math intervention programs in its elementary schools. These compensatory programs will consist of pull-out laboratories, personalized classroom assistance by trained paraprofessionals, and \"extended day\" remedial programs -24-which will provide intensive instruction to students who have not mastered the basic skills. Two points should be made with regard to the District's emphasis on basic skills mastery. First, the term \"basic skills\" should be defined as a broad set of functional skills, not simply the \"3 R's. II Second, total mastery of the basic skills is not necessary as a prerequisite for learning to occur in other areas. Attainment of partial mastery enables the student to pursue other learnings, thus causing learning to occur in a spiraling fashion and providing increased motivation for mastering basic skills. Pursuit of learning in areas other than basic skills enables students to broaden their experience base, to construct meaning from these experiences, and consequently to apply their new insights to ever increasing levels of skills mastery. For students disadvantaged by the segregative effects of a non-unitary school system, this broadening and enriching of the experience base is a necessary prerequisite for learning. Consequently it must be an integral part of the basic instructional design for learning in all elementary schools in the Little Rock School District. One of the most important resources for providing these broadening and enriching experiences for our children will be the school library or media center. In the desegregated school District, a model already developed by Pulaski County Special School District will form the basis for library media services to I I students. This model provides for extension and enrichment of classroom learning through planned instructional units taught by the librarian which are an outgrowth of reading instruction provided by the classroom teacher. -25- In addition to an overall instructional program planned specifically to broaden and enhance learning for disadvantaged children within its elementary program, the District will also provide an early childhood education program to help offset educational deficiencies resulting from vestiges of segregation. The purpose of this program will be to prepare youngsters for school success through the development of basic academic readiness skills as well as interpersonal relations skills. The Early Prevention of School Failure model (now used in kindergarten in both the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District) will be used as a basis for the development of the pre-kindergarten curriculum. Other programs provided in the Little Rock School District elementary schools will also be structured so as to offset the segregative effects of a non-unitary school system. Black and non-black students will not be disproportionately enrolled in special programs. Black students will not fill special education classes, nor will non-black students fill classes for the gifted. In the Little Rock School District program for gifted and talented students, multiple identification criteria will be used to select students for the program. These criteria will reflect the six principles established by a panel of experts who participated in a U.S. Department of Education-sponsored research project on gifted and talented education\na. Advocacy. Identification should be designed in the best interests of all students. b. Defensibility. Procedures should be based on the best available research and recommendations. c. Equity. Procedures should guarantee that no one is -26-overlooked. The civil rights of students should be protected. Strategies should be outlined for identifying the disadvantaged gifted. d. Plural ism. The broadest defensible definition of 3, L giftedness should be used. e. Comprehensiveness. As many as possible gifted learners should be identified and served. I f. Pragmatism. Whenever possible, procedures should allow for the modification and use of tools and resources on I I, hand. The Little Rock School District presently provides a day j\nI hi care program for school age children which enables working parents to bring their children to school at 7 a.m. and pick them l' up at 5 p.m. The program is funded by parents. This program will be expanded in the desegregated Little Rock School District. Youngsters will have opportunities for enrichment activities, such as music, dance, and art, and will also have opportunities for tutoring, homework supervisions and assistance, and remedial help. While this program is presently supported by parents, the District proposes that a sliding scale\" fee system be estab- lished for parents who are unable to pay the full costs so that no children will be denied access to the kind of remedial learning or enrichment provided by this program. Summer programs for elementary students will also become part of the District's extended year program (referred to in the Appendix as Summer Learning Opportunities). Classes will provide remedial assistance as well as enrichment activities. Special effort will be made to provide remedial assistance to students who are expected to have difficulty achieving 90 percent mastery -27- H I \u0026gt;1on the Arkansas Minimum Skills tests at grades 3, 6, and 8. The \"sliding scale\" fee system v/ill also be utilized here for parents unable to pay full tuition for summer school. The District v/ill also provide extensive services in guidance, counseling, and social work for students. Through a comprehensive program of diagnosis and prescription, the learning needs of students will be carefully identified and addressed. The Appendix beginning on page 130 describes these and other compensatory programs in more detail. A review of the secondary instructional program in the Pulaski County Special School District indicates that the curricula of the two districts are different in some respects. For example, the Little Rock School District foreign language program is more comprehensive than that of the Pulaski County Special School District. In the area of science, each district offers some courses not offered by the other. The Little Rock School District will review the curricula of both districts and, gleaning from the best of each, will develop a comprehensive program that will meet the needs of all students in the desegregated school District. The content and scope of the curriculum will exceed the requirements of the Arkansas Standards. Specialization in educational programs at the secondary level will also be provided, but not at the expense of sound. comprehensive programs of basic instruction. Here, as in the elementary schools, parents and students must be assured that their access to educational opportunity and programs of educational excellence is not dependent on their assignment to a particular school but rather upon the fact that they reside in the Little Rock School District. -28-T An emphasis on basic skills mastery will also pervade the District's secondary schools. At the same time comprehensiveness I, II 'll I. and balance in general education programs will be evident. Further, in order to keep students from being negatively impacted by increased secondary school requirements, programs to compensate for educational deficits and enhance mastery of basic skills will be provided to students. The increase in academic requirements resulting from the t reform movement has caused concern to some educators who believe that the current emphasis on the school's function to transmit knowledge is diminishing its ability to fulfill its human devel- opment function. This is a particular problem for the minority disadvantaged students who all too frequently leave our schools with very little chance for success in life. In the newly organized District special attention will be given to the holistic development of students that is so crucial for successful adulthood. Secondary schools will be designed and staffed so as to enhance learning and its application to life experiences for our young people. In the secondary schools of the Little Rock School District, the following characteristics will be evident: 1. A sense of purpose and mission are evident. Consensus regarding school goals is evident among the staff. A II collective ideology\" pervades the school. 2. Expectations for student learning are clear and chal- lenging in a positive, supportive climate. 3. The curriculum is both balanced and comprehensive so as to address the needs of a diverse student body. -29- i. I i I I J 14. II Common Learnings\" have been developed for all students in the school. C. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A periodic review of the curriculum is built into the school's planning cycle. Ongoing programs of school based staff development are evident. A process of curriculum development (i.e., periodic redesign of the curriculum) is evident in each building. Opportunities for participation in extracurricular activities are evident and numerous. The principal is the obvious leader of the school. Comprehensive curricula at both elementary and secondary levels are the best means of ensuring equal distribution of stan- dardized, quality offerings across all schools in the District and providing for the diverse needs and interests of the stu- dents. A quality program for all students in the Little Rock School District will be the result. The annual cost of the compensatory programs discussed in this section is about $24 million dollars or approximately $2400 per student, small recompense for 300 years of victimization. More detailed information about specific compensatory programs is provided in the Appendix. SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS Within the standard of equity, there is room for appropriate school level program specialization. Each of the District's schools will become communities of learning with distinctive specialized programs to meet the particular needs of its students . In the newly organized Little Rock School District, -30-1 'it specialization will be addressed in two ways: through the creation of a limited number of magnet schools and through school-based specialty programs. 1 1. Magnet Schools 1 I I I In the 1983 study Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyzing a Model for Quality Integrated Education, authors Rolf Blank, Robert A. Dentler, et al., concluded that \"a magnet program can assist with improving urban education and increasing education options and choice.... (and) should be considered strongly as a model for excellence in urban education.\" The authors further stated, \"Magnet programs have also shown positive effects on urban education by reducing community conflict over desegregation and voluntarily desegregating target schools. Districtwide desegregation has been significantly advanced through magnet schools in some districts where they are a part of a larger desegregation plan.\" (This document is the Final Report of a National Study for the U. S. Department of Education, released in September, 1983.) As the centerpiece of its desegregation plan, the Little Rock School District proposes that its three existing magnet schools be continued, with slight modifications, and that five new magnets be added. This section describes the magnet school programs and outlines criteria for enrollment. The Carver Basic Skills School, K-6 At the site presently occupied by Carver Elementary School, a new magnet school facility will be constructed which will accommodate an enrollment of 600 students in grades K-6. The magnet program at Carver II -31- a. 1 I 1 1will be modeled after the program at the Williams Basic Skills Magnet, a highly successful program now in its fourth year of operation. The Carver Basic Skills School will stress traditional instruction in reading, b. writing. grammar. spelling. mathematics, social studies, science, fine arts, and physical education. Attendance, proper behavior, and acceptable dress will be emphasized. The school will accommodate those who work best in a structured environment within self-contained classrooms with strong teacher-directed instruction. Academic competition will be essential to the program. The school will also stress tradi- tional American values such as patriotism, responsibility, pride, and respect for self and others. Homework will be part of the school requirements, and parent participation in school activities will be required. To be eligible for academic promotion and/or continuation at the Carver Basic Skills School, students must master targeted skills and concepts at specified levels, spend required time each night on assigned homework, complete all assignments according to specified time frames and adhere to specific rules and regulations concerning social behavior and dress. The Williams Basic Skills School, K-6 Presently serving 433 students in the Little Rock School District in grades 1-6, Williams will continue to function as a magnet under the new desegregation plan. In order not to disrupt services for students already at Williams, enrollment opportunities for -32-I students in all three Districts will be provided in kindergarten and first grade classes during the first year of reorganization and continued for each subse- quent year until all grade levels are open to students from all three Districts. The addition of a kindergarten class at Williams will be a modification of the existing program. The kindergarten program will stress academic readiness, and youngsters will follow li i 1 hl I I I i I I i c. the same rules and regulations as other students at Williams. Gillam Continuous Progress School For many children the typical grade organization in most schools is not conducive to identifying and rectifying developmental learning problems nor is it i! Ss II\"! 'll 1' I' ,8 I'k I 1 I 1 I I  . I I I 11 i! effective in enabling students to progress rapidly from one learning level to another. The design of the ti\nGillam Continuous Progress School will enable teachers to assess and diagnose individual students' needs and 11 learning styles and to plan and design specifically tailored learning programs for them. Instruction will M' ivl ll I be designed so that children can progress at their own rate and according to their own style. The Mastery Learning Model will form the basis of instruction. Si II ( Students will participate frequently in large and small group activities that require cooperative effort in I\n'I achieving learning goals. Children in the Continuous I'' b h Progress School will experience neither promotion nor nonpromotion. Some students will be able to complete /111 I the seven-year program at Gillam in six years or less\n-33- Iothers may require eight or more. The primary goal, however, will be for students to exit the school with confidence in themselves and belief in their ability to be successful learners. The Continuous Progress Program will be helpful to youngsters whose styles of learning make it difficult for them to achieve at a maximum level in a traditional setting. d. Booker Arts Magnet, K-6 Presently serving 517 students in grades 4-6, the Booker Arts Magnet has also been very effective. Under the District's proposed desegregation plan, Booker will become a K-6 school and will continue as an Arts Magnet. Initiated in 1983, the school provides a program in which the arts are used as a means to teach basic skills as well as to enhance the curriculum. Personal expression through various art forms is encouraged, and students are given opportunities to work in various artistic media such as visual art. music, dance, theater, and crafts. Instructional strategies assist children, through art, to improve their ability to perceive and interpret. Developing performing arts is not a goal of the program, and there are not different entrance criteria required for enrollment. Services provided by certified teachers are augmented by artists-in-residence. Interdisciplinary studies are an integral part of the instructional design of the Booker Arts Magnet. -34-e. Mann Science Magnet School, 7-9 For three years the Mann Science Magnet has functioned f. as a II school within a school\" at Horace Mann Junior High School serving 300 of the school's total enrollment of 915 students. An intensive academic program in science and languages is provided. Students are required to complete two science courses each year. They may complete up to three years of German before going on to high school, and French and Spanish are also taught. Seventh grade students are required to take a course called Study Skills which emphasizes such topics as note-taking, the development of listening skills, test-taking skills, and library research skills. Students are required to complete one major scientific investigation each year culminating in a science fair each spring. Guest lecturers in science are a regular part of the program as are weekend camping events and extended day field trips. Under the Little Rock School District's desegregation plan. the Mann Science Magnet will extend to the entire school and will serve approximately 915 students. East Side Magnet for Visual and Performing Arts, 7-9 In order to continue a program of learning for junior high students who exhibit interest, talent, and ability in the visual and performing arts, a magnet school will be established at the East Side building located at Fourteenth and Scott. The East Side Arts Magnet will provide instruction in vocal and instrumental music. dance, visual arts, drama, and creative writing. -35- i! I) I' JI a II Sit I! I I I I I 1 I 11g. Courses in pottery, photography, ceramics, painting. dance, drawing, sculpture, and printmaking will be taught either at the school or at the nearby Arkansas Arts Center. Artists-in-residence will enrich and expand instruction. Interdisciplinary studies will be a vital part of the instructional design of the school. and the arts will be used as a means for enhancing instruction in basic content areas. Opportunities for youngsters to exhibit their work and to perform will be incorporated into the program. Music, art, and dance lessons for individual students will be taught as part of the Magnet's extended day program. Parkview School of Visual and Performing Arts, 10-12 A comprehensive program of visual and performing arts will be provided for high school students who exhibit interest, talent, and ability in these areas. The curriculum will be designed to develop students' potential as creators and workers within the various art disciplines and supporting vocations. Specialized studies in the arts combined with a solid academic program in basic and advanced curricula will provide excellent preparation for students who wish to pursue training at advanced institutions as well as those who wish to pursue professional careers following high school graduation. The goals for the school are: (1) to nurture inquiring minds in the pursuit of artistic interests\n(2) to provide a comprehensive academic program -36-( emphasizing the arts both as separate courses and as a means for enhancing instruction in other areas\n(3) to instruct students in an atmosphere conducive to the development of creative pursuits and critical thinking\nand (4) to address the relationship of the arts to academic training, vocational opportunities, and personal development. h. Central Senior Classical School, 10-12 At historic Central High School, a magnet program for senior high students will offer rigorous curricula in basic content areas, the humanities, and foreign languages. The school's foreign language department will provide for extensive study in French, Spanish, German, Latin, and Classical Greek. Students who have begun their foreign language study at the junior high level will be able to receive up to six years of instruction in at least two languages. Courses in the humanities will also be provided, as will courses in sociology and philosophy. At Central, academic competition will be stressed. Students will be given opportunities to pursue independent study and scien- ' I tific inquiry and research. Guest lecturers and scholars from the academic community will address students on current issues and events, philosophical issues, and critical social questions. i -37-2. Costs for Magnet Schools To ready the eight buildings for implementation of the respective magnet programs will require one-time expenditures of about $12.7 million for construction, renovation, and outfitting. The annual operating costs for the magnet programs will total about $14.1 million. 3. Enrollment Criteria for Magnet Schools In all magnet schools the racial composition will be fifty percent black and fifty percent non-black. A specific number of the seats in all magnet schools will be reserved for students who live in the shadow (neighborhood) of the school. Students from all three school districts may then apply for the remaining slots in the magnets. The slots allocated for each school district will be based on its student racial population. Selections will be made through a lottery. 4. Specialty Programs In the newly organized District, all schools will meet the needs of their student populations through special programs. Each school will host a distinctive program for its students, while at the same time maintaining a high standard of quality in its basic educational program. These distinctive programs will enhance each school and will be attractive features for parents to consider as they select the schools they would like for their children to attend. Some of the specialty programs are described below: a. Computer Science: Schools with this specialty will have fully equipped computer laboratories for use in -38-basic skills instruction, the development of critical thinking skills, and computer language instruction. b. Law and Government: Law education programs and oppor- tunities for students to participate actively in governmental processes will be the basic elements of this program. c. Outdoor Education: In this program the regular cur- riculum will be enriched and supplemented through H activities in the \"Outdoor Classroom. Students will learn through the discovery method and will develop skills in observation and investigation. Ecological and environmental issues and their relationship to quality of life will be explored as students develop aesthetic appreciation for the wonders of nature. d. World Studies: The study of languages and other 1 cultures and an increase in understanding and appreciation of the people of other cultures will be the basic elements of this specialty program. e. Economic Education: Schools with this program will I (\noffer students comprehensive instruction in economic education and finance through teacher-developed. I I interdisciplinary units of study, careers. Junior Achievement, Project Business, and Applied Economics. f. Community-Based Learning: Through this program stu- dents will study careers and serve \"internships\" in local businesses, industries, and service agencies. Community service projects will be a part of this program and a number of service hours will be required of students each year. -39-g. High-Tech Program: This program will offer senior high students a laboratory program with a \"high tech\" flavor. The goals will be to develop student compe- tence in scientific and technical applications, skill in the use of standard laboratory techniques, familiarity with the instrumentation of science, and skill in the use of the scientific method to investigate h. selected problems. Vocational-Technical Career Preparation Program: Students will receive intensive training in vocational courses through enrollment at Metropolitan and in their home schools. Intensive skill development will be stressed and career guidance will be provided. Speech, Drama, and Writing Center: Focusing on \"commu- nications arts,\" schools with this program will provide opportunities for students to write, speak, and per- form. A \"Speakers and Writers\" program will provide for presentation and critique of student work. Writers-in-Residence will assist students in the composing process and critique their work. j- Music and Art Center: This program will give students i. opportunities to explore their interests and develop their talents in music and art. Opportunities for individual music and art lessons will be provided for students in this program. k. Physical Development Center: This program will give students opportunities to develop skill in physical activities and creative movement. Various lifetime sports such as golf, archery, swimming, tennis, and -40-riflery will be available to students. Individual ,1' competition and individual achievement will be stressed. I 5. 6. Mass Media\nIntensive training will be provided for aspiring print and broadcast journalists through this specialty program. Classes will include television. film production, journalism, and photography. These are descriptions of specialty programs which will be provided as a way to provide choices to parents in the selection of their child's school. Other specialty programs will be added in response to identified needs of the community, and these programs can be modified as necessary to serve more effectively the students and parents of the Little Rock School District. Costs for Specialty Programs This array of program enhancements will require an annual expenditure of approximately $2.1 million dollars over and above the regular operating costs of the schools in which they are sited. Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center Since 1965, Metropolitan has served students in central Arkansas as an area vocational-technical education center. For most of those years it has been underenrolled. The District has not taken advantage of the exceptional educational opportunities or met the exceptional needs presented by the diversified and expanding economy of the area. For instance, local planning data revealed projected labor demands for 735 workers in health occupations in 1983, yet only 3C students completed the very small health occupations -41- J i! i j. I I 1. t I ( I I I t  u1 course at Metropolitan Vocational-Technical School. The Little Rock-Pulaski County area is also a major transportation center for both rail and river transport\na center of government\na legal and financial center\na military center\nand, potentially, a high-technology center. Present vocational/career offerings at Metropolitan and area high schools do not adequately prepare students to enter these fields. Such lack of career training opportunities in the public schools is harmful for all students, as well as for the regional economy, but it is particularly damaging for black students, who typically suffer from grave inequities in employment opportunities. To correct this inequity, the District wi 11 establish highly specialized a vocational/technical school at its existing Metropolitan Vocational/Technical Education Center. High demand specialty vocational/technical programs will be concentrated at Metropolitan, supported by an academic curriculum for these specialty programs at Hall High School. The Metropolitan-Hall program will comprise the District's \"high tech\" specialty program. Such courses as Computer Programming, Computer Technology, Word Processing, Computer Aided Drafting, Computer Graphics, Printing Technology, and Electronics are among those which will be offered at Metropolitan. Although the Metropolitan-Hall program will become the District's high tech\" program, enrollment will not be limited to Hall students. Metropolitan's designation by the state as an area center means that it must serve students M from its geographic area. Under the District's new -42-E 1 7. desegregation plan an \"extended day\" program will enhance the accessibility of Metropolitan to students. Students from high schools throughout the District will be able to enroll in these courses. A pilot \"extended day\" program was initiated in January, 1986, with over 125 students choosing to take courses at Metropolitan from 3:00 to 5:00 p,m. each day. These students are coming from all three of the District's high schools. In sum. Metropolitan will become a center that attracts students of both races to high-interest vocational/technical programs. The District's comprehensive high schools should maintain vocational courses traditionally in keeping with a comprehensive curriculum. These courses will be withdrawn from Metropolitan to avoid excessive duplication of services and leave Metropolitan free to concentrate exclusively on highly specialized offerings. Program Specialization and the Issue of Equity The programs described here do not preclude spe- cialization in course offerings within schools or even between schools. However, differentiation in quality between schools (or specialization/differentiation in offerings that is extreme) is precluded. Equity suggests that parents and students can see the possibility of obtaining an education of equal quality in any of the schools within the District. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that each school in the District must afford its student the same level of opportunity for growth and development as any other school in the District, regardless of where it is -43- I I 1 I li I 1'. I I 1 I- I I I ID. located, which students populate it, and which programs characterize it. EQUITY IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM There are certain key areas of the educational program in which inequities are especially prone to occur unless care is taken to avoid and correct them. These in essence involve special challenges in balancing common and specialized offerings so that each student has access to education appropriate to meet his or her needs and interests. These will include grouping students for instruction\ncurricular focus\ndistribution of school staff and resources\ntesting practices\nstudent promotion policies\nand compensatory instruction and support for students having academic difficulty. Unless care is taken, these areas can become sources of grave inequity for black students. For instance, grouping practices can be used -- wittingly or unwittingly -- to re-segregate black students within schools and even to isolate them within racially mixed classrooms. Testing practices are often used to \"prove\" that such treatment is pedagogically necessary, while promotion policies compound the inequity by creating revolving doors for minorities out of desirable academic programs and services. Similarly, the curric- ular focus for black students may be \"different\" (e.g., less challenging and comprehensive) than for non-blacks, and compensa- tory/support services for students in academic difficulty -- who are often disproportionately black -- may be severely inadequate. The latter area is of special importance, for it is prima facie inequitable to fail to provide necessary remediation and support to students who have been socially and educationally deprived as a consequence of segregative practices, past or present. -44-The District's plan for a desegregated school district specifically addresses each of these areas of special programmatic concerns at elementary, junior high, and senior high levels. Issues and methods of ensuring equity are discussed below for each of these three school levels. I I I 1. Elementary (K-6): Students in the elementary grades will be grouped for instruction using techniques that will be flexible yet sound to ensure that instructional needs are met and that the goals of desegregation are facilitated. The core curriculum will be sufficiently narrow to allow the maximum amount of time necessary for instruction in reading. I.. 'p I k 1 language arts, math, and social studies in the primary grades. Science, music, and art will be added in the I I I I intermediate grades. All schools will be staffed based upon a predetermined teacher-pupil ratio which will meet or exceed the Arkansas state Standards. Each school will receive funds for supplies, equipment, and textbooks based upon a formula that will provide an equitable foundation across the Little Rock School District. Proficiency testing to measure academic progress and predetermined levels of mastery will be implemented in grades 3 and 6, consistent with the state Standards which call for this procedure. An established policy and regu- lations will be used to govern and to guide decisions for promotion. Social promotions will be discouraged. Support services will be provided to students in need of additional time to master instructional objectives. A telephone hotline and homework centers will operate after school and in the District's extended day program. -45- 'I I 1 ( I I I2. Federal and state dollars provided for compensatory education will be used to supplement the local efforts to fund education. The major priority will continue to be the improvement of reading and math skills in the elementary grades. Inservice training will continue, to the end of reducing and ultimately eliminating the need to pull participating youngsters out of established classrooms for remediation. A student record system will be utilized. The system will have the capability of generating data by child, by class, by school, by race, and by sex. Levels of student mastery from proficiency test results, as well as inventories on reading and math conducted by independent audi- tors, will complement the system. Such a system permits the principal, superintendent, and board an cppcrtunitj' to be informed regarding the major effect of the instructional program. All schools will be expected to be effective learning environments for all students. Each school will be expected to ensure that 90 percent of its regular students meet the required level of mastery in all subjects. Junior High (7-9): Two levels of instruction will be provided in the junior high school--regular for students who need to meet the expectations for grade-level performance. and honors for students who have evidenced success above the minimum-performance expectations. Heterogeneous grouping will be the primary practice of organizing students for learning. The curricular foci will be: language arts. social studies, math, science, physical education, health -46-i J education, practical arts, music, art, and career orien- tation. [ hl In the junior high school, the students' compe- tencies in these subject areas will be solidified. Also, i'J the setting will provide students an opportunity to experience the diversity and complexity of formal education. is 1 I Testing will be conducted for diagnostic purposes and measurement of academic achievement. At each grade level. j all students will be tested using a locally developed criterion-referenced test. The results of this test will I used be to diagnose instructional needs of students and to build prescriptions for learning. Consistent with state Standards, another test to be developed by the state Department of Education will be used to measure achievement in grade 8 in order to help assess readiness for promotion to grade 9. Students who do not achieve a passing score will not be promoted to grade 9. As a strategem to maintain and improve school holding power, 10-20 percent of seventh grade students who show early signs of possible failure will be identified for participation in a specially designed guidance project. All students will have access to the homework hotline, homework centers, summer school, and tutors to assist them in meeting the academic requirements of the District. Special educa- I) I\" r i tion and related services will be available as the need is determined. All schools will be expected to be effective learning I i I 1 I I environments for all students. Each school will be expected to ensure that 90 percent of its students will meet the required level of mastery in all subjects. -d7_ 1,3. Senior High (10-12): The experiences in the senior high schools will be organized to build upon those provided at the elementary and junior high school levels. Focus and sense of purpose will be pervasive characteristics of the climate. Two levels of instruction will provided: regular and honors. These will not be academic tracks to which any student is destined to stay for his/her entire school experience but rather beginning placements that best match the instructional needs that have been determined by observation, classroom performance, and standardized tests. Further, it is not necessary for a student whose placement is honors English or honors math to enroll in all honors courses as would be required in an academic tracking system. Under our method students who demonstrate a high level of ability in one subject but less ability in another will be able to enroll in courses appropriate for their needs. Schools will develop goals and plans for closing gaps in academic performance between races of students. A monitoring system will be established to audit the implementation of these goals and plans to determine their effectiveness . Parents will be involved in a substantive manner in the planning of student schedules and helping to determine the scope and depth of their academic pursuits. Periodic conferences will be held. Computer-generated reports regarding attendance, behavior, and academic performance will be provided. Specialized guidance activities and peer tutoring will be used in an effort to hold the students in school and to help them succeed. -48-The 90 percent standard for achievement will also be implemented at the high school level. Also, the 10-20 percent of a school's student body showing signs of failure will be identified and will participate in special projects designed to prevent them from dropping out or being \"pushed out\" of school. Academic standards will be the major criterion for par- ticipation in extra- and co-curricular activities. A reasonable but challenging standard that is inclusive will be used. To graduate, each student will successfully earn at least 20 units of credit. E. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES Co-curricular activities in schools have taken on an importance nearly equal to that of the academic curriculum. Prior to this century, little attention was given to student activities. but today parents and students expect their school to provide a broad-based, co-curricular program. According to the American College Testing Survey of 1977, II The single most common characteristic among successful people is that they were involved in student activities at school.\" Organized student activities are a vital component of the student's training and preparation for participation in a democratic form of government. Co-curricular activities include: student government. student publications, drama, music, academic and service clubs. sports, intramurals, cheerleading, school assemblies, and other special-interest groups. The student body, local community. faculty, and administration would determine the need for these and other activities, but they are provided to meet the multiple -49-needs and interests students bring to school and expect to have met. The primary goal of a co-curricular program should be to involve all students. Exclusion of any student or group of students from these activities could diminish their zest for school and block the possibility of having some of their impor- I tant needs and interests met. Moreover, since these clubs and organizations tend to function as small-scale democracies, those excluded would lose the opportunity of being inculcated with the fundamental norms and values of the larger society. To highlight the importance of co-curricular activities in the growth and development of young people, a composite of the objectives of such programs shows they are generally designed to help them: 0 Learn how to use constructively whatever unique talents and skills they may have\n0 Develop new vocational and recreational interests and skills\n0 Develop a more positive attitude toward the value of avocational and recreational activities\n0 Increase knowledge and skill in functioning as a leader and/or member of a group\n0 Develop a more positive attitude toward school through participation based on free choice. Problems of major proportions have developed in desegregating school districts because co-curricular activities remained the exclusive preserve of white students although student reassignment procedures desegregated the student population in other ways. In most of these instances, school officials have -50-T contended that there was no segregative intent on their part, and that traditional election or selection procedures rendered the results. There certainly is no equity, however, in results that exclude students who qualify for participation but cannot join in because of traditional procedures they had no part in establish- 'I ing. Procedures must be established which ensure that each student has a fair and equitable opportunity to engage in co-curricular activities. Color blindness cannot be an option. Such an option usually speaks to oper elections, but such would be folly and would greatly disadvantage most -- if not all -- minority students because of their low percentage of participation in relationship to majority students. Initially, procedures for participation in co-curricular activities must be designed to guarantee proportional involvement i\n I of minority students. Race, thus, becomes a criterion for membership in clubs and organizations just as it is for student assignment in the schools and the reorganization of the District. The same equity imperative prevails here. It is consistent with the whole desegregation reorganization process. Operationally, this means a set of procedures which reserves slots for minority student participants in proportion to their membership in the school. For example, if in a given school 40 percent of the student population is black, then 40 percent of the band would be black. The same would be true of all clubs and organizations connected with the school. Unclaimed slots, if I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 any, would at a designated time be released and made available to the general student body. Over time, there could be a gradual relaxation of the II reserve slot\" rule as students and staff -51- Jmembers become fully acquainted and the school demonstrates it has the ability to establish and foster equity in its co-curricular program. Not all co-curricular groups should be expected to yield racially balanced student members under this remedial policy. The aim of the policy is not racial balance\nit is to remedy at all points the effects of racially biased opportunities for program participation. Some groups will evolve very different mixes based on year-to-year variations in interests and abil- ities. Others have participation criteria that are based solely on objective criteria of a technical or academic nature. Each school must operate the bulk of its co-curricular activities in a way that gives extra encouragement to black students, however, until such time as programmatic conditions have been truly co-equalized. We expect this will take the average school about three years to accomplish. One of the barriers to participation in co-curricular activities has to do with lack of access to transportation after school hours. To overcome this barrier, after-school transportation will be provided for students on an as-needed basis to ensure that all students can participate in extracurricular programs. In this area so vital to student life and conduct, the school has an affirmative duty to make certain that each student has an opportunity for full participation. Where students are reluctant, they should be encouraged. Where students are fearful, they should have their doubts removed. Where students feel unwanted, they should be made to feel welcome. Nothing can replace the affirmative efforts of faculty and administrators in -52- T I I I IF. assuring that each student becomes an integral part of the school and its activities. PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN It is clear from the research that the learning resources in the homes of students can significantly affect their achievement in school. Parent encouragement and support of students are also significantly related to student motivation and achievement. Further, parents can have a large impact on student learning through providing direct assistance in the instructional process at home. The need to develop programs to involve parents in the education of their children is particularly important in the Little Rock School District where large numbers of students are not only disadvantaged but also come from homes where many parents have themselves been educated in a racially dual system. Research findings also indicate that home-based reinforcement programs and the direct involvement of parents in their children's education result in more effective compensatory educational programs. Consequently, the Little Rock School District will implement several strategies to increase parental involvement in schools and in home-supported educational activities for children. Among these will be staff development programs which will assist teachers, counselors, and administrators in eliciting support and involvement from parents and in providing them with strategies and guidance for working with their children at home. In addition, home-based reinforcement programs for students with chronic academic or behavioral problems will be established. Parents will be provided training to help their children cope with -53- Jdifficulties at school and to reinforce behavioral expectations and academic learning at home. 6. PREPARING FOR THE CHANGE The full desegregation of the Little Rock School District will require careful planning and preparation for change in three critical program areas if it is to succeed: 0 Reviewing and revising curriculum to include 0 0 multi-ethnic components\nEstablishing equality of educational opportunity with equity in educational outcomes\nand Designing and implementing appropriate staff develop- ment. These areas are often neglected in desegregation planning (and implementation). Such neglect seriously weakens the entire desegregation effort and contributes to the disenchantment and disaffection of parents, teachers, students, and administrators of all racial groups involved. Therefore, we include as part of this plan the equity standard of careful preparation for change in each of three areas as discussed below. 1 A Curriculum for Multi-Ethnic Inclusiveness What happens or does not happen after students are assigned and arrive makes the difference between legal and operational desegregation. Two critical elements in whether operational desegregation is achieved in schools are the curriculum and the readiness of teachers for desegregation. Teachers are an integral part of the curriculum. They breathe life into the paradigms, theories, and concepts which comprise the printed curriculum. Their knowledge -54-about cultural and ethnic diversity is a prerequisite to their instructional effectiveness and responsiveness to cultural differences in desegregated classrooms. Respect and appreciation for cultural differences derive from understanding, and real understanding is based upon valid information about the cultural patterns, values, habits, and experiences of different ethnic groups. The United States and Little Rock are multi-ethnic. multi-cultural, and multi-racial, and the curriculum components of the schools will reflect this diversity. Several approaches can be taken to reach this goal. Some have suggested that modifications be made in the instructional program which follow these guidelines: a. Review present curriculum materials and replace mate- rial that does not respond to the perspectives of minorities. b. Evaluate curriculum materials to determine that material relating to minority and majority groups is presented in a manner that is integrated from a logical, conceptual, and societal point of view. Specific units on the desegregation of the Little Rock School District will be developed and incorporated into the social studies curriculum for junior and senior high students. These units will address the history of desegregation in this community, the reason for the design of the current plan, and its significance to students everywhere. c. Review potential multi-ethnic curriculum materials to identify cultural assumptions, biases, and stereotypes. -55-J d. Create and take advantage of opportunities for instruc- tional projects that involve minority and majority students working together in situations that deal openli' with race and that reinforce equal status and mutual respect. Others have suggested that teachers should be helped to develop repertoires for diversified multi-ethnic teaching examples. Examples, anecdotes, analogies, and vignettes can be used to increase educational relevance by relating academic abstractions to daily living. Teachers whose instructional examples are comprised of anecdotal illustrations from many different ethnic experiences are effective advocates of cultural pluralism. They are living examples of culturally pluralistic functioning. We assert that the curriculum in the desegregated school District must not be mono-cultural. The racial end ethnic make-up of the District should influence the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial components which are integral parts of the curriculum in all the schools. 2. Equity in Educational Outcomes A recent report. Taking Education's Pulse, which reflects the results of the 13th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools, indicated that only 60 percent of blacks (as opposed to 82 percent of whites) feel that they are given equal educational opportunities . It appears that equity in education is chimerical in the perception of 40 percent of the black population. -56-Research demonstrates that equality of educational opportunity with equity in educational outcomes does not just happen. Planning and program construction, with equity as a goal, must precede the possibility of achieving equal- ity of educational opportunity. IJ I Racial discrimination clearly persists in any school -- even one which claims to be desegregated -- where black students are suspended or expelled more frequently 11 ,1 than non-blacks\nwhere teachers become divided racially and conflict rather than cooperate with one another\nwhere 90 percent or more of the students assigned to special education or basic skills classes are black\nwhere ability grouping or tracking results in racial isolation\nwhere black student withdrawal rates exceed the average\nor where black students are not encouraged to take advantage of college or job-market opportunities. All or some of these indications of continuing racism crop up whenever planning. implementation, and monitoring are deficient. We are concerned with school outcomes which show that a full measure of equity is accorded all students who attend the desegregated schools in the Little Rock School District. ' i' ,1 !  1 1' The following eight principles shall serve as the guideposts to help these schools and this District ensure that equity outcomes are both possible and probable. The principles are\nStudents are assured that they are able to aspire to every adult role in the community and that no restrictions according to race obtain in these roles. -57- Ji a. I I ? I I I h I 5I 3. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Students are taught by teachers who have been trained to teach in integrated schools. Teachers are dedicated to the principle of integrated education and regard service in integrated schools as a career and not a stepping-stone to mono-racial schools. Every child in the school is given access to his/her full measure of the instructional resources of the school. Racial fairness fully obtains in grading and disci-pline. Co-curricular activities affirmatively involve many children and youth at every level\nrace or ethnicity are never factors which preclude this involvement. There is open and easy access to the services of the guidance program. Students are guaranteed the right to an education in an atmosphere free of debilitating rhetoric and publicity. Cooperative Programs Cooperation among the three districts has occurred informally for many years. The opportunity now presented to participate in recognized cooperative ventures can only strengthen each district's ability to provide an equitable. effective educational program for its students. The Little Rock School District proposes that a formal structure for cooperative program development and the delivery of services be established and that the Magnet Review Committee mandated by the Eighth Circuit Court be established as part of this comprehensive, cooperative effort. -58- a. The LRSD-PCSSD-NLRSD Educational Cooperative In order to prevent the recurrence of interdistrict segregative effects within the three districts of Pulaski County, the Little Rock School District proposes the establishment of an educational cooperative modeled after the fifteen other regional coopera- tives funded by the state. The state has funded fifteen regional educational cooperatives to provide services to local districts within identified geographic areas. Staff development, distribution of audiovisual resources, \"teacher center\" activities, and purchasing are among the services provided by the cooperatives. The Little Rock School District proposes that a cooperative be established for the three districts in Pulaski County in order that cooperative ventures can be explored. An Interdistrict Planning Committee, v/ith representatives from each district. wi 11 comprise the Board for the LRSD-PCSSD-NLRSD Cooperative. The Little Rock School District proposes that within the structure of the Cooperative, the three districts pursue the establishment of a single millage rate in Pulaski County and the joint development of proposals for special grant or project funds. Through Metroplan, common purchasing already exists. However, the District is eager to explore joint bidding procedures, to search for other ways to make joint purchasing procedures more efficient, and to explore the coordination of millage campaigns, marketing of revenue -59-I bonds, and comirion audit and accounting procedures. The District also proposes that joint operation of transportation and food services and personnel recruitment be seriously explored by the Cooperative Board. In order to facilitate interdistrict transfers, it will be necessary for the three districts to develop similar grade structures, grading, attendance, and discipline policies. These issues can also be addressed through the Cooperative Board. b. The Magnet Review Committee (1) Composition: The District proposes that the Magnet Review Committee reflect so far as possible the composition of the magnets themselves with regard to race and sex. Assuming that the race and sex composition of the magnets is fifty percent male and fifty percent female, as well as fifty percent black and fifty percent non-black. the appointments to the Magnet Review Committee should be as follows: Little Reck Black/Female Pulaski County Non-black/Male North Little Rock Black/Male Arkansas Department Nor-black/Female of Education Black/Male In this way both race and sex considerations are equitably considered in the composition of the Magnet Review Committee. -60-(2) Term of Office: It is proposed that the members draw for terms of two or three years and that three of the five members serve three year terms and two of the members serve two year terms. (3) Appointment: The governing Boards of the three districts and the state Department should appoint the members of the Magnet Review Committee, subject to the approval of the District Court. (4) Duties: The Magnet Review Committee's duties are described as selecting and recommending location of magnets to the district court and \"administering\" them, i.e., providing general oversight as to their effectiveness and recommending changes in location or program to the local districts and to the Court. In keeping with the Order of the Court the Committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the District Court, advising the Court as to the placement, design, program. and enrollment of magnet schools. Such advice will be the result of careful data gathering and hearings to ascertain community opinion. (5) Rules: The Committee will follow accepted parliamentary procedures in its deliberations. In the case of a three to two decision in issues to be presented to the Court, the two dissenting members shall write opinions explaining wherein they differ from the majority. -61-H. STAFF DEVELOPMENT We have alluded to the need for staff preparation for desegregation in a previous section. When teachers and administrators are assigned or reassigned to schools with heterogeneous rather then homogeneous student bodies, they are sometimes perplexed and do not know how to interact appropriately with their new students and colleagues. There are even times when teachers and administrators are infected with prejudice and racism, and these twin evils make them major problems in desegregated school settings because they are unable to interact. respond, and participate in a positive way with black students and colleagues. Evidence can be gleaned from desegregated school districts that desegregation is a workable and manageable change process if the staff is well prepared for it. \"Staff\" is interpreted to mean all of the employees of the school district, including administrators, teachers, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custo- dians, security workers, etc. Written and verbal reports from desegregated school districts such as Louisville, Kentucky\nWilmington, Delaware\nDayton and Columbus, Ohio\nNashville, Tennessee\nIndianapolis, Indiana\nand Milwaukee, Wisconsin, all confirm the crucial need to help school employees: 0 recognize the nature of the change taking place\n0 0 understand what new expectations are being placed upon them\ndevelop the skills and perspectives they need to function effectively in the new setting\nand 0 know that they have an affirmative duty to assure that all their behavior supports, rather than subverts, the -62-u desegregation process. A caveat burden rests on the shoulders of adult personnel, not students. Staff development in the Little Rock School District cannot be effective if it is designed to be a one-shot effort. To be effective, it must be carefully planned and continued over a period of time. It must address the varying stages of development and the individual needs and concerns of adult learners. With this in mind, we think that staff development activities should be comprised of three critical components\n1) a local focus\n2) concrete, goal-directed, on-going training\nand 3) on-site or adaptive planning with regular, frequent staff meetings. All school employees should be involved in staff development activities. They should have -- in addition to the three compo- nents above -- three distinct phases: 1) pre-desegregation activities\n2) transition-period activities\nand 3) sustained or continuing activities. Using one school as an example, the three-phase approach to staff development might take place as follows: 1. Pre-desegregation Activities Teachers should be given a thorough orientation to the total desegregation plan by the principal. In staffs newly formed in annexed schools, this orientation will be critical as a fundamental part of establishing the II culture\" and mission of the school. In magnet schools a. extensive staff training will be necessary to enable teachers and administrators to function at optimum effectiveness. -63-b. Mandatory workshops should be implemented to assess and deal with attitudes and more effective interactions with colleagues and students. c. The principal should mobilize resources for (a) group interaction and (b) orientation programs for staff, students, and parents. 2. d. e. f. g- The principal should meet with all staff persons and explain the implications of the desegregation plan for each job and person. The principal acts as a point of contact so that teachers have an immediate response to questions or can be referred to appropriate sources of information. The principal should attend workshops and participate in professional growth activities which will deal with communications, educational innovations, program implementation, and interpersonal relationships. Some of these will be provided through the District's Program for Effective Building Leadership (PEBL) which consists of preservice and inservice training for school administrators. The principal should maintain personal contact with staff, students, and community. Transition Period Activities a. The principal should establish ad hoc committees to: (a) assist with communication\n(b) deal with rumors\n(c) develop plans for crisis situations\nand (d) identify and solve problems. b. Mandatory workshops from pre-desegregation activities will be continued through PEBL and other District -64-c. 3. inservice programs to re-define immediate problems, ideas, and solutions. Teachers will receive training in such areas as learn- ing styles, implementing cooperative learning, effective instructional strategies in heterogeneous classrooms, implementing a multi-cultural curriculum. classroom management, and assertive discipline. Sustained or Continuing Activities e. Provision must be made for regular, mandatory orien- tation programs for new employees. b. Continuous staff development activities must be carried out related to: (a) instructional strategies and materials\n(b) learning styles\n(c) multi-cultural education\n(d) student-teacher relations\n(e) schoolparent relations\n(f) classroom management\nand (g) identified needs and problems. c. Committees made up of staff, students, and parents must be formed to continue to direct the efforts of the school toward successful, quality, integrated educa- tion, i.e.. continuous, on-the-spot professional d. e. growth. Provisions must be made for continuous development of activities to: (a) maintain or improve relationships with peers and staff\n(b) develop leadership\n(c) identify problems and seek assistance\nand (d) develop pride in self and school. Teachers will be required to enroll in a specified number of \"continuing education\" courses each year so that they can remain familiar with current trends and -65-issues as they affect teaching performance in a desegregated school setting. Design of such a program of staff development cannot wait. Rather, design and planning for this program must be one of the first agenda items for planning the implementation phase of desegregation. will be created. Therefore, a Staff Development Task Force This task force shall be given the mandate and resources to plan a comprehensive, districtwide program, and its activities should have preeminence and visibility so that all may understand that staff development is crucial to the success of this desegregation plan. I. LINKAGES 1. Community Linkages The reorganized Little Rock School District will maintain in some cases and develop in others many strong linkages with the non-school institutions and agencies of the city, the county, the state, and the nation. In the reorganized District, these linkages will be intensified. Stronger and better partnerships between the new school system, the metropolitan-area community, and the state will build public confidence, cooperation, parent participation. and faith in desegregation. The resulting assistance in improving the quality of public instruction will work to equalize access to improved opportunities for students. This section provides a revised inventory of those linkages. Unification of linkage activities will be part of the mandate of the Board and administration. -66-a. College Linkages There are two four-year institutions of higher education in Pulaski County that provide necessary support to public elementary and secondary education. One is Philander Smith College, a traditionally black institution, and the other is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the University of Arkansas System's metropolitan campus. Through the years. cooperation has occurred in program development and implementation with these institutions. These insti- tutions will be asked to provide assistance in desegregation workshops in the area of human relations skills and instructional strategies. The Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District will be invited to participate in these programs and activities. 0 In-service Training: The faculties of both 0 institutions have cooperated in training efforts impacting the District, including the Program for Effective Teaching. The reorganized District will move to formalize and structure these relationships so that all affected institutions will receive maximum benefits from resources fostering instructional improvement, better human relations. and greater parent participation. Advanced Degrees: The University offers advanced degrees in education. The University's adminis- tration and the administration of the reorganized District will implement a cooperative arrangement -67-so that the University Programs will address fully the instructional needs of a highly desegregated urban school district. b. Cultural Linkages After District reorganization, the Arts in Education Advisory Council must be expanded to include a more diverse membership. The membership will be expanded to provide representation from the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. The identified charge will be revised to widen responsibility for programs and services currently provided. Examples of these ser- vices include the Arkansas Arts Center and its subsidiary Children's Theatre, the Arkansas Opera Theatre, and the Arkansas Symphony. All appropriate schools. 2. including those in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District, will be beneficiaries of this expanded cultural link- age. These cooperative programs will also enhance desegregation and parent participation. Commercial and Industrial Linkages As a result of being located in the commercial center of the state, the District has capitalized on linkages with businesses, industries, and trade organizations. Some of those relationships and plans for extending them are as follows: Partners in Education: The Little Rock School District presently has a program in which businesses or organizations establish a helping relationship with specific -68- 00 schools. This program will be expanded to ensure that all schools in the reorganized District will have a partner. Also, through collaboration with the Pulaski County Special School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, an interdistrict approach to school/community partnerships will be developed to strengthen the relationship between the three districts and the Greater Little Rock community. Chamber of Commerce: The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce presently includes the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock. Also, the Chamber's Education Committee, Board, and membership assist and cooperate with the three districts in activities ranging from millage campaigns and special studies to daily, general promotion of the school systems in their industrial development activities. The Chamber has even formed a partnership with the Area Vocational-Technical School. After the new District is established, efforts will be directed at expanding the relationship. 0 Vocational Education Advisory Committee: Membership will be extended to include representatives from businesses throughout the county, and the charge will be revised to county-wide responsibility for what is now a series of three separate efforts. 3. Governmental Linkages As the largest metropolitan center in Arkansas, Pulaski County's governmental structure contains a number of -69-intergovernmental relationships that are essential to orderly delivery of goods and services. This intergovernmental cooperation cuts across all agencies. including state, county, and city. Illustrative examples of governmental cooperation, with recommendations for extending them, are as follows\na. Law-Related Education: The Little Rock School District has implemented this program and, as a result, there exists a cooperative interchange between the criminal justice system in the Little Rock area and the District. A means for systematically utilizing the resources of the justice system will be cooperatively developed with the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. b. The City of Little Rock: In order for the District to be effective, it is necessary for a number of cooperative arrangements to evolve between the city and the District. follow. Significant examples of these arrangements All of the District's schools participate in the Little Rock Police Department's Crime Prevention Program\nthere is cooperation with the city's planning department in a number of instances (for example, new school construction)\nthe employment of school crossing guards is a final example of city-district cooperation. With the advent of the reorganized District, all efforts will be made to develop a Tri-Governmental Council (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County) to deal with city government issues affecting schools in the Little Rock School District, the North -70-Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District. c. Metroplan: This organization, supported financially by an aggregate of local governments, offers a variety of services, including planning projections and population data. Also, Metroplan provides an opportunity for the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District to work together in planning sites for new schools and potential school use of Central Arkansas Transit System (CAT). 4. Miscellaneous Linkages Many of the community linkages which are available to the District and that are essential to its excellence cannot be placed easily into any of the previous linkage categories. Therefore, the \"Miscellaneous II category is included. Cooperation is very easy in some cases because, by mandate. districts are required to have them\na case in point is the Chapter 1 Parent Advisory Council. Where there is an absence of legal requirement to maintain a linkage (e.g Friends of KLRE), it is strongly recommended that the new District take administrative steps to keep them operable. A representative listing of \"Miscellaneous Linkages\" follows: a. Rockefeller Foundation: Currently, the District submits funding applications to the Foundation on an ongoing basis. Previously, the Foundation funded part of the operations of the Little Rock District's educational television channel, Channel 19. The channel has been an important source of information to the -71-1 community concerning desegregation-related issues. The Foundation has also funded a special proposal to provide inservice training of principals in all three districts, which will further focus on school-based management in a desegregated school system. b. Arkansas Community Foundation: The Little Rock District recently initiated its own educational fund as part of this Foundation. The funds generated from this account will be used to enhance the newly organized District's educational program. With the continued decrease of public funds, it is even more important for districts to seek external financial resources. This foundation will be asked to extend its Board to include representation from the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School. c. Transportation Advisory Council: The Council is a standing committee appointed by the Board. It advises the administration and the Board on matters pertaining to all aspects of the District's transportation program. For example, it might recommend to the Board the addition of new transportation routes. Since several schools in the Little Rock School District will have unique programs which will be shared with the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District, the Transportation Advisory Council will be expanded to provide representation from the other two districts. Thus, this cooperative body will deal with many transportation matters unique to desegregation. -72-K. d. Biracial Advisory Committee: This is a committee mandated by the Court under the Clark decree for the express purpose of monitoring the District's desegregation plan. It advises the administration, the Board, and the Court as to the District's compliance with the Court-ordered desegregation plan. Biracial Committees in the three districts may share monitoring and evaluation information in order to more effectively assess desegregation efforts in all three school districts. e. United May of Pulaski County: Currently, all three districts in Pulaski County participate and benefit from membership in the United Way. Each district uses funds derived from United Way for clothing and school supplies for needy students. It is anticipated that. in the new District, participation in the United Way would be increased and continue to serve indigent students. f. Chapter 1 Parent Advisory Council: The Chapter 1 program is a compensatory education program. Pres- ently, cooperation is evident among the three districts. For instance, there is a tri-district PAC Council in which parents from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District come together annually to identify strategies to enhance learning g. opportunities for educationally disadvantaged children. Arkansas Parents: Parents in Learning Experiences (APPLE): The state program for promoting the -73- involvement of parents in education will be used as a means to increase cooperation among the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District in their efforts to augment parent participation in their children's education. Through the assistance of the APPLE coordinator, the three districts will meet for APPLE training sessions. h. Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS): The VIPS program is an essential part of the present District. Its primary purpose is to augment the educational programs of the District with community volunteers. In Little Rock the program is entitled VIPS. It will be of utmost importance in the reorganized District to expan d the volunteer program. The practice of cooperation which presently exists between the three school districts' school volunteer programs will be continued. Adult/Community Education Advisory Council: An advi- sory council is now involved in advising the District regarding adult and community education. The Council will be expanded. Cooperation will continue to exist in all three districts, i.e., graduation exercises. workshops, inservice, etc. j. District PTA-Council: The District maintains a council i. made up of representatives from the school-based PTA's. It is generally concerned with the overall educational program of the District. k. Friends of KLRE: The Little Rock District operates KLRE, its own radio station. The \"Friends of KLRE\" act -74-as an advisory council to assist with the various aspects of the station's operation. Some effort will be made to have representation on this council from the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. This group's membership and the station's mission will be broadened to reflect the reorganized Little Rock School District . 1. Special Education Advisory Council: The District maintains a council involved with the various aspects of the District's Special Education Department and provides advice to the administration and Board regarding matters relating to the eleven handicapping con- ditions of special education students. Participation on this council will be extended to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District to focus on special education concerns throughout the county. m. Athletic Booster Clubs: These clubs are in the senior high schools of the District\nthey provide much needed support for the high school athletic clubs. These will be maintained. n. Guidance Advisory Council: In order to provide ex- ternal and community advice to the guidance program, the Little Rock District recently established the Guidance Advisory Council. Representation on this council will be extended to a counselor in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. -75- i0, The Cid state House: Curriculum materials and educa- tional activities are currently offered to students and teachers in the District. These services will be maintained. P. The Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History: The Little Rock branch offers programs, displays, and curricular materials\nit also sponsors II Black History Month\" in the schools. The Association can expand to assist the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District with curriculum materials tc provide a common theme on Black History for all public schools in Pulaski County. -76-Eii IV. ORGANIZATIONAL EQUITY -n- fA. GOVERNANCE This Court approved during the consolidation hearings a plan for governance. Those philosophical underpinnings were based on good election planning, certain statutory mandates, requirements of the Fifteenth Amendment, and careful efforts to make certain that black voting strength in the Little Rock School District is not diluted. The opinion of the Eighth Circuit made no criticisms of this plan for governance. This plan has merely changed the proposed District lines to conform with the boundaries of the reorganized District. 1. The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will consist of seven members. The number seven is chosen 2. because the general rule of both regulatory and legislative planning prefers odd numbers to prevent split and tie votes. The Board members will be chosen from single-member districts. Boundaries of the Single Member Districts The boundaries of the districts will be drawn to conform with the following guidelines: a. Each district will be as equal in numbers as is practi- cable to guarantee the principle of \"one man one vote\" mandated by the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. b. Each district will be a contiguous territory and will be as compact as is practicable. c. The boundaries of each district will use identifiable -78-d. e. boundaries such as streets, rivers and streams, roads and other identifiable practicable. When it is possible to ra i 1 - rights of way, whenever use other jurisdictional boundaries, they will be used. This requirement is used in election planning to simplify public under- standing and identify with a particular voting district. Whenever possible, traditional neighborhoods will be kept intact. The boundaries must be drawn to ensure no dilution of minority voting strength. The districts as drawn will be presented at the June 16, 1986, hearing. -Implementation of Plan for Governanre Present Board positions will be available when their term of office has expired. In order to be elected to the Board of Directors, a candidate must live in the District from which he/she is seeking election. Only one Board member may be elected from any one district\nthus when the term of a present Board member expires, that position will be filled by an individual from one of the newly formed districts from which no other Board member resides. To ensure success, this plan must be implemented ninety days prior to the next regular school Board election. This ninety days is required to conform to the forty-five day filing requirement statute. The additional time is necessary because significant structural changes are proposed. This extra time allow for the identificatic requirement is also necessary to on of precinct and polling places -79- iK. and other administrative duties performed by the Election Commission. 4. Annexations Land annexations to the city of Little Rock will become territory of the Little Rock School District immediately when the annexation is effected. The county assessor will make the required changes on the tax books. The students in the areas annexed to the Little Rock School District will be reassigned under the Little Rock School District desegregation plan no later than July 1 of the following school year. The Pulaski County Election Commission shall, upon notification by the Little Rock School District, revise the boundary lines of the Little Rock School District. Such notification shall be required not later than ninety days prior to the annual school election. 5. Census Check In order to maintain the Fifteenth Amendment requirements, the boundaries will be examined in 1992 and every ten years thereafter. The adjustments made by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors of Education must be approved by the County Board of Directors of Education as required by Arkansas statute. B. ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION Administrative, certificated, and all other personnel will be deployed across all locations and in ways that will facilitate both the racial and educational equity aims basic to District reorganization. -80-This section of our plan proposes an organizational struc- ture for the reorganized District as a whole, brief job description for all positions. It also provides a The Chart on the following page shows a general organizational structure for the reorganized Little Rock School District. -81-Community LRSD Administrative School Board Organization Legal Counsel Superintendent Assistant to the Superintendent lor Planning, Research, Evaluation, and Pupil Accounting Director ol Public Inlormation Associate Superintendent lor Desegregation I 30 Associate Superintendent lor Support Services Associate Superintendent lor Curriculum Associate Superintendent for Pupil and Staff Services Associate Superintendent for School Operations I Administrative Assistant Director-Financial Services Director-Data Processing Director-Plant Services Facilities Coordinator Supvr.-Custodians Salety and Security Officer Director-Transportation Director-Purchasing Administrative Assistant Director-Adult Education Dlrecctor-lnstructlonal Resource Ctr. Director-Vocational Education Supvr.-Voc. Ed. Director-Athletics and PE Director-Special Education Supvrs.-Sp. Ed. Director-Personnel Director-Federal Programs CoordInator-PAC Director-Volunteers In Public Schools Director-Pupil Services Psychological Examiners CoordInator-CARE Director-Staff Development Directors . School Improvement Principals I Warehouse Manager Curriculum Specialists Director-Food Services Supvrs.-Food Services Warehouse ManagerD. JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR REORGANIZED SCHOni DISTRICT 1. Office of the Superintendent The Superintendent of Schools will serve as the chief executive officer of the reorganized Little Rock School District and will lead the District in accordance with the school laws of Arkansas and the policies of its Board. Reporting to the Superintendent are: the Central Office Associate Superintendents\nthe Assistant to the Superintendent for Planning, Research, Evaluation, and Pupil Account- 2. 3. mg\nthe Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nand the Director of Public Information. Assistant to the Superintendent Evaluation, and Pupil Accounting for Planring, Research, The Assistant to the Superintendent for Planning, Research, Evaluation, the work of and Pupil Accounting will coordinate program monitoring, statistical administrative audits and specialists will In addition services, and analyses. assist in this work. to the above Assistant to the Superintendent figures, make student enrollment A team of evaluation responsibilities, the wi 11 monitor enrollment projections, file enrollment reports with the District and coordinate the management of with the state, and student records. Director of Public Information The Director of Public Information, answering to the Superintendent, informed about school District will keep the employees and the public activities, inform the Superintendent concerning issues of current review and analysis by the press and the public, supervise the -83-4. 5. development of programs for educational radio and television, and stimulate good communication within the Little Rock School District and with the public. Associate Superintendent for Desegregation The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will be charged with the implementation of all aspects of this plan except the portion concerning governance and the electoral districts and processes. He or she will be the officer in charge of the Office of Desegregation, which will include student assignment, staff assignment, transportation planning and review, monitoring and evaluation for the District, financial review, and forward planning. While the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will not have operating authority outside the sectors of student and staff assignment, monitoring, and forward planning for desegregation. this officer will be given full access to all data on any aspect of the system other than governance and will have author!ty to make written requests for changes in central office or building policies and practices which give evidence of impeding implementation of the spirit as well as the letter of the plan. Associate Superintendent for Support Services The Associate Superintendent for Support Services will supervise the following areas: financial services, data processing, school facilities and plant services, maintenance, transportation, purchasing, and food service. The Associate Superintendent will also serve as the Chief Negotiator for the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. -84-B 6. Wnistrative Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Support Services The Administrative Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Support Services will provide assistance and support to the Associate Superintendent to facilitate leadership in development, implementation, and monitoring of 7. support services for the Little Rock School District. Director of Financial Services 8. The Director of Financial Services receipt, disbursement. investment, and will supervise accounting for District funds. Financial reporting and monitoring of revenues, receipts, and expenditures are also the sibilities of the Director Director of Data Processing of Financial Services. respon- The Director of Data Processino ,in supervise all activ- 9. ities related to data for the District. analysis. systems and data-processing activities The Department handles epplicatiors, design, development, and evaluation of installation. maintenance. computer services. The planning, coordination, and scheduling of computer-related services for instructional and administrative functions sibilities of this department. Director of Plant Services The Director of Plant Services will are also respon- supervise construction and renovation activities and buildings and projects for school facilities, prepare building and capital-improvement plans and projects, and approve and coordinate plans and specifications completed by f i rms. contracted The Director will also be responsible for keeping -85-K 10. 11. 12. buildings and grounds comfortable, safe, and attractive for students, staff, and the community. This includes handling requests for repairs and maintenance and supervising the building engineers and custodial staff. will supervise the Security Officer. Safety and Security Officer The Director also The Safety and Security Officer will work in Plant Services. This person will develop and interpret safety regulations and coordinate emergency school closings and disaster plans. He/she will also develop safety training programs, supervise security personnel assigned to schools and buses, and serve as a liaison with other agencies concerned with various safety regulations. Director of Transportation The Director of Transportation will administer a districtwide transportation system which provides eligible students with safe and efficient transportation. The Director will supervise a staff of supervisors, dispatchers. mechanics, and drivers. Director of Purchasing The Director of Purchasing will receive and process requisitions, develop and examine specifications, solicit bids, handle the bidding process, recommend bid purchases to the Associate Superintendent, and dispose of items no longer used by the District. In addition the Director of Purchasing will be in charge of the Property Accounting function and operate the District's supply center and intradistrict mail system. -86-13. Director of Food Services The Director of Food Services will provide nutritional and financially sound food service to all schools. The Department will plan menus, develop instructional material s 14. to highlight ethnic-food celebrations and nutritional information, and will operate school cafeterias, central kitchen centers, and satellite lunch Associate Superintendent for Curricu1 programs. urn The Associate Superintendent for Curriculum wi 11 be responsible for instructional planring, curriculum develop- ment. instructional resources and technical assistance for educational programs in grades K-12, and the administration of federal, state, and private grants and programs related to curriculum and instruction. The Associate Superintendent 15. will supervise the following individuals: Director of Adult Education, Director of Vocational Education, Director of Athletics and Physical Education, Director of Special Education, the Director of the Instructional Resource Center (IRC), and Curriculum Specialists. ^HListrative Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum The Administrative Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum will provide assistance and support to the Associate Superintendent so that he/she can provide leadership in development. implementation, and monitoring of educational programs and services for the Little Rock School District. -87-16. Director of Adult Education The Director of Adult Education will be responsible for the administration of adult education programs. The Director also will work closely with the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum in planning programs to meet the needs of adults in the community. 17. Director of Vocational Education The Director of Vocational Education will be responsible for the administration of vocational programs. The Director also will work closely with the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum in planning, developing, and implementing instructional programs in vocational-technical education. 18. Director of Special Education The Director of Special Education will be responsible for the administration of programs supported with federal and state funds to meet the needs of special education students. The Director also will work closely with the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum in planning the curriculum to meet the needs of special education students. The Director will supervise the Special Education Supervisors. 19. Director of The Instructional Resource Center The Director of the Instructional Resource Center will be responsible for the programs of the Instructional Resource Center which serves as the District's II Teacher Center. II This center will provide professional growth activities. inservice meetings. instructional support activities, and the development and dissemination of -88-20. curriculum materials for teachers and students. Director will also be responsible for hel kind of The ping to provide the instruction and learning environment that will enable students in the District to master the reading skills appropriate to their ages and grade levels, supervises the Reading Specialists. The Director Director of Athletics and Physical Education The Director of Athletics and Physical Education will be responsible for the administration of the athletic, physical education and health programs in the secondary schools. The Director will also work closely with the 21. Associate Superintendent for Curriculum in planning the curriculum and physical education program. Curriculum Specialists The Curriculum Specialists of English, Foreign Language, Reading, Science, Math, Computer Services, Media, Social Studies, Music, and Art will report to the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and provide assistance to the principals and teachers in developing, implementing, and evaluating the District's instructional programs in their specific areas of concentra\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_1132","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1996-02-29/1996-07-11"],"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 statistics","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1132"],"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":["292 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.\nLITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 29, 1996 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am enclosing minutes ofLRSD Board of Directors meetings held on December 7 and December 21, 199 5, and January 4 and January 11, 1996. Please let me know if you have any questions, or ifl can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on January 11, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Pat Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Linda Pondexter, Board President, called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. The teacher ex-officio representative on the Board, Ms. Shirley Thomas from Western Hills Elementary School, and student ex-officio member of the Board, Justin Smith, from Hall High School, were also present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 1996 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting the following items of business: 1. Toyota Foundation Tapestry Program Grant Application 2. Community Mobilization Grant Application 3. Desegregation Committee 4. Student Hearings \nnI. ACTION AGENDA Toyota Foundation Tapestry Program Grant Application Carver Magnet Elementary School is applying for a grant from the Toyota Foundation for $9,944, to improve science instruction through the use of computer technology. Dr. Williams recommended Board approval of this application. Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Community Mobilization Grant The Arkansas Department of Health, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention is offering grant awards up to $20,000 for violence prevention and reduction of illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. The District, in partnership with the City of Little Rock alert centers, would use these funds to train community leaders and develop programs to meet their goals. The superintendent recommended approval of the grant application. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion was accepted unanimously. Desegregation Committee Ms. Pondexter asked for the Board to approve formation of a committee of citizens to further study the desegregation plan. She asked for Board members to submit names of community members who would provide meaningful input. The committee is to consist of approximately 30 members and would include all parties, including ODM, Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and District administrators. Names of selected committee members will be provided to the Board for approval by Ms. Pondexter. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve formation of the desegregation committee. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Motion to Suspend the Rules Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules to consider an item that was not a part of the agenda. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Magness made a motion to officially sanction the Financial Advisory Committee of the District. This committee was formed during the Strategic Planning process and has continued to function in an advisory capacity. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a brief recess and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Riggs made a motion to move into executive session for the purpose of conducting student hearings, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS Larry Robertson, student hearing officer, was present to provide information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Each of these students is appealing their expulsion and asking for reinstatement. Robert Blacksher was recommended for expulsion from J.A. Fair for possession of a weapon. The knife was found during an all-school scan. Robert indicated that the knife belonged to his cousin, and he did not intend to bring it to school. He apologized to the Board for his actions and promised not to be any other trouble to school officials. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement on strict probation. Mr. Riggs made a motion to uphold the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Pedro Smith was recommended for expulsion from Cloverdale Jr. High for possession of brass knuckles. School administrators indicated that continued behavior problems and threats of violence would pose a problem in the school environment, if Pedro was allowed to return to Cloverdale. It was recommended by the Superintendent that Pedro be placed at the Alternative Learning Center. Dr. Mitchell moved to uphold Dr. Williams' recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty and it passed unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 1996 Page 4 Jason Hampton, 12th grade student from J.A. Fair, was recommended for expulsion for possession of a weapon. A security officer found a pocket knife in Jason's pocket, attached to his key ring, while searching a group of students who were caught smoking on campus. Jason admitted that the knife was his, but reported that he did not consider it a weapon and had no intention of using it to harm anyone. Dr. Williams-recommended reinstatement on probation for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the superintendent's recommendation and Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session and reported that the Board had accepted the superintendent's recommendation on three student disciplinary hearings. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. APPROVED= 1 ,e2s- re:, I Sue Strickland, Secretary Whereas, the Strategic Planning Committee for the Little Rock School District has recommended that Action Planning Team 9 be commissioned to serve as the initial committee of a budget development advisory committee\nand Whereas, the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District has recommended that members of the Board of Directors join this committee to develop a budget for the 1996-97 school year\nand Whereas, current policy of the Little Rock School Board states that \"Once the budget has been prepared by the administration, the Board will hold budget hearings, at which time the Board members will discuss the proposed budget and invite questions and discussions relative to the budget items\"\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District promotes community involvement in decisions that affect its patrons\nNOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District hereby commissions Action Planning Team 9, and other individuals who may volunteer to serve as budget advisors, to form the Advisory Committee for Financial Stability, and to join them in conducting a series of public hearings as the 1996-97 Fiscal Year Budget is developed. Adopted this 11th day of January, 1996. ~J Sue Strick.land, Secretary UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 4, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on January 4, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas . . iMEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Pat Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Linda Pondexter, Board President, called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 4, 1996 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the meeting included the following items. 1. Dress Code at the ALC 2. Review of the Laidlaw Contract 3. Student Hearings 4. Personnel Discussion III. ACTION AGENDA Alternative Learning Center Dress Code Action on implementing a dress code for students at the ALC was tabled at the regular meeting of December 21, 1995. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to remove this item from the table for the Board's consideration. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. Dr. Dau_gherty moved for adoption of a uniform dress code for students at the ALC. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 5-2, with Ms. Magness and Dr. Mitchell casting \"no\" votes. Review of the Laidlaw Contract Jerry Malone, District attorney, presented information regarding a review of the Laidlaw contract. Attorney Jim Clark collaborated with Mr. Malone in the contract review, but was not present at the meeting. The issue of the review was to determine whether or not the District is contractually liable to pay taxes on new buses purchased by Laidlaw. Mr. Clark's opinion was that the District is not contractually obligated to make those payments. The Board agreed by consensus that District administrators would continue to work with the attorneys to negotiate this aspect of the contract. The Board moved to executive session at 6:46 p.m., for the purpose of conducting student hearings on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 4, 1996 Page 3 STUDENT HEARINGS Larry Robertson, student hearing officer was present to provide information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Ira Mullins was charged with possession of a weapon at J.A. Fair High School. Ira admitted that the knife was in his coat pocket, he stated that he had not brought it to school intentionally, and he apologized to the Board for the incident. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement under strict probation and asked that Ira receive conflict resolution counseling and tutoring in academic subjects. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. The second student hearing was scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. and the student had not yet arrived. Therefore, the Board moved to executive session for the personnel discussion portion of the agenda. After the personnel executive session, student hearings resumed at 7:30 p.m. Freddie Ezikiel was charged with possession of a weapon at Forest Heights Jr. High  School. The building principal reported that Freddie was a constant disruption to the learning process at Forest Heights and suggested that an alternative learning environment would be more appropriate for Freddie. Dr. Williams recommended placement at the ALC or another alternative learning environment. Larry Robertson agreed to work with Freddie's guardian in finding appropriate placement. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Riggs made a motion to move into executive session, seconded by Ms. Magness, and approved unanimously. for the purpose of conducting a personnel discussion. The Board returned at 7:25 p.m. Ms. Pondexter reported that no action was taken in executive session. Mr. Riggs made a motion to authorize the Board President to correspond with the Superintendent by letter. The motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and passed 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell abstaining from the vote. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 4, 1996 Page 4 Student hearings were resumed on a motion by Mr. Riggs to move back to executive session, seconded by Ms. Magness and carried by a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Magness made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Riggs. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Li a Ponexter,Presden APPROVED: / ~5-'1(, LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on December 21, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER The Vice-President, Ms. Gee, called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five Board members. Dr. Daugherty and Ms. Pondexter arrived at 6:12 p.m. The ex-officio teacher, Ms. Mary Lawson, from Watson Elementary School, and ex-officio student, Angie Staley, from J.A. Fair High School were also present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of November 16, 1995, and from special meetings of November 7, 1995, and December 4, 1995, were presented for Board approval. Dr. Mitchell moved for approval of the minutes, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it passed S-0. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Williams presented a superintendent's citation to Brandi Romandia, who is a sixth grade student at Bale Elementary. Ms. Romandia recently won the Arkansas Grand Prix in wheelchair racing competition. Jodie Carter and McClellan High School staff members were present to accept recognition from the Superintendent and Board. McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School received the 1995 National Programs of Excellence in Business Education Award as the top business education school in the nation. Phyllis Smith and Tony Hunnicutt recently attended a conference in Denver where they received a plaque and a $1,000 cash award for further development of the business program at McClellan. Other McClellan staff members who were present for this recognition included Angela McCallie, Shirley Hodges, Audrey Smith, Jeri Bob King, Nancy Leslie, Pat Leach, and Brenda Stuckey. Dick Picard teaches at Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet School. He was not present at the meeting, but was awarded a superintendent's citation for his development of LabNet, which connects teachers across the U.S. through the Internet. Dana Duncan was present to accept a superintendent's citation in recognition of her selection as the 1996 Teacher of the Year. Ms. Duncan has been a classroom teacher for 46 years and is currently assigned to Romine Interdistrict Elementary School. In conclusion, the teacher ex-officio, Ms. Mary Lawson of Watson Elementary School, and the student ex-officio, Angie Staley, senior from J.A. Fair were awarded superintendent's citations for their month of service on the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 3 B. PARTNERSHIPS The Superintendent recognized new partnerships between the community and LRSD schools. Partnership certificates were presented to each of these individuals. Mary Williams and Leta Jo Anthony representing the Leadership Roundtable, partnering with Henderson Health Sciences Magnet School, represented by Principal James Washington. Stephanie Adams, Betty Boyd, Cindy Outlaw, and Faye Albert, representing Target Stores in their new partnership with Henderson Health Science Magnet School, represented by James Washington. Mrs. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried unanimously. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Mr. Jim Dailey, Mayor of the City of Little Rock, offe.red comments of support for the Board and administration. He commended the District for exceptional course offerings, one-of-a-kind programs, and the number of national merit semifinalists produced by the LRSD. He expressed pride in the students of our district and specifically recognized Jerome Strickland, senior at Parkview Magnet High School, and the students at Woodruff Elementary for the successful conflict resolution program. The city education task force has committed their energy to designing community goals to bring central Little Rock schools together. He commended the Board and the Superintendent for the work that went into the Strategic Planning process and indicated that he would highlight a District school each month in his monthly message to the city. Mayor Dailey reminded the Board of the \"Power of Unity\" in the community and he urged the Board to work together to better the school system and the central Arkansas community. He invited Board members to attend the State of the City address at City Hall on January 2, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 4 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. S. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness, wearing a Woodruff Elementary School t-shirt, reported that she had recently attended a PTA meeting at Woodruff, and invited the public to attend a town hall meeting at Woodruff on January 9, 1996. Ms. Magness had attended town hall meetings for discussion of the facilities study held at Pulaski Heights, Jefferson, and Wakefield Elementary Schools. She expressed appreciation to the community for their support and to the citizens who requested the special meeting held on December 7. She apologized for not being able to attend that meeting. Ms. Magness asked Board members to pledge to work cooperatively with each other and with the superintendent to make the District the best it can be. Ms. Strickland reported on visits to Mabelvale and Otter Creek Elementary Schools. She thanked the Mabelvale community for welcoming her to their school and for the gift basket that was presented to her at their meeting. Ms. Pondexter attended a program at Terry Elementary School and had attended facilities meetings at Mitchell and Mabelvale. She thanked the Chamber of Commerce for inviting the Board and administrators to their luncheon. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 5 IV. :REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Robert \"Say\" McIntosh asked for volunteers to sign up to work at his annual Christmas Party. He made comments regarding the media not covering the good news about kids and he urged parents to get involved in the schools. Hafeeza Majeed reported that she had participated in the Strategic Planning process and expressed support for the ideas that were expressed in the special meeting of December 7. She questioned the intent of the participants of that meeting regarding the needs and concerns of the African American community. She asked for the African American community to voice their concerns regarding the needs of black children. Stephanie Johnson, former LRSD Board member, complimented the Mayor for his commitment to the LRSD. She expressed concerns related to the Future Little Rock process and the city's support for the McClellan Community School. She asked for continued support for the 1/2 cent sales tax, as those funds provide prevention and intervention programs for the youth of the city. William Fields spoke on behalf of the McClellan Community Education program and asked for the Board to support the budget of the McClellan Community School program. Janice Wilson the PTA President at Woodruff Elementary presented a roster of names in support of Dr. Williams and expressed support for his leadership abilities. Phyllis Haynes representing the Capitol View-Stift Station Neighborhood Association, detailed several reasons for keeping Woodruff open: 1) the successful conflict management program at Woodruff\n2) the strong partnership that exists between Woodruff school and the community\nand 3) belief in the preservation of older neighborhoods. Joe Meehan, representing the Woodruff Community Development Corporation, detailed the work of this organization. They are working to revitalize and stabilize the Woodruff neighborhood by working to purchase and restore older homes for resale to lower income families. He asked for the Board to consider allowing this inner-city school to remain open as a vital part of the community. Louis Leslie distributed copies of a letter to the Board in support of keeping Woodruff open. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 6 J.C. Smith asked for the Board to review insurance coverage provided by Laidlaw Transportation Service. His son was on a school bus that was involved in an accident. Laidlaw provided him with all of the details and claim forms needed to file a claim, but their carrier Crawford and Company, was very slow in responding to his questions. Donna Massey, representing the New Party, expressed concerns with views presented by the business leader/speakers at the special meeting of December 7. She asked for more participation from the low income community when the concerns addressed by the business community are discussed further. Kathy Wells spoke regarding the improvement of the financial condition of the District and made several suggestions to facilitate this task. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Lease Agreement: Watershed Human and Community Development Agency The Watershed Agency has leased the old Gilliam Elementary School for the past six years. The superintendent recommended Board approval to extend the lease for another year. Ms. Gee moved to approve extension of the lease, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried unanimously. B. Mini-Grant Submissions The Board was asked to approve submission of several mini-grants. The grants submitted include: Washington Magnet Elementary, $600 from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to develop technology curriculum\nWatson Elementary, $1,000 from the Arkansas Department of Education for a student recognition program\nGeyer Springs Elementary, $400 from the Weyerhaeuser Foundation for an ecology program\nand Jefferson Elementary, $400 from the Weyerhaeuser Foundation to prepare students for science and math careers. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve submission of the mini-grants. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riggs, and passed unanimously. C. Forest Park Grant Application The Forest Park staff is preparing a $24,000 grant application to the Sturgis Charitable and Educational Trust for a program to utilize educational technology to raise achievement scores and reduce racial disparity. The Board was asked to REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 7 approve the submission of this grant. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the grant submission, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. D. Establishment of a Dress Code at the Alternative Learning Center Dr. Daugherty requested establishment of a dress code for ALC students. Dr. Williams asked for the Board to delay formal action until the ALC staff has completed the established process for implementation of a dress code. Dr. Daugherty spoke in favor of approving the dress code immediately. Mr. Riggs made a motion to table action until the January Board meeting, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried 6-1 with Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" vote. E. Negotiations with Laidlaw Ms. Pondexter relinquished the Chair to Ms. Gee for the purpose of making a motion to authorize District attorneys to review the Laidlaw contract to determine if any additional \"hidden\" costs, such as the sales tax for new buses, are a part of the District's obligation under the current contract. The attorneys are to return to the Board with a report at the agenda meeting in January. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. F. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of donations to the District. Ms. Strickland made a motion to accept the items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. Donated items are listed in the following chart. SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT DONATIONS ITEM DONOR Meadowcliff Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Mabelvale Jr. High $250.00 cash $25.00 cash Zoom Fax Modem/ External/Cables Rushing \u0026amp; Mason Equipment Company Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart/Geyer Springs REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 8 \\SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT Booker Arts Magnet McClellan Business/ Communications Teachers of Tomorrow McClellan Business/ Communications Teachers of Tomorrow McClellan Business/ Communications Teachers of Tomorrow F. Personnel Changes ITEM 20 International Strings Violins $100 cash $100 cash $50.00 cash DONOR Booker Arts Magnet Student Council Sidney Moncrief Pontiac Dealership Twin City Bank/Geyer Springs Boatmen's National Bank The Superintendent recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda. Ms. Strickland moved for approval of the personnel changes, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and the motion carried unanimously. G. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending November 1995 were printed in the agenda for the Board's review and approval. Mr. Riggs moved for acceptance of the financial reports. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The monthly Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. The Board posed no questions regarding this report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 9 B. Budget Update Ms. Pondexter asked that Board members review their calendars and be prepared to schedule a budget worksession early in January. Fred Smith was present to answer questions and provide information requested by Board members. Mr. Smith had distributed information previously requested by Board members, including reports on 1) the bidding process for purchasing computers\n2) a status report on ServiceMaster supplies and equipment purchases, and a report on implementation of the contract with ServiceMaster\n3) a SeiviceMaster Financial Analysis report. C. Inclusion Program Dr. Patty Kohler, Director of the Division of Exceptional Children, presented a report to the Board on the District's Inclusion Program. D. Implementation of the Strategic Plan Linda Young, New Futures Liaison, presented an update to the Board on implementation of the Five-Year Strategic Plan. E. Discussion: Prevention of School Closings Dr. Daugherty requested discussion regarding fostering collaboration with the city of Little Rock in an effort to prevent school closings. Dr. Williams reported that District administrators continue to meet with city officials and suggested that this would be a topic for the next joint meeting with the city Board of Directors. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None. The Board moved to executive session for the purpose of conducting student hearings after a brief recess. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 10 VIII. DISCIPLINARY STUDENT HEARINGS: Larry Robertson, student hearing officer, provided information regarding students who had received expulsion recommendations but had not requested a hearing before the Board. Those students are as follows: Corey Eubanks, Central High School Barbara Miller, Forest Heights Vick Norman, McClellan Pedro Smith, Cloverdale Jr. High Nicholas Thompson, J. A. Fair Tyjuan Townsend, McClellan The Superintendent recommended upholding the schools' expulsion recommendations for these students. In addition, the Board was asked to uphold the expulsion of Cardrick Flowers, who was schedulep to appeal his expulsion before the Board but did not attend the meeting. Cardrick had been charged with inciting to riot at McClellan High School on October 13, 1995. Mr. Riggs moved to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 7-0. Freddie Ezikiel was also scheduled to appear before the Board, but did not attend. He had contacted Mr. Robertson to notify him of transportation difficulties. Freddie was recommended for expulsion from Forest Heights for possession of a weapon. He will be allowed to reschedule his hearing before the Board. Darrecus Robinson had been expelled from Parkview in September for possession of a firearm. His previous Board hearing resulted in an expulsion for the first semester with provisions for reinstatement second semester. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to reinstate Darrecus to Parkview, on strict probation for the remainder of the school year. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Ms. Magness casting the \"no\" vote. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 21, 1995 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn at 8:25 p.m., seconded by Dr. Mitchell and carried unanimously. dwWi~ Linda Pondexter, President APPROVED: /  J.-5-r '- kc!LtJc1~1 Sue Strickland, Seretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on December 7, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Michael Daugherty Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Sue Strickland Ms. Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Linda Pondexter, Board President, called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five Board members. The teacher ex-officio member of the Board, Ms. Mary Lawson from Watson Elementary School, was also present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called at the request of citizens who presented a petition bearing signatures of over 500 members of the community. Other business to be considered included approval of grant requests, a report on the District's test results, and student disciplinary hearings. III. ACTION AGENDA Grant Approval: Staff Development Grant The Eisenhower Southwest Consortium for the Improvement of Mathematics and Science Teaching has offered the opportunity to apply for a grant of $95,000 over a five-year period\nUALR has agreed to contribute the required 20% matching funds. The Board was asked to approve administration's application for these grant funds. Mr. Riggs moved for approval of the grant application, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried by a 5-0 vote. Grant Approval: Capital Improvement Grant The Board was asked to approve the application for Adult Education Capital Improvement funds in the amount of $169,000. These funds are available through the Arkansas Department of Education Vocational and Technical Education Division, and are to be used to renovate and repair the adult education facility at 1401 Scott Street. Dr. Mitchell moved for approval of the grant application, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0. Reports: LRSD Needs Assessment and Stanford Achievement Test Results Dr. Edwin Jackson, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation, previously provided the needs assessment and fall test results for the Board's review. He provided a brief overview of the needs assessment and a summary of the District's fall test results. He was asked to be prepared to provide additional information at the regular meeting in December. There was discussion among the members of the Board regarding the creation of additional alternative schools. Dr. Daugherty suggested developing a partnership with the city for more alternative classrooms. Dr. Mitchell suggested that the Board come to agreement on the type of alternative educational setting needed for elementary school students. She suggested that more staff development for the SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 3 current teaching staff would be more appropriate than establishing more alternative classroom space. Ms. Pondexter agreed with Dr. Mitchell and suggested that this should be the subject of further discussion. COMMUNITY PRESENTATION The special meeting, requested by a petition from the community, began at 6: 10 p.m. Mr. Jim Hathaway served as moderator and reported that the meeting was called for the purpose of showing the community's support for public education in Little Rock, to renew a commitment to the District, and to express appreciation for the role of Board members. The presentation was to address several issues, including the financial stability of the District, the stability of the administration, the desegregation case and achievement of unitary status, public perception of the District, and how the District's problems impact economic development in Little Rock. Steve Shults, who served on the Strategic Planning Committee for financial stability, commented on the financial condition of the District as it relates to the decline in student enrollment. He reported that the most urgent task facing the District is stopping the decline in student enrollment and attracting families back to the District. He asked for the Board and administration to improve cooperation and communication, especialJy in regard to the upcoming budget decisions. He asked the Board to recognize the progress Dr. Williams' administration had made in the areas of financial stabililty and accountability. Mr. Shults stated concerns regarding the special Board meeting that was called on October 31, 1995\nthe public was not allowed an opportunity to make comments, or have input before or during that meeting. The public perception of that action generated a climate of instability that sent a message of \"too little cooperation among the Board members and the community, and between the Board and administration.\" He asked Board members to foster genuine cooperation between and among each other\nto begin to focus on providing the best education possible for the students\nto put aside personality differences, personal agendas, and power plays\nand to use their own best judgement when making decisions that affect the children. He asked the Board to implement measures to stop declining enrollment in the District, to focus on the budgeting process, to communicate and cooperate with each other and the administration, to focus on the children and not on special interest groups, and to extend the superintendent's contract as a means of increasing the public perception of stability in the District. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 4 Leta Jo Anthony, president of Leadership Roundtable, stated that she frequently participates in educational, political, and economic development issues and their impact on the African-American community. Those interests are the reason she is concerned about the plight of the students of the LRSD, and she repeatedly asked \"What About the Children?\" She expressed concern about the leadership demonstrated by the Board: \"the displaced egos, the personal agendas, and the group agendas that distract from the mission of quality education for the children.\" Ms. Anthony commented on true integration of the District beginning with the Board. Curriculum and programs can be developed to address the needs of all the children but without the leadership of the Board, a quality education cannot be achieved. Baker Kurrus co-chaired the Strategic Planning team which studied the Desegregation Plan. He provided a historic overview of the development of the Plan and the settlement agreement of 1989. The original intent of the Plan was to promote desegregation and financial stability and neither of these objectives are being achieved. Public schools are not being built in the growth areas of the city (Fulbright was completed in 1982)\nprivate schools are being built and are experiencing rapid growth in enrollment. To rebuild and reinvigorate public support of the schools, community members must begin to accept each other as persons committed to public education regardless of race\nto become allies instead of enemies, committed to a common goal. Mr. Kurras stated perceived realities: 1) People will not send their children across the city for the purpose of desegregating the schools, even for enhanced programs, if they have a choice. 2) Once these students have been removed from the public school system they will not choose to return. 3) Incentive schools are not fair to anyone, especially to black children. Double funding was to provide compensatory education for minority children and to attract white families back into the public schools. Double funding has had no effect on improving the education of the children and several area schools now have the same characteristics as Incentive Schools. 4) A one-race District will never be desegregated. Middle class families are leaving Little Rock for Bryant, Benton, Conway, and other communities and private schools are growing in record numbers. In order to prevent further resegregation of our city, Mr. Kurrus stated that schools will have to be built in growth areas in order to provide public educational opportunities for children who live in these areas and for all children in the city. He stressed that the petitioners who requested this meeting are supporters of the District who are willing to work to make improvements in the schools and in the community. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 5 He called on the Board and all parties involved to tackle the problems facing the District with level-headed, diplomatic efforts. Ben Smith attended on behalf of Parents for Public Schools, and serves as one of the founding members of this organization. This group was formed to support and strengthen public schools in Little Rock. Members are committed to restoring and sustaining productive parental involvement and community-wide support for public education. They view public education as an important part of society and an essential part of democracy. Cooperation and collaboration are critical elements to sustaining the public school system. When considering the racial and class lines of our city, it is evident that we have more in common than we have differences. Parents for Public Schools believe that it is the responsibility of all parents to hold educators accountable for meeting the needs of children and preparing them for responsible citizenship. Persistence and preservation of the public schools as a building block of the local community will secure a competitive place in a global society. Mr. Smith stated that there is a negative perception in the community of public education in Little Rock. He asked the Board to join with Parents for Public Schools to address and repair the negative image of the schoo} district. Jim Argue, State Representative, reported on Act 915 of 1995, at the invitation of Parents for Public Schools. Act 915 was intended to prevent fiscal or academic crises in the education of students. The Act, to be finalized in March, will define \"fiscal distress.\" Phase 1 districts will be required to develop and file an improvement plan to address problem areas\nPhase 2 districts will receive directives on policies and management practices and will be required to implement those directives\ndistricts who fail to meet guidelines would be classified as Phase 3 districts. Under Phase 3, the Arkansas Department of Education would have the authority to remove the superintendent and administrators, disband the Board of Directors, elect a new Board, hire new administrative personnel, and possibly annex the district to an adjoining district. The rational for this process is based on the fact that the responsibility for educating the students is ultimately the State's. He asked the Board to chart a course to address the concerns and needs of the students, tax payers, teachers, plaintiffs and the federal court. He expressed confidence in the knowlege that citizens want to see progress, and that local control and initiative are better than having another external influence. The quality of the education is the most important factor. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 6 Rett Tucker, representing the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, announced that the Chamber will focus their full attention in meeting the challenges of the LRSD during 1996. They plan to work toward financial and administrative stability in the District in order to facilitate growth and prosperity for the city. He invited all Board members to attend the Chamber of Commerce annual meeting next Tuesday in the Clinton Ballroom of the Excelsior Hotel. John Steuri, chief executive officer of Alltel Information Services, represented Fifty for the Future. This group has reviewed the financial aspects of the LRSD and they believe that the District is headed for bankruptcy. He offered full support of the business community to help the Board and District to avoid this action. Mr. Steuri voiced his support for Superintendent Williams and named the superintendents who have served since 1982 (Kelly, Jones, Cannon, Steele, Bernd, Matthis). The perception of instability, financial and administrative, has contributed to the declining tax base and white flight. He stated that Dr. Williams has not been allowed to do his job by the Board's micromanagement and he suggested that the Board has not honored the commitments of the Board that hired Dr. Williams. Mr. Steuri asked Board members, Dr. Williams, District staff, ODM, and others to work m~re actively with the business community to get the District moving forward. In closing, Jim Hathaway summarized the presentation and asked Board members to put individual interests aside, and to focus on the children in Little Rock. STUDENT HEARINGS Larry Robertson, student hearing officer was present to provide information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Allen Poole from McClellan, and Alana Tullos from Central, had accepted their expulsion recommendations and did not appeal to the Board for reinstatement. Mr. Riggs made a motion to uphold the recommendations for expulsion of these two students. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Several students who had previously appealed suspensions/expulsions were reinstated by the Board on strict probation and were present as a requirement of their probationary return to school. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 7 The students were: Justin Caple, McClellan Jeff Hicks, Cloverdale Jr. High Antwon Williams, Henderson Jermaine Ingram, Forest Heights The Board reviewed attendance, academic, and citizenship reports provided by Mr. Robertson and building principals. Each of these students had violated at least a part of their probation requirements and were advised that this was their last opportunity to remain in school. The Superintendent recommended allowing the students to remain in school with the understanding that if any other disciplinary sanctions are required, they will be expelled from the District. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the superintendent's recommendation and Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1, with Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" vote. Erica Harris had been recommended for expulsion from Southwest Jr. High School for possession of a weapon on 11-09-95. Erica was represented by Joy Springer. Erica stated that she had taken the knife to school the previous day as protection from some neighborhood youth. Erica's mother reported that she had been depressed since the recent death of her father and had been receiving counseling to deal with depression and anger. Superintendent Williams recommended Erica be reinstated on strict probation\nthe Board asked that continued counseling be included as a part of the probationary requirement. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation of reinstatement, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Carlton Logan was recommended for expulsion on 11-13-95 from McClellan Community High School for possession of a razor blade. Carlton had threatened to \"cut up\" a female student. He apologized for his actions and asked the Board to give him a second chance. Mr. Carter, McClellan principal, offered to contribute to the counseling and supervision of Carlton. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement, on strict probation, with continuance of counseling at the Healthy Family/Step-Up Centers. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the administration's recommendation and Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion failed 4-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"yes\" vote. Mr. Riggs made a replacement motion to expel Carlton. Ms. Gee seconded the motion. After discussion with the building principal Ms. Gee withdrew her second and the motion died. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 7, 1995 Page 8 Dr. Daugherty made a motion to reconsider the superintendent's previous recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1, with Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" vote. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to reinstate Carlton. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 4-1, with Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" vote. Grant Brewer, 7th grade student from Dunbar, was charged with possession of a weapon on 11-29-95. Grant had inadvertently brought a pocket knife to school after using it at a weekend camping trip. He had not used the knife in a threatening or harmful manner. Some other students took the knife from Grant and turned it in to the teacher. The Superintendent recommended Grant be reinstated on strict probation. Mr. Riggs moved to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried 5-0. Dominique Givens was charged with possession of a weapon at Wilson Elementary School\nhe is a six year old kindergarten student. Dominique admitted taking the knife to school, but not with the intention of hurting anyone. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement Mr. Riggs moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. qi~~~ _ _,Lrida Pondexter, Presitle APPROVED: / -d 5- t (o LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 8, 1996 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am enclosing minutes of LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on January 25, February 8, February 15, February 22, and March 5, 1996. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures HPW/adg Sincerely, ~~ Henry r/ Williams, Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rocle. Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 (Edited - changes appear in Bold Italics) APR 10 1996 Office Of D e~ gn ~ion A' r IOln!J The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on January 25, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Board President, Ms. Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four Board members. Dr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell arrived at approximately 6: 15 p.m. The ex-officio teacher, Ms. Shirley Thomas, from Western Hills Elementary School, and ex-officio student, Andy McMillan, from Hall High School were also present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of December 21, 1995, and from special meetings of December 7, 1995, January 4, 1996, and January 11, 1996, were presented for Board approval. Ms. Gee moved for approval of the minutes, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT B. Dr. Williams presented superintendent's citations to John Ingram and Larry Vanderpool, who are Plant Services Department employees. These gentlemen were working at McDermott Elementary School when they heard an explosion. They located a fire in a container of chemicals in a storage room and quickly extinguished the fire, minimizing damage to the building. Jessica Bumgardner and Morgan Miller, students from Washington Magnet Elementary School were present to accept recognition from the Superintendent for winning a poster contest sponsored by the Junior League of Little Rock. This contest, Rainbows and Ribbons, is intended to increase AIDS/HIV awareness in the elementary schools. The teacher ex-officio, Ms. Shirley Thomas, from Western Hills Elementary School, and the student ex-officio, Andy McMillan, from Hall High School were awarded superintendent's citations for their month of service on the Board. In conclusion, Dr. Williams presented certificates to Board Members who have completed required training by the Arkansas School Boards Association. Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty were recognized for completing a required six hours of inservice training\nMs. Pondexter has completed 15 hours of training and has been named an Honor Board Member. PARTNERSHIPS The Superintendent recognized new partnerships between the community and LRSD schools. Partnership certificates were presented to each of these individuals. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 3 Mr. George Pree representing the Black Eyed Pea Restaurants, partnering with Brady Elementary School, represented by Principal Ada Keown. Mr. George Pree representing the Black Eyed Pea Restaurants, partnering with Chicot Elementary School, represented by Principal Otis Preslar and Ida Pettus. Fred Smith, Harold Bailey, Monroe Washington, and John Ruffins, representing Pi Omicron Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity in their new partnership with Mitchell Incentive School, represented by Ken Milton. Taibi Kahler, representing Kahler Communications in partnership with Southwest Junior High School, represented by Mr. Johnny Neeley, Principal. Debbie Milam, Susan Leslie, Phyllis Haynes, Ellie Lipke and Teresa Knight, representing the Capitol View/Stift Station Neighborhood Association in partnership with Woodruff Elementary School, represented by Pat Higginbotham, principal. Mrs. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried unanimously. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported that the ODM third annual racial balance monitoring report would be ready for distribution within the next week. This report is based on October I enrollment data received from the three districts. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin asked the Board to consider peaceful and rational means to resolve the differences that exist among all the parties involved in the District and he asked all parties to commit their energies to rebuilding the REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 4 educational system. The CTA is planning to bring in a team of experts to help heal the wounds by focusing on cooperation and collaboration. Community leaders will be invited to participate in the workshops to build confidence in the educational system in Little Rock. 3. Joshua Intervenors John Walker expressed appreciation to the CTA for taking the initiative to begin the joint effort discussed by Mr. Martin. He also commended the Board for agreeing to establish the committee for review of the issues surrounding the Desegregation Plan. He expressed concerns about recommendations made to the Board that he feels would undermine the collaborative efforts for improving policy. He used as an example the Financial Advisory Committee, and stated that this committee was not fully representative of the community. He expressed doubt regarding the validity of the Facilities Study and asked the Board not to take any action regarding the findings of the study without more representative participation from the community. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell attended the DARE graduation program at Mabelvale Elementary School. She commended the building administration and the sixth grade teachers for the inspirational program and the work that they are doing to prevent drug/alcohol abuse. Dr. Daugherty challenged the community to spend some time volunteering in the public schools. Ms. Strickland announced a community meeting on February 5, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Otter Creek Clubhouse, for the purpose of discussing concerns of the community. Dr. Williams and Principal Jim Fullerton have been invited to respond to questions regarding the future of Mabelvale Junior High School. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Pondexter announced the appointment of Cora McHenry and Bill Bowen as cocbainnen of the committee established by the Board to review the desegregation plan. Ms. Pondexter selected these individuals for their expertise in education, business and labor. Ms. Pondexter asked the Board to suspend the rules to ratify this appointment. Suspension of the Rules Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules to allow action on the appointment recommended by Ms. Pondexter, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the appointment of Ms. Cora McHenry and Mr. Bill Bowen as co-chairmen of the committee. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Robert \"Say\" McIntosh addressed the Board asking parents to take responsibility for their own children to insure that the children grow up knowing right from wrong. He was critical of Fifty for the Future and the presentation made at the special Board meeting last month. Rev. Daniel Bowman expressed concern about the future of the children in our community and asked for more community and Board support for the Superintendent. Kenny Fisher is a maintenance employee who expressed concerns about the inservice programs that are being conducted by ServiceMaster. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Elementary Fine Arts Textbook Adoption The Board was asked to approve the adoption of Elementary Fine Arts Textbooks. The committee selected Share the Music (K-6 )\nDiscover Art (K) and Adventures in Art (1-6). This adoption covers the period from 1996 - 2002. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the committee\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 6 I B. Grant Application: Busch Gardens Environmental Awards Program Carver Magnet School staff asked for the Board's authorization to apply for grant funding from Busch Gardens in the amount of $2,500 to partner with Umoja Studios in developing a garden and conservation program. Dr. Williams recommended approval of the application. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve submission of the grant, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried unanimously. C. Grant Applications The District grantwriter has prepared four grants for submission. The Superintendent recommended the Board's approval of the grants. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. SCHOOL I PROGRAM/SPONSOR I AMOUNT I Bale Elem. Tapestry Program/Toyota Foundation $ 3,287 Forest Park Elem. Artist in Residence/ Arkansas Arts 6,000 Council Carver Magnet Artist In Residence/ Arkansas Arts 5,000 Council Central High Prevention Services/ Bureau of Alcohol 20,000 and Drug Abuse Prevention/ Ark. Dept. of Health D. Adult Education Direct and Equitable Proposal Dr. Williams recommended approval of the annual submission of the application for Direct and Equitable funding from the Arkansas Department of Education for operating the Adult Education Program. This application requests $42,417.32 and allows the District to serve educationally disadvantaged adults. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried by a 6-0 vote. E. Franklin Elementary School Sewer Easement The City of Little Rock requested a right-of-way easement agreement to allow for construction of a sewer line on the Franklin Elementary School property. The Superintendent recommended approval of the request. Ms. Strickland moved for REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 7 acceptance of the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. F. KLRE/KUAR Separation and Lease Agreements The District terminated its participation with UALR in the operation of KLRE/KUAR on June 30, 1995. The FCC requires a separation agreement before UALR can change the license to sole ownership. This agreement would also allow UALR to continue to lease the property at 7701 Scott Hamilton, owned by the District, for operation of the radio stations. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the Separation and Lease Agreements. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Proposal to Operate an Evening High School The District received $222,134 this school year from the Arkansas Department of Education to enhance alternative education programs. The proposal requests $166,440 of this funding for operation of an Evening High School Program for students in grades 10-12 beginning in February 1996. A business case was presented for the Board's review and the Superintendent requested approval. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the proposal, seconded by Ms. Magness. The :iotion carried 5-1, with Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" vote. H. Security Guard Recognition District security personnel have petitioned for recognition as an employee group for the purpose of negotiations. The LRCTA presented the petition in compliance with Board policy \"HD.\" The administration recommends recognition for purposes of negotiations. Ms. Magness moved to approve the recommendation of administration. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it was unanimously accepted. I. Joshua Attorney's Fee Request Dr. Daugherty requested placement of this item on the agenda and made a motion for District attorneys to enter into negotiations with John Walker to settle the requested fee petition prior to January 31. Ms. Pondexter seconded the motion for the purpose of debate. A settlement proposal was submitted by Mr. Walker to District attorney, Mr. Chris Heller. Mr. Heller was present to answer questions of the Board and to make a recommendation for Board consideration. A copy of the proposal and Mr. Heller's recommendations are attached to these minutes. Mr. Heller indicated that he would - REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 8 prefer to work through the court and would request an extension of the January 31 deadline. Dr. Daugherty amended the motion to instruct District attorneys to enter into negotiations with Joshua on settlement of the fee request and to return a recommendation for settlement within a reasonable time (30 days). Ms. Pondexter agreed to the amended motion and it carried unanimously. J. Acceptance of Offer: Westside Junior High School (Suspension of the Rules) Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules for consideration of the offer on Westside Junior High School. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6- !!- Volunteers of America have made an offer to purchase Westside Junior High School for $100,000.00. The Board was asked to approve and accept the offer. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the offer, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. K. Donations The Board was asked to approve acceptance of donations to the District. Ms. Strickland made a motion to accept the items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Otter Creek Elementary $500.00 cash Otter Creek Women's Association Instructional Technology Six IBM PC's Baptist Health Systems Romine Elementary Math/Science Association of Black Software Engineers of Arkansas Pupil Services/Drug Abuse Monitors/keyboards Complete Health, Inc. Prevention Program and hard drives Birmingham, AL King Elementary DTK Computer Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. David Gunnel System McClellan Community School $500.00 Cash Ark. Coalition for Diversity in Education, UAPB REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 9 L. Personnel Changes The Superintendent recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda. Ms. Magness moved for approval of the personnel changes, seconded by Ms. Strickland, and the motion carried unanimously. M. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending December 1995 were not available for printing in the agenda due to recent problems with the District's computer system. December financial reports will be presented to the Board at the February Board meeting. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The monthly Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. The Board posed no questions regarding this report. B. Budget Update There was no formal budget report. A budget worksession will be scheduled within the next few weeks for review of budget information that was provided previously. Ms. Pondexter reported that she would appoint a committee (Dr. Daugherty, Ms. Strickland, and Mr. Riggs) to work on the Superintendent's Incentives as a part of the budgeting process. C. Middle School Update Members of the Middle School Steering Committee, Annie Abrams, Patrick Mahaffey, Terry Hughett and John Burnette made a brief presentation to the Board. The committee recommended implementation of a districtwide restructuring of the grade configuration, i.e., elementary schools (pre-kindergarten through grade 5), middle schools (grades 6, 7, and 8) and high schools (grades 9-12). Complete implementation is recommended after a two year transition period to be effective in the 1998-99 school year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 10 D. Report: Community Based Conflict Management Training Grant Award The Community Revitalization Project office at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock has notified the District that a grant in the amount of $40,000 has been approved. Ms. Elston was present at the meeting to answer questions and provide additional information. E. Report: ADA Update Doug Eaton was present to answer questions regarding the District's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. A report was printed in the Board agenda. F. Report Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee Doug Eaton provided a report to the Board regarding the work of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee. A brief report was published in the agenda. G. Report: Implementation of Uniform Policy for ALC Students Vic Anderson provided an update on tbe status of implementation of the ALC uniform policy. A smvey of parents and students has been conducted and the Board has acted to implement the dress code. Dr. Williams expressed concerns about how the uniforms would be paid for, as some parents have related that they cannot afford to buy school uniforms in the middle of the school year. Dr. Daugherty will work with Dr. Anderson to work out the remaining details. H. Discussion: Funding for Televising Special Board and Agenda Meetings There was some discussion regarding establishing partnerships with the business community to pay for televising special Board meetings and agenda meetings. It was suggested that the District could generate revenue for this purpose by offering sponsorships. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. The Board moved to executive session for the purpose of conducting student hearings on a motion by Ms. Magness. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The Board took a brief recess at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 11 VIII. DISCIPLINARY STUDENT HEARi GS: Larry Robertson, student hearing officer, provided information regarding eight students who had received expulsion recommendations and had requested an appeal hearing before the Board. Each of the students were found to be in possession of a weapon and were recommended for expulsion as required by Arkansas law. Mary Mann, 7 year old student from Terry Elementary, was found to have a small pocket knife in her purse. Students on the playground reported to a supervision aide that they had seen the knife. Maiy stated that she had not brought the knife to school with the intention of harming anyone. Kenyatta Price, 6 year old student from Wilson Elementary, brought a pocket knife to school in her purse. Kenyatta stated that her 4 year old brother had put it in her purse. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement for both Mary Mann and Kenyatta Price. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Strickland and it carried unanimously. Natarsha Martin, Henderson Junior High School 7th grade student, was found with a pair of scissors. Natarsha had previous discipline problems at Henderson and the school requested an alternative placement. Dr. Williams recommended Natarsha be placed at the Alternative Leaming Center for the remainder of this school year. Ms. Strickland made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. James Williams, Henderson Junior High 8th grader, was found with a razor blade in his coat pocket during a security scan. James reported that he was not aware that the razor blade was in his pocket and that another student had been wearing his coat. School personnel did not object to reinstatement at Henderson. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement under strict probation for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 12 Davion Parker is a 7th grade student at Pulaski Heights Junior High. Davion was found with a razor blade in his back pants pocket. He stated that he found the razor blade, still in its' wrapper on the playground. He did not bring the blade to school, but had picked it up with intention of turning it in. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement Ms. Gee moved to accept the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion passed unanimously. Nakesha Hunt attends Metropolitan Vocational Technical School for one class each day. She attends Central High School for all core courses and is a senior. Nakesha had several razor blades in her purse that were found during a random scan. She reported that she bad not intended to bring the blades to school and had no intention of using them as a weapon. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement and Ms. Magness made a motion to accept that recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Leonard Jenkins is a 9th grade student at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. During a morning bus scan, Leonard was found to be in possession of a small pocket knife. School administrators had no objection to Leonard being reinstated, as he had not previously been a discipline problem. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement on strict probation for the remainder of the school ye~lf. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried unanimously. Tracy Scott, Mabelvale Junior High School 8th grader, was charged with possession of a razor blade. It was found in her jacket pocket after she was involved in a disagreement with another student. The Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to place Tracy at the ALC with the condition that she receive counseling. Dr. Mitchell made the motion, Ms. Magness seconded, and it was approved by a 6-0 vote. The Board voted unanimously to return from executive session at 9:35 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Strickland, seconded by Ms. Gee. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations in the matter of the eight students whose appeals were heard. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 13 The Board moved into executive session for the purpose of conducting an employee hearing at 9:40 p.m. The employee, Ms. Betty Forbes, was represented by Mr. John Walker\nMr. Jerry Malone represented the District. There was discussion regarding whether the matter of Ms. Forbes transfer was, in fact, a grievabie issue and whether the Superintendent has the right to reassign noncertified staff. Mr. Malone stated that the Superintendent has a contractual right to reassign employees under his supervision. Since there is no applicable law or Board policy preventing Ms. Forbes' reassignment, he asked the Board to deny the request for a grievance hearing. Brady Gadberry advised the Board on District policy GDPDA which provides regulations for the employee grievance process. Ms. Magness made a motion that the Board follow its' own policy and procedures and vote to end the matter at this point and find that it is a non-grievable matter according to District policy\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion. After discussion, Dr. Mitchell asked Mr. Malone to make a recommendation for the Board's consideration. He suggested that the Board go on record that Ms. Forbes is to retain the title of Staff Assistant, that her pay will not be affected by her reassignment, that the reassignment was not based on any performance issue and there would, therefore, not be anything negative placed in Ms. Forbes' personnel records. Ms. Magness amended the motion to include recommendations stated by Attorney Malone. Dr. Mitchel] seconded the motion\nthe amendment to the motion failed 4-2, with Ms. Magness and Dr. Mitchell casting the \"yes\" votes. On the main motion, that the issue is a non-grievable matter, the motion failed 4-2, with Ms. Magness and Dr. Mitchell casting \"yes\" votes. (Ms. Magness and Dr. Mitchell left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.) Ms. Pondexter asked that the evidence be presented and that Ms. Forbes be allowed to testify on her own behalf. Mr. Leon Modeste and Ms. Beverly Griffin were called as witnesses by Mr. Walker\nDr. Williams declined to be questioned. Mr. Walker asked the Board to declare that Ms. Forbes was wrongfully removed\nthat she is entitled to be reinstated\nand that in the event the administration changes Ms. Forbes would be entitled to the first vacancy that occurs in that office. In the meantime, she is to be treated as she would have been had she been maintained in that position and that her position would be secure. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 1996 Page 14 Dr. Daugherty asked for the terms to be more clearly defined and Ms. Pondexter restated the recommendations for settlement of the matter before the Board: Ms. Forbes will maintain the title of \"Staff Assistant\" and will be maintained on the AN salary schedule\nMs. Forbes will receive any salary increases to which she would be entitled on the AN salary schedule\nthere will be nothing negative placed in Ms. Forbes personnel file\nand she will be considered eligible to return to her former assignment if there is a vacancy in that office and if a change in the current administration occurs. Ms. Strickland moved for approval of the recommendations as stated by Ms. Pondexter. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Ms. Pondexter asked the Superintendent to review the space distribution in the office of federal programs and see if there is a way to make all of the personnel in that office more comfortable in their work environment. The Board returned from executive session at 12:55 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Gee made a motion to adjourn at 12:58 a.m., seconded by Dr. Daughetty and carried unanimously. ~t4~ LinPor{dexter, Presint APPROVED: ~-d~-1\u0026amp; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 8, 1996 --  C ~p 101996 0fflw er Dt:st:Qmgation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on February 8, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Pat Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John Riggs, IV Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Pat Gee, Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four Board members. Teacher ex-officio, Mary Jane Weindorf from Williams Magnet School, and Brandy Marks, student ex-officio from McClellan High School were also present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 8, 1996 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of considering the following items: 1) Grant Approval: Apple - Partners in Education Program 2) Grant Approval: Central High School Staff Development 3) Student Hearings III. ACTION AGENDA Grant Approval: Apple - Partners in Education Program The Apple Computer Corporation has offered grant funding to support technology usage through a partnership between Franklin Incentive Elementary School and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dr. Williams asked to approve the application for these funds. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Grant Approval: Central High Staff Development Central High School developed a proposal to be submitted to the City of Little Rock Education Commission for grant funding in the amount of $62,150 for staff development to improve student performance in math and science. Dr. Williams recommended the Board approve the application. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the recommendation, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion was approved 4-0. Ms. Magness made a motion for the Board to move into an executive session to consider student disciplinary appeals hearings. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. The Board took a brief recess and reconvened for the purpose of holding the hearings at 6:30 p.m. Student Hearings Larry Robertson, student hearing officer, was present to provide background information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Each of these students were expelled for weapons possession and are appealing their expulsion and asking the Board for reinstatement. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 8, 1996 Page 3 Brian Whitmire is a 7th grade student from Cloverdale Junior High School. He was found with a knife during a random security scan. The principal requested an alternative placement for Brian and indicated that she would prefer not to have Brian reinstated to Cloverdale. Dr. Williams recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Terrance Bland, Central High School 11th grader, was found in possession of a metal tube that contained a 2 1/2\" knife, during a random security scan. Terrance reported that he had not taken the knife to school intentionally, and that he had forgotten that it was in his bookbag. Mr. Whitehorn indicated that the administration would not object to Terrance being reinstated since he had not previously caused any disruptions to the school environment. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement to Central under strict probationary terms. Ms. Magness moved to accept the reinstatement Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Antonio Penny is a senior who attends Metropolitan and Central High Schools. He was found to be in possession of a razor during a random scan at Metro. Antonio stated that he used the razor blade as a tool in his work as a DJ. He stated that he forgot that it was in his pocket and that he did not intend to bring it to school. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement on strict probation. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried unanimously. Issac Williams was found to have a knife in his coat pocket at Henderson Jr. High School. Issac admitted that he brought the knife to school to defend himself. The school administrators asked that Issac be provided an alternative placement. Dr. Williams recommended Issac be placed at the ALC. Ms. Magness moved to accept the recommendation of the administration. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. The Board returned from executive session at 7:25 p.m. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations for the four students whose appeals were heard. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. -4 ' I y SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 8, 1996 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT The special meeting was adjourned by Ms. Gee at 7:26 p.m. without a formal motion. APPROVED: }.-J.d.-C/l ~a\"' C Se Strickland, Secretary  UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 15, 1996 APR 1 0 199 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on February 15, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Pat Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs, IV . MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Ms. Pondexter, Board President, called the meeting to order at 5:43 p.m. There was no roll call, as the President stipulated the presence of a quorum. Mr. Riggs arrived at 5:45 p.m. and Dr. Daugherty arrived at 5:55 p.m. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 15, 1996 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of considering the following business: 1) Student Hearings 2) Contingency Plan 3) Budget Worksession Ms. Gee made a motion to move the Board into executive session for the purpose of conducting student hearings. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. III. ACTION AGENDA Student Hearings Dr. Linda Watson, was present to provide background information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Eacn of these students were expelled for weapons possession and are appealing their expulsion and asking the Board for reinstatement. Kasey Coleman is a 9 year old 4th grade student from Terry Elementary School, who was found to be in possession of a Swiss army knife. Kasey had shown the knife to two other students, but had not attempted to use it in a harmful manner. The principal had no objection to reinstatement. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement on strict probation for the remainder of the school year. Ms. Gee moved to accept the reinstatement recommendation, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried 5-0. Andre Alexander, Dunbar Jr. High School 9th grader, was found in possession of a knife. Andre indicated to the security officer that he did not know that the knife was in his coat pocket. Dr. Williams recommended placement at the ALC under strict probationary terms. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 15, 1996 Page 3 Tomonica Jenkins is a 10th grade student at Central High School. She was found with a kitchen knife in her book bag during a random scan. Tomonica stated that she bad used the knife to peel an apple on her way to school and had no intention of using the knife as a weapon. The assistant principal had no objection to reinstatement and indicated that she had no previous discipline problems with Tomonica. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Magness and the motion carried unanimously. Christopher Perkins was found to have a knife in his coat sleeve at Cloverdale Jr. High School. The school administrators asked that Christopher be provided an alternative placement and felt that returning him to Cloverdale would be disruptive to the learning environment. Dr. Williams recommended Christopher be placed in the Step One Program at the Pulaski County Juvenile Justice Center. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendation of the administration. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Daugherty abstaining. Rawleigh Ralls, 11th grade student from Central High School, was charged with possession of a pocket knife. Rawleigh had entered the LRSD January 10, 1996, from a public !ichool outside the State. The pocket knife was on his key chain and he was not aware that it would be considered a weapon. Rawleigh was represented by Attorney David H. Williams. The school administration had no objection to reinstatement at Central. The Superintendent recommended the Board allow Rawleigh to return to school. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. The Board returned from executive session at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations on five student appeals. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. The Board took a brief recess and returned at 6:45 p.m. Contingency Plan Ms. Pondexter asked for the Board to approve the establishment of a committee that would work to review candidates for the Superintendent's position in case there is a vacancy. The committee would advise the Board and recommendations of the committee would be brought to the Board for approval. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve formation of the committee. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-2, with Ms. Magness and Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" votes. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 15, 1996 Page 4 Budget Worksession The Board reviewed preliminary budget data provided by Fred Smith and a brief review of the business cases was conducted. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting was adjourned 8:15 p.m. without a formal motion. APPROVED: J. cJ..J -1\u0026amp; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 APR 1 0 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on February 22, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Ms. Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five Board members. Dr. Daugherty arrived at 6:15 p.m. Neither of the ex-officio representatives to the Board were present at the meeting. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of January 25, 1996, and from special meetings of February 8, 1996 and February 15, 1996 were presented for Board approval. Ms. Magness requested an editorial addition to the minutes of January 25, 1996, regarding a recommendation made by the Middle School Committee. Mr. Riggs moved for approval of the minutes with the suggested editorial change. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. III. PRESENTATIONS: Resolution Mrs. Cristina Parsons, widow of Floyd W. Parsons was present to accept a resolution honoring Mr. Parsons for bis many years of service to the students of the Little Rock School District A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Williams presented a superintendent's citation to Mr. Kirby Shofner, who has been selected by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers as the Arkansas Earth Science Teacher of the Year for 1994-95. Mr. Shofner teaches biology and geology at Central High School. B. PARTNERSHIPS The Superintendent recognized new partnerships between the community and LRSD schools. Partnership certificates were presented to each of these individuals. Mr. Charlie Cook and Mr. Ken Quimby representing The Aerospace Education Center, partnering with Mann Magnet Jr. High School, represented by Principal Marian Lacey. Mr. Dale Wood representing the American Federation of Musicians, Local 266, partnering with Pulaski Heights Jr. High School, represented by Principal Mona Briggs and Duane Barbour. Ms. Janis Hardin, representing Kentucky Fried Chicken in their new partnership with Pulaski Heights Jr. High School, represented by Principal Mona Briggs and Duane Barbour. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 3 Barbara Williams, representing Curtis Woods Insurance Agency in partnership with Wakefield Elementary School, represented by Ms. Levanna Wilson, Principal. Wayne Eatmon, representing Dominos Pizza in partnership with Williams Magnet Elementary School, represented by Ms. Mary Menking, Principal. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Williams asked for the Board to approve reordering the agenda for a special presentation by the PTA Council. The Board members had no objection and Karen Greenlea, Assistant Principal at Romine, made the presentations. The following students were honored for participation in a contest sponsored by the PTA Council in recognition of American Education Week. Art Contest (Primary): 1st Place Sarasijhaa K. Desikan 2nd Place Sarah Digby 3rd Place Shaina Harvey Honorable Mention Ozella Bryant Essay Contest (Intermediate): 1st Place Jasmine Desai 2nd Place Mindy Clark 3rd Place Sara Beth Wyatt Honorable Mention Terra Holman Essay Contest (Junior High): 1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place Christopher Harris Drew McClure Christopher Brannon Essay Contest (Senior High): 1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place Amy Frank Angel Shelton Shameka Brown Carver Magnet Western Hills Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Booker Magnet Terry Jefferson Bale Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan Hall REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 4 C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Tina Gatson, representing the Committee to Rebuild Chicot made a brief presentation at the request of Ms. Gee. Plans are being made for moving into the new Chicot facility the first week of March. Parents, students, and teachers will assist in the move. Ms. Gatson reported that Mr. Eaton had been cooperative in responding to concerns of the committee regarding updating the security system. A grand opening celebration is planned for April 13, 1996, and Board members will receive invitations tc attend. D. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Guldin repmted that the ODM staff will begin meeting with Incentive School principals regarding the monitoring process. They hope to complete the visits by the end of March or the first of April. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin spoke on behalf of the Districts1custodians and asked the Board to terminate the contract with ServiceMaster. He noted problems concerning schedule changes, addition of duties and responsibilities, female custodians working night shifts, and a contention that job assignments are impossible to complete. 3. Joshua Intervenors John Walker expressed appreciation to the Board for appointing a committee to review the Desegregation Plan and its overall effectiveness in meeting the needs of the children and the community. He expressed agreement with Frank Martin's comments concerning the custodial employees and complaints regarding the ServiceMaster contract. He also stated that there are serious problems in some District schools in interaction between the school staffs and minority students. These negative experiences are causing Black students to dislike school resulting in higher drop out rates and school failure. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. The presentation of PTA awards was reordered to an earlier time in the agenda. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 5 E. BOARD MEMBERS No reports. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mike Thomas, civics teacher at Forest Heights Junior High School, addressed concerns regarding disciplinary problems in his school and provided a copy of a report that had been printed in the newspaper which indicated a number of students had been recommended for expulsion but were allowed to return to school. He asked the Board to consider providing an atmosphere of safety in the schools. Robert \"Say\" McIntosh discussed problems with black-on-black crime and the general lack of concern in the community for the well-being of the children. Nathan Dendy, retired agent for union local 630, stated that he was speaking on behalf of organized labor and expressed concern regarding the ServiceMaster contract. Willie Givens exp,ressed dissatisfaction in his experience with ServiceMaster. His greatest concern was with having custodians working alone at night. Barbara Hobbs, custodian at Cloverdale Elementary school, asked the Board for assistance. Her schedule had been changed without consideration for her wishes and she did not feel the changes allowed her enough time to complete her daily assignment. Reginald Henderson, custodian at Washington Magnet School, indicated that the staffing changes in his building eliminated some necessary positions. He feels that he is unable to keep the building clean with the schedule and staff changes made by ServiceMaster. Nancy Dedmon, custodian at Cloverdale Elementary, discussed changes that had been made in her schedule and asked the Board to consider the safety of the custodial employees. Annette Jones, custodian at Pulaski Heights Elementary, expressed dissatisfaction with the changes in her schedule and indicated that she had been reassigned to part time. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 6 Brenda Henderson, custodian at Pulaski Heights Junior High, was rescheduled to work 3:00 p.m. to midnight. She asked the Board to reconsider their decision to contract with ServiceMaster. Josephine Thornton is the head custodian at Franklin Incentive School. She discussed duties other than custodial responsibilities that are a part of her job and asked the Board to consider the employees. Two unidentified female speakers addressed concerns regarding problems at Forest Heights Junior High and asked the Board to see what can be done to insure the safety of the children. V. ACTION AGENDA A. 1996-97 Student Calendar The student calendar for the 1996-97 school year was presented for the Board's approval. The LRSD and Pulaski County calendars are identical\nthe North Little Rock School District calendar is slightly different. Representatives of the three districts met during development of the calendars and attempted to make them as similar as possible. Dr. Williams asked the Board to approve the recommended student calendar. Ms. Gee moved for approval of the calendar, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. B. Southwest Junior High School Our Club/Pre-charging Court Program Mr. James H. Carter, director of the Office of Juvenile Services, developed a proposal for operating \"Our Club\" at Southwest Junior High School. The program will provide services for children and families living in the 72204 zip code area. Those services will include tutoring, life skills classes, support group counseling, and recreational activities outside the regular school day. Pulaski County Juvenile Services, the Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney's office, and the City of Little Rock have collaborated in funding the program. The District's costs will be limited to utilities and custodial services (approximately $3,394). The Superintendent recommended approval of the proposal. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 7 I C. Expanded Program Equipment Grants The Vocational Education Division of the District has prepared a grant proposal to purchase additional equipment for Mann Magnet Jr. High School ($54,600)\nand home economics equipment ($41,460) for Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights Jr. High Schools. Dr. Williams asked for the Board's approval to submit the application which is due to the Arkansas Department of Education on March 1, 1996. Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. D. Grant Submissions The Board was asked to approve grant submissions as listed in the following chart. Ms. Strickland moved for approval, Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. SCHOOL I PROGRAM/SPONSOR 1MOUNT I Carver Magnet Elementary School Environmental Matching Grant $1,000. Program/Entergy Corporation Rockefeller Incentive School O1oir Performance and Music Appreciation 1,000. Program/Ark. Humanities Council ALC/Cloverdale/Forest Prevention Services Program-substance abuse 20,000. Heights/Pulaski Heights/ and violence/Ark. Department of Health Mabelvale/Southwest E. Pulaski Heights Elementary Computer Lab Upgrade Pulaski Heights Elementary School requested the Board's approval to use their Title I allocation ($55,000) to upgrade the Academic Support computer labs. Mr. Riggs spoke in support of the proposal, but suggested that the District consider placing more computers in the individual classrooms instead of having students move into labs for computer time. Ms. Magness also spoke in favor of the proposal and asked the administration to keep in mind the technology recommendations of the Strategic Planning Committee when computer purchases are required. The Superintendent recommend~ the Board's approval of the proposal. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the-7superintendent's recommendation, Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0'. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 8 F. Lease Option Telesite Services: Brady Elementary The Superintendent asked the Board to pull this item for consideration at a later date. District attorneys are continuing to work on the lease agreement and will bring the item for Board approval when terms of the contract are fully negotiated. G. Disposition of Old Forest Heights Junior High School The old portion of Forest Heights Junior High School was to be demolished in 1990\nin 1992 the Board decided to wait before tearing down the building in hopes that the Adult Education Center could move from the old Eastside Junior High School location. The FI-IJH buildings have deteriorated to the point that they would not be suitable for relocation. Dr. Williams recommended that the Board vote to proceed with the demolition. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Mr. Riggs asked that the community and the Forest Heights PTA have input in the decisions made regarding use of the space that will remain when the building is torn down. Mr. Eaton was asked to provide a brief report at the March 14, agenda meeting. H. District Hiring and Purchasing Freeze Board President Pondexter requested adoption of a Resolution implementing a spending and hiring freeze for the District. A copy of that Resolution is attached as a part of these minutes. Ms. Gee made a motion to adopt the Resolution, seconded by Dr. Daugherty and carried unanimously. I. Desegregation Committee Appointments Ms. Pondexter provided Board members with the names of recommended appointments to the Desegregation Committee. She indicated that an effort was made to balance the committee by race, gender, and school board election zone. The Board approved the co-chairmen, Cora D. McHenry and Bill Bowen, at a special meeting on January 11, 1996. Recommended committee members are: Alfred Angulo, Chris Baber, Ann Brown, Irma Hunter Brown, Eleanor Coleman, Danny Dillard, Panky Fells, Frank Martin, Estelle Matthis, C. E. McAdoo, Patricia McGraw, Betty Mitchell, Thelma Phillips, Win Rockefeller, Alice Rowe, Frank Smith, and Teresa Young. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Pondexter reported that she had asked for the committee to provide their recommendations to the Board within sixty (60) days. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the committee members as recommended by Ms. Pondexter. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. J. Donations The Board was asked to approve acceptance of donations to the District. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the items, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Donated items are listed in the following chart. SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT DONATIONS ITEM DONOR M. L. King Magnet Elementary Metropolitan TV Production Program Chicot Elementary (Special Education Programs) Chicot Elementary (For use by Emily Golden) K. Personnel Changes $500.00 cash $500.00 cash Apple IIGS Computer System Apple MacIntosh Performa Computer System Anonymous Anonymous Kimberly Golden Margaret P. Golden The Superintendent recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved for approval of the personnel changes, seconded by Ms. Magness, and the motion carried unanimously. L. Financial Reports The financial reports for December 1995, and January 1996, were provided for the Board's review and approval. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the financial reports, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board took a brief recess at 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 10 Suspension of the Rules Ms. Strickland made a motion to suspend the rules for consideration of an action item which was not on the agenda. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Ms. Strickland moved to suspend the Facilities Implementation Committee and to form a committee to study the declining enrollment of the District. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. Ms. Gee asked to amend the motion to include suspension of 1he Middle School Steering Committee until the middle school concept and the study on declining enrollment is complete. Ms. Magness questioned the reason for suspending the middle school committee since implementation was not to take place for two years. Part of the committee's work was to study the overalJ impact of middle school implementation, including on M-M transfers. Mr. Riggs also expressed concern for terminating these two committees and suggested that the people who seive on these committees be available to serve as a resource to the newly formed desegregation committee. He suggested that the scope of the facilities committee be expanded to include options other than just the issue of school closings. Ms. Strickland disagreed with his suggestions. The Board approved amending the main motion to include suspension of the middle school steering committee by a vote of 4-2. On the main motion, as amended, the Board again voted 4-2 in favor of the motion, with Ms. Magness and Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" votes. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed m the agenda and the Board had no questions regarding the report. B. Budget Update Fred Smith asked the Board to consider scheduling a budget worksession for the purpose of making budgetary decisions which will be submitted to the court in midMarch. Ms. Pondexter asked administration to poll Board members for a common date and to schedule a meeting for this purpose. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 11 C. Transportation Update: Laidlaw Ed Streeter and Mike Jones provided an update on Laidlaw operations. A copy of his report was distributed for the Board's review. Mr. Streeter reported that new computer software had been installed and Laidlaw will begin routing students next school year. Routing was done this school year by the District's transportation department staff. D. Report: Feasibility of Contracting Information and Financial Services The Board has requested research into the possibility of saving money by contracting out infonnation and financial services. This research is being conducted and a report will be provided to the Board when it is complete. E. Update: Consultant Fees A report on usage of consultants was requested by Ms. Gee. The report was printed in the agenda. F. ServiceMaster Report Fred Smith answered questions from Board members regarding the criteria used to determine whether ServiceMaster is fulfilling the terms of the contract. Ms. Pondexter was concerned with contract paragraph 6.6 and with the \"energy management\" section of the contract. Mr. Smith assured the Board that the contract requirements were being monitored. He will be meeting with ServiceMaster supervisors to determine if problems regarding scheduling and safety can be discussed and solved. Ms. Pondexter asked for a full discussion of the issues regarding ServiceMaster be held at the March agenda meeting. G. Standardized Dress Code for the ALC Vic Anderson provided a brief update for the Board regarding implementation of the ALC Dress Code. It was hoped that the effective date would be March 1, however students are being given additional time for purchase of uniforms and disciplinary sanctions regarding violation of the dress code will not take effect until March 25. Ms. Magness questioned a part of the dress code that would require the faculty and staff to also abide by the dress code. Dr. Williams asked for the Board to consider provisions for smocks or cover-garments for those students who cannot afford to purchase the uniforms. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 12 Suspension of the Rules Dr. Daugherty moved to suspend the rules in order to consider an item not on the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to budget an appropriate amount of funds to supplement implementation of the dress code for students who cannot afford to purchase the uniforms. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Computer Technology/Franklin Incentive School Lucy Lyon provided a report for the Board's review detailing the cost involved in updating the computer lab at Franklin Incentive School. Dr. Daugherty had additional questions regarding the report and will meet with Ms. Lyon for clarification. I. Change to AP Grading Scale, 1995-96 School Year Dr. Anderson provided a report in response to a request from Board Member Gee. There were no additional questions regarding the report. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY STUDENT HEARINGS: Linda Watson, interim student hearing officer, provided information regarding Monte Gentry who was recommended for expulsion from McClellan High School. Monte had been involved in a gang-related altercation on January 16, 1996. He did not appear before the Board for reinstatement. Administration recommended expulsion for the remainder of the school year. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the recommendation, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 1996 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it and carried unanimously. ~CLJ-ci:SLcuJ\n Sue Strickland, Secretary ~t,mdndimrllll Whereas, Floyd W. Parsons served as Superintendent of the Little Rock School District for 11 years\nand Whereas, Mr. Parsons worked to unify the diverse communities of the school district through his administrative talents, intellect., and use of humor\nand Whereas, Mr. Parsons demonstrated through his words and deeds his commitment to education\nand Whereas, Mr. Parsons was respected by students, staff, community residents and school board members\nand Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District recognizes and honors the valuable contributions Mr. Parsons made to the children of our city\nand Whereas, Mr. Parsons' contributions will long be remembered by members of this community, NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District pays tribute to the life of Mr. Floyd W. Parsons by recognizing his valuable leadership to this district. Adopted this 22nd day of February, 1996. ct!t~-'~ {\na Ponct6ter, Presiaent RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District recognizes its fiduciary responsibility\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors recognizes the critical financial situation the District faces in the development of a balanced budget for the 1996-97 school year\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors recognizes the importance of the ending fund balance of the 1995-96 school year to the budgeting process for the 1996-97 school year\nTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Directors supports the Superintendent of Schools in putting into place a freeze on all non-salary expenditures from fund 02 (operations and maintenance) except for those purchases necessary for the implementation of the desegregation plan, for materials and supplies essential for the operation of the District for the remainder of the year, or for emergencies\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board of Directors supports the Snperintendent of Schools in implementing a hiring freeze for all replacement hiring except that which would take place due to attrition, resignation, inability to serve, or for safety and security positions which are necessary for the safe, orderly, and efficient operation of the District. ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1996. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT President let. Board ~/ l. o k oeo-,__Q LitteRoc School District Board Secretary April 25. 1996 Little Rock School District Of-TICE OF COMML\n'.'JC.-\\TIONS 810 \\\\'est .\\larkham Street Li1tk Rock. AR 7:!201 , 501 ) 324-2020  FAX (50 l l 324-~0.:.1 ~IEDL.\\ ADVISORY For more information: Zeornee' Herts. 324-2020 Change Made to LRSD Board Meeting Agenda The agend:1 ror the Little Rock School District Board or'Directors meeting has been revised to include ::m item pertaining to the rehuilding or St~phens Elementary School. Board member John Riggs haci\n:,reviously requested rhat che item be includ-:d on tonight's agenda, however it was i1ladverrently omitted. The item will be an action agenda item. The monrh iy ~oard meeting will beg1n at 6:00 p.m. in the LRSD board room located at S1 0 \\\\i. :'vfarkham. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 5, 1996 C APR 1 0 199i 1  ot De 1ega.,on fvfon,wnng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on March 5, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Pat Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daughtery Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John Riggs, IV Dr. Michael Daughtery ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Ms. Diane Edwards, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Pat Gee, Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. At roll call presence were four Board members. Dr. Daughtery arrived at approximately 6:45 p.m. and Ms. Pondexter at approximately 7:35 p.m. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of considering the following items: 1) Budget worksession 2) Student Hearings However, when the meeting was called to order the Board notified the public that there would only be two Board members present after the Student Hearings to attend the Budget Worksession, therefore the Board was postponing the Budget Worksession until such a time as a quorum could be present. Student Hearings Dr. Linda Watson, interim student hearing officer, was present to provide background information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Each of these students were expelled for weapons possession, physical assault or sexual miscondut and are appealing their expulsion and asking the Board for reinstatement. Brandi Palmer is a 10th grade student from Metropolitan Vo-Tech. She was found with a knife during a full school scan. The principal requested that Brandi be returned to school on probation. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement to Metropolitan Vo-Tech. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Judy Magness seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Karen Baker is a 9th grade student from Mann Magnet Junior High School. Karen transferred to the District from North Carolina in October, 1995 and enrolled in Forest Heights Jr. High School and since has been accepted into Mann Magnet Jr. High. During a full security scan karen was found to have a red Swiss-type army knife in her backpack. When questioned Karen stated this knife is for her job to open boxes. This was later verified by her employer. Karen and her mother stated in an administrative hearing on March 4, 1996 that they had not received a copy of the LRSD Secondary Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook nor signed the contract page. Ms. Marian Lacey, principal indicated that she would have no objections to Karen's reinstatement to Mann Magnet. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement to Mann under strict probationary terms. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. At approximately 6:27 p.m. the Board went out of executive session and into regular session. At this time Linda Watson, interim Student Hearing Officer, made the recommendation for 14 students to be expelled for the remainder of the school year due to various offenses of LRSD Rules and Regulations (see attached list). Dr. Williams supported Dr. Watson's recommendation. Ms. Magness seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. Ms. Gee asked if there was anything being done by the District to curtail Gang violence in our children. Dr. Victor Anderson was asked by Dr. Williams to respond to this question. Dr. Anderson advised that there are support groups at individual schools, couselors at the schools and other organizations in the city that are trying to help with this ever growing problem of gang violence. Ms. Gee asked if the Board could make it mandatory that if a student is expelled for gang violence that he/she seek help through one of these organizations before they are admitted back into school. Dr. Williams stated that as a District we would be over stepping our bounds. That as a District we could suggest that they be counseled but could not enforce mandatory counseling in this area. Ms. Magness stated that there is a program such as the D.A.R.E. program at our elementary schools that is being administered in the Blytheville School Districts and that maybe we should check into that. Dr. Williams reported that the District's Social Studies Department had stated that maps and globes were out-dated and did not have countries that are in our news today. Marie McNeal, Social Studies Supervisor, had put together a packet for the Board of surveys from each school regarding the number of current maps and globes and also a cost analysis from three different vendors (see attached). These purchases will be in excess of $55,000 but are needed by the Distri9t. Dr. Williams recommended that the Board approve monies to purchase the needed maps and globes. The motion was made to accept the Superintendent's recommendation by Ms. Magness, and seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Fred Smith asked if the Board could decide tonight on the S.O.S. Business Case that had previously been brought before it. This Business Case is a savings for the District and needs immediate attention. Ms. Magness made the motion to approve the S.O.S. Business Case and Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. The Board also decided that they would vote on additional Business Cases at the March 14th Agenda Meeting. The Board went back into Executive Session at 6:27 p.m. Kenneth Price is a 9th grade student from Forest Heights Jr. High School. Kenneth was accused of sexually harassing a female student during third period class. After investigations by the Student Hearing Officer, Mr. Collier the assistant principal, and the office of Safety and Security, Kenneth was recommended for long-term suspension. An appeal hearing with Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools was held on February 29, 1996. Again, the recommendation was upheld. After the Board went into executive session they returned with the Superintendent making a recommendation for Kenneth to be assigned to the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of the school year under strict probationary terms. Kenneth will be able to reapply for regular school in the fall as long as he abides by his probationary terms and then his record will be esponged of the charge. Ms. Magness moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The Board returned from executive session at 7:45 p.m. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations for the three students whose appeals were heard. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Gee made a motion to adjourn at 7:39 p.m. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ~~() Suerickand,Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 14, 1996 (Edited - changes appear in Bold Italics) The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special Board meeting at 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV. ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Diane Edwards, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Ms. Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. Ms. Willingham, teacher ex-officio representative to the Board, was present at the Board meeting. The student ex-officio representative was not present. At 5:10 p.m. Ms. Pondexter called for the Board to go into Executive Session for Student Hearings. Student Hearings Dr. Linda Watson, interim student hearing officer, was present to provide background information regarding students who were recommended for expulsion from the District. Each of these students were expelled for weapons possession and/or physical assault and are appealing their expulsion and asking the Board for reinstatement. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 14, 1996 Page 2 Andrea Moore is a 10th grade student from Hall High School. She was found with a double-edged razor during an all school scan. The principal requested that Andrea be returned to school on probation. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement to Hall High School. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Michael Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Mitchell Younts is a 10th grade student from Hall High School. Mitchell was seen coming onto campus from the vicinity of Hall Drive by the campus security officer. As the officer approached Mitchell she smelled cigarette smoke. After Mitchell was directed to empty his pockets a single blade razor was found wrapped in paper inside his wallet. Ms. Gayle Bradford, principal indicated that she would have no objections to Mitchell's reinstatement to Hall High. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement to Hall under strict probationary terms. Ms. Gee moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Shamika Hudson an 8th grade student from the Alternative Learning Center is charged with Physical Assault on a Staff member. This is the second time that Shamika has not been present at a set hearing date. Dr. Williams recommended to uphold the expulsion recommendation made by Dr. Marshaleck, principal of the Alternative Learning Center. Ms. Gee moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Michael Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. At approximately 5:26 p.m. the Board went out of executive session and into regular session. At this time Ms. Magness made the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation for these students. Dr. Daughtery seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. A. Report: Old Forest Heights Junior High School Building Doug Eaton presented to the Board the timeline for the asbestos removal and demolition of buildings one (1) and seven (7) on the east campus. (See attached) On or about June 1 the demolition will begin. The estimated completion time for demolition, regrading and resodding of site is thirty (30) days. The entire project should be completed by July 1, 1996. Mr. Eaton also stated that Duane Benage, Principal of Forest Heights Junior High School is making initial contact with community groups and PTA to solicit recommendations and assistance with regard to area beautification once the buildings have been removed. B. S.O.S. Business Case This business case was voted on at the 03/05/96 meeting\nhowever, it was not an open meeting so the vote had to be made again. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the business case and Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 14, 1996 Page 3 C. Rebuilding Stephens School Ms. Pondexter called that rules be suspended to allow patrons from ACORN representing rebuilding Stephens School address the Board. A number of patrons were present at this meeting to voice their concerns that the Stephens school was not being rebuild. Ms. Zebralon Dukes, of Acorn, was the spokesperson for the group. Ms. Dukes said the group had many concerns as to why the school had not been rebuild when we have the money. Dr. Williams stated that we have part of the money but not all that is needed to rebuild. Dr. Daugherty stated that a tax increase was suppose to give us part of the money to rebuild but we had not received the money from the state. Dr. Daugherty stated that in a conversation with the city that he understood the city was waiting on the District.Ms. Magness stated that the Judge had questioned rebuilding facilities study that was done. Dr. Williams remarked that the Judge wanted to know if we could use a 700 seat elementary school. Dr. Williams recommended that we petition the court regarding the rebuilding of the Stephens school. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Ms. Magness made a motion to amend the Superintendent's recommendation to include the legal opinion from the Court and the financial impact report regarding Stephens school. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. At 5:41 p.m. the Board took a short break. At 5:45 p.m. the Board resumed. D. ServiceMaster Richard Grant with ServiceMaster made a presentation concerning ServiceMaster's work the District to date. Attached is a copy of his presentation. After this presentation Mr. Grant was open for questions from the Board. Dr. Daugherty questioned 3.2, 3.28 of the Contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. This section of the contract states that there will be no change in work hours or work condition. Dr. Daugherty stated that changing an employee from working at one school for eight hours a day to an employee working at two schools four hours each per day and changing an employee from a day shift to a night shift is changing an employees work hours and conditions and this is in violation of ServiceMaster's contract. At this time four LRSD employees spoke in opposition of ServiceMaster. Barbara Hobbs from Cloverdale Elementary stated she had been working by herself since March 6, she has spoken with Harrison Fairfax of Plant Services but no one else will speak with her. Safety and not being able to keep her building clean is a great concern of Ms. Hobbs. Next Willie Givens of Central stated there are \"too many chiefs and not enough indians\". The custodial staff has been reduced at Central to five employees. There is no way that five employees can keep Central clean inside and out. Everyone is on a schedule that is so tight it doesn't allow for variations that happen in a school. Ms. Betty Mitchell with the CTA stated her concern was that 12 month employees had been changed to 9.25 month, 8 hour employees had been SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 14, 1996 Page 4 changed to 4 hour, daytime workers had been changed to night workers. All of this had been done with no consideration to the employee's situation. Kenny Fisher of Cloverdale Jr. High stated that this is counter-productive to change to ServiceMaster in mid-school year and the fact that it is impossible for one custodian to thoroughly clean a building with 82,000 sq. ft. Ms. Gee said that she would publicly like to thank Mr. Fisher for everything he had done for her son while he was a student at Cloverdale Jr. High. Mr. Fisher had been more than a custodian, he was mentor, teacher, counselor and friend and she appreciated all that he had done. Dr. Mitchell asked why had custodians been cut? Who is responsible for getting subs in the buildings? Who has ultimate authority? When after hours activities are taking place is overtime paid to the custodians? At this Dr. Daugherty made a motion that LRSD restore all service employees to their former positions except those affected by pay increases or dismissed by due process. This was seconded by Ms. Gee. Ms. Magness questioned the Board's authority as they are a policy making unit and not administrative. Ms. Magness encouraged the Board to wait until we check our legal position. Dr. Daugherty then called for the question. Roll was called: Motion carried 4-2. Ms. Pondexter - Yes Ms. Gee - Yes Ms. Strickland Dr. Daugherty Ms. Magness Dr. Mitchell - Yes - Yes - No - Abstained The Board then recessed at 6:45 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:00 p.m. E. Approval of 1996-97 Proposed Budget Ernie Davis on the Advisory Committee for Financial Stability presented the Committee's recommendations to the Board for consideration. See attached. Dr. Daugherty asked if the reduction in full-time staff members reflected this in administration staff as well as teachers? Ernie Davis stated that it did. Mr. Ernie Davis stated that the committee felt the Board should study the proposed budget in detail in order to determine where expenditures could be reduced while still delivering a high-quality level of service to all students. He also stated that the entire committee or members of the committee would be in agreement to meet with the Board and/or staff members to assist in revising the budget if the Board so desired. Ms. Pondexter said she felt that was an appropriate thing and a consensus was made for the Board to meet with th~ committee on Monday, March 18, 1996, 5:30 p.m. in the LRSD Board Room. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 14, 1996 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT Ms. Magness made a motion to adjourn at 7:11 p.m. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 5  o23 -C/(, ~ ==[) SuStriclclarrd, ~ry LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 28, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on March 28, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Sue Strickland Ms. Patricia Gee Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle 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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":31,"next_page":32,"prev_page":30,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":360,"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}}]}}